Will the Media Now Just Drop the UVA Rape Hoax?
Print Friendly and PDF

In the 30 hours since the Washington Post’s All-Time Great Scoop about the University of Virginia rape catfishing hoax, all I can find new at the agenda-setting New York Times on the general subject of Virginia and rape are cricket chirps.

Here is the last mention at the NYT of the general situation, from back on Wednesday morning (a few hours before T. Rees Shapiro’s bombshell in the WaPo):

Meltdowns at The New Republic and Rolling Stone: Reporter’s Notebook By RAVI SOMAIYA DECEMBER 10, 2014 10:00 AM

By contrast, the Rolling Stone story is not one that any reporter would relish. At first, a few critics in a few publications published doubts. Then, when the Washington Post re-reported certain aspects of the article, it became clear a story in a great magazine, about a very sensitive and very emotive issue that few would argue needed further complication, had been undermined.

It is by no means clear what happened on the night in question, and Rolling Stone has not completed its own investigation, so it is difficult to draw any conclusions. But what is certain, as the story continues, is that none of those involved have gained anything.

Now that’s hard-hitting!

A friend writes:

Dear Steve:

Could you reassure me that the investigation of this UVA story will continue? Right now, with the budget, CIA Torture, etc., is a perfect time for the MSM to simply drop the subject, and tip-toe quietly out of the bedroom while the rest of us drift off to sleep. Months from now, if someone on a cable show should refer to the Rolling Stone story as a hoax, Joan Walsh will then be able to do a spit take, and remind the panel that the case was never really resolved, Jackie was discouraged from coming forward and so on, and how anyone can say it was a “hoax” is simply beyond her. This is how these things always end, with no price paid by the guilty. I personally would like to see Sabrina Rubin Erdeley forced out of journalism, and her name become a synonym for agenda-driven lying; I have nothing against Jackie, who seems like a sad creature, and a possible suicide risk, but it is unfair to leave her story right after the cliff-hanger.

Steve, you have your assignment.

Print Friendly and PDF