Red Commissar
6th April 2015, 22:50
I posted a thread (http://www.revleft.com/vb/uva-rape-and-t191684/index.html?t=191684) here earlier back when the Rolling Stone's article about Jackie and the University of Virginia article began to be challenged. It seems RS magazine has fully distanced themselves from the story and allowed for a criticism of the whole thing by an independent figure- in this case the dean Columbia School of Journalism- to see where they had gone wrong.
http://www.rollingstone.com/culture/features/a-rape-on-campus-what-went-wrong-20150405
I think though that this long article helps to highlight aspects of journalism for those of you interested in the field, especially the obligations of journalists to ensure they have their article straight. A major problem we see now as a result of the article's problems is that it emboldens those who want to push the narrative that rapes are made up and general victim-blaming. A key conclusion of the article about the challenges a journalist would have to keep in mind:
Balancing sensitivity to victims and the demands of verification. Over the years, trauma counselors and survivor support groups have helped journalists understand the shame attached to rape and the powerlessness and self-blame that can overwhelm victims, particularly young ones. Because questioning a victim's account can be traumatic, counselors have cautioned journalists to allow survivors some control over their own stories. This is good advice. Yet it does survivors no good if reporters documenting their cases avoid rigorous practices of verification. That may only subject the victim to greater scrutiny and skepticism.
Problems arise when the terms of the compact between survivor and journalist are not spelled out. Kristen Lombardi, who spent a year and a half reporting the Center for Public Integrity's series on campus sexual assault, (http://www.publicintegrity.org/accountability/education/sexual-assault-campus) said she made it explicit to the women she interviewed that the reporting process required her to obtain documents, collect evidence and talk to as many people involved in the case as possible, including the accused. She prefaced her interviews by assuring the women that she believed in them but that it was in their best interest to make sure there were no questions about the veracity of their accounts. She also allowed victims some control, including determining the time, place and pace of their interviews.
If a woman was not ready for such a process, Lombardi said, she was prepared to walk away.
It seems even RS is trying to push blame back claiming it was bamboozled, and even at the end of this piece says they won't change their editorial stance. If anything I think what RS did here failed a lot of people combating rape on campuses and elsewhere by their methods by providing ammunition for those trying to push the idea of invented rapes being a widespread thing, much as we saw after the Duke Lacrosse team scandal ran its course.
http://www.rollingstone.com/culture/features/a-rape-on-campus-what-went-wrong-20150405
I think though that this long article helps to highlight aspects of journalism for those of you interested in the field, especially the obligations of journalists to ensure they have their article straight. A major problem we see now as a result of the article's problems is that it emboldens those who want to push the narrative that rapes are made up and general victim-blaming. A key conclusion of the article about the challenges a journalist would have to keep in mind:
Balancing sensitivity to victims and the demands of verification. Over the years, trauma counselors and survivor support groups have helped journalists understand the shame attached to rape and the powerlessness and self-blame that can overwhelm victims, particularly young ones. Because questioning a victim's account can be traumatic, counselors have cautioned journalists to allow survivors some control over their own stories. This is good advice. Yet it does survivors no good if reporters documenting their cases avoid rigorous practices of verification. That may only subject the victim to greater scrutiny and skepticism.
Problems arise when the terms of the compact between survivor and journalist are not spelled out. Kristen Lombardi, who spent a year and a half reporting the Center for Public Integrity's series on campus sexual assault, (http://www.publicintegrity.org/accountability/education/sexual-assault-campus) said she made it explicit to the women she interviewed that the reporting process required her to obtain documents, collect evidence and talk to as many people involved in the case as possible, including the accused. She prefaced her interviews by assuring the women that she believed in them but that it was in their best interest to make sure there were no questions about the veracity of their accounts. She also allowed victims some control, including determining the time, place and pace of their interviews.
If a woman was not ready for such a process, Lombardi said, she was prepared to walk away.
It seems even RS is trying to push blame back claiming it was bamboozled, and even at the end of this piece says they won't change their editorial stance. If anything I think what RS did here failed a lot of people combating rape on campuses and elsewhere by their methods by providing ammunition for those trying to push the idea of invented rapes being a widespread thing, much as we saw after the Duke Lacrosse team scandal ran its course.