GAWKER's Anna Merlan Has "Apologized" But Her Attack On UVA Rape Skeptics Still Lacks A "Professional Journalistic Correction"
Print Friendly and PDF

Gawker's Anna Merlan was outraged that anyone could doubt the Rolling Stone UVA rape story, and now that it has officially come crashing down in flames and broken glass, she's tired of being reminded of it.

Here's Merlan's apology, dated December 5, 2014:

This is really, really bad. It means, of course, that when I dismissed Richard Bradley and Robby Soave's doubts about the story and called them "idiots" for picking apart Jackie's account, I was dead f—ing wrong, and for that I sincerely apologize. It means that my conviction that Sabrina Rubin Erdely had fact-checked her story in ways that were not visible to the public was also wrong. It's bad, bad, bad all around. (And, frankly, it could have been avoided, had Erdely been clearer in her disclosures ....  

But let's go back to her original attack, launched against Reason's Robby Soave, and Richard Bradley, the original skeptic, whose post was picked up by Steve Sailer.

Merlan's post was headed "'Is the UVA Rape Story a Gigantic Hoax?' Asks Idiot". Jim Treacher links to a comment where she's explaining to Robby Soave that she's better than him.

And it ends like this, first with a blind expression of faith in Erdely's "fact-checking" and then with a snarky correction.

In summary, what we have here are two dudes who have some vague suspicions and, on that basis, are implying that Ederley [Sic] either fabricated her story or failed to do her due diligence and didn't fact check what Jackie told her. Never mind that she gave a long interview to the Washington Post this weekend about the weeks she spent fact-checking the story. Erdely explains in that interview, too, that she won't discuss some details about Jackie's alleged attackers because of an agreement she made with Jackie, who is, she tells the paper "very fearful of these men, in particular Drew. . . . She now considers herself an empty shell. So when it comes down to identifying them, she has a very hard time with that."

But never mind Erdely's months of work. Two guys who have no idea what they're talking about don't believe it. Case closed.

Correction: A previous version of this post incorrectly said Richard Bradley is retired. In fact, he is the current editor-in-chief of Worth. I regret the error. This is what a professional journalistic correction looks like, in the unlikely event that any editors at Worth or writers at Reason ever need to issue one.

Where's the "professional journalistic correction" on the whole thing?

Print Friendly and PDF