The thoroughly discredited story about an alleged University of Virginia gang rape passed off by Rolling Stone magazine as investigative journalism was neither investigative nor journalism. That was clear even before the 12,000-word analysis by a three-person team at Columbia University’s Graduate School of Journalism took it apart.
All you had to know — and the Washington Post reported this earlier — was that the reporter never looked for the supposed culprits or interviewed friends of the victim. Grasping one emotionally involved source to confirm a preconceived perception of university misfeasance is something you might expect from an activist’s blog but not from a purportedly objective news source.
This has damaged the perception of journalism and the reputation of the University of Virginia, which in fact, unlike many others, reportedly has been supportive of women reporting sexual assault. Most important, it has set back the movement to reform rape reporting procedures on college campuses.
The Columbia report caused Rolling Stone to retract the story and drew formal apologies from Managing Editor Will Dana and the piece’s author, Sabrina Rubin Erdely. It doesn’t restore credibility, especially since both apparently will continue in their roles.
The Mercury News had its own experience of flawed reporting 19 years ago when its “Dark Alliance” series was published. The reporter, the late Gary Webb, alleged in essence that the CIA made a deal with the Contras to profit from drug sales primarily to black neighborhoods in Los Angeles and other cities.
When questions arose, the newspaper launched its own re-investigation, published the results and issued a nationally reported apology. Webb had grasped some facts later confirmed in CIA memos, but some key allegations remain unsubstantiated, including the intent to destabilize communities of color.
After that, most news organizations — certainly this one — raised the bar for verification and multiple sourcing. The Columbia report said Rolling Stone had a set of essential practices that, had they been followed, surely would have sidelined the article.
Unfortunately, besides devaluing the premise of investigative journalism, the Rolling Stone report has undercut the seriousness of the plague of sexual assault on college campuses today and has bolstered those whose first reaction to reports is to attack the victim.
University of Virginia President Teresa Sullivan put it well: “The story portrayed university staff members as manipulative and callous toward victims of sexual assault. Such false depictions reinforce the reluctance sexual assault victims already feel about reporting their experience, lest they be doubted or ignored.”
In a world of instant communication, the pressure is on news organizations to be first with any story. Rolling Stone’s lifting of its own standards to publish a sensational report is a reminder that the only thing worse than being beaten on a story is to be wrong on a story.