Rolling Stone Discussion

The reporter wished to pursue a story that would get at the heart of rape culture on American college campuses. A staff member working on sexual assault issues at the University of Virginia put her in touch with a girl she had worked with who alleged she had been gang raped at a fraternity, possibly as an initiation ceremony for those pledging.

One area where the reporter might have gone wrong was seeking out the story instead of waiting for one to come to her. When a reporter goes looking for a story it is slightly more likely that they will find a source that is inventive because they want the media attention. As a reporter, one should always be cautious of people who want their story told, but since the reporter sought “Jackie” out, it becomes kind of tricky. She probably should have done more research when things started to look fishy. It is difficult for a journalist to abandon a story once they have put a lot of work in, and it is possible the reporter wouldn’t let herself see the inconsistencies.

The interviews Jackie and the reporter gave to the post directly contradicted one another; making it obvious that one of them was lying.

The publisher and editors didn’t fact-check much beyond the materials the reporter submitted to them. Her main editor could have encouraged her to do more investigating and to keep looking into things until it all matched up.

According to the Columbia University review, the reporter didn’t push sources hard enough, the editors didn’t push the reporter hard enough and the fact-checkers didn’t reach beyond the material they were given by the reporter.

The publisher and editors accepted the report and admitted fault in the process by which the story came about and was published. Its credibility has been damaged, but they did not make the decision to fire the reporter, perhaps because there were several employees responsible. The magazine doesn’t seem to have an unethical core so much as a lazy staff. The report doesn’t come across as if anyone involved intended to be intentionally unethical, they just weren’t as diligent as they could have been in assuring accuracy.