Rolling Stone Makes A Misstep

“A Rape on Campus,” at its outset, focused on the prevalence of sexual assaults on college campuses and the way they are handled. Rolling Stone writer Sabrina Erderly contacted Emily Renda, a rape survivor working on sexual assault cases as a staff member at the University of Virginia. Erderly gave her an explanation of the type of story she planned to pursue and was put in touch with “Jackie,” a rising junior who had told Renda she had been gang-raped at a fraternity event in the fall.

Even from the beginning, the case presented a number of problems to the writer and Rolling Stone, which I believe should have been indications that the story should not be published. Jackie was very unreliable about responding to Erderly’s requests. She refused to name her main attacker and the magazine did not verify that he even existed. Jackie’s account of her friends and their role in the story was also left unverified by Erderly. She trusted Jackie to provide her with the information from her friends without doing any background research on her own.

Basically, Rolling Stone relied too heavily on Jackie and failed to push her hard enough to get the truth for fear of being too harsh to a sexual assault victim. While their motives may have been respectable, they should not have published a story without corroborating accounts and using reliable contacts and verifiable story information.

After the story was published, T. Rees Shapiro, a Washington Post reporter, began preparing a story that would raise doubts about the accuracy and truth of the Rolling Stone story. Basing the story on interviews conducted at the University of Virginia, Shapiro effectively pressured Rolling Stone into examining the story and the reporting and editorial methods behind it.

The publishers and editors began to press Jackie and examine the inconsistencies and areas of concern in her story. They also began looking at the other characters in the story (the friends, “Drew”) to determine whether they existed in the way Jackie said they did and also to hear their accounts of what happened. They also combed through the reporting process of Erderly to find where mistakes were made and leads were not followed.

The Columbia University investigators determined that the fault for the inaccurate story lay in multiple areas of the magazine staff. Erderly’s reporting methods were lax, and she failed to use the basic fundamentals of journalism and newsgathering to compile her story. On the editors’ end, Columbia University found that they should have pushed Erderly harder to close the gaps in her story and provide more concrete evidence of Jackie’s account. With a story as precarious and serious as “A Rape on Campus,” the magazine staff should have researched more heavily and done more efficient newsgathering to provide a solid foundation for the story that they could rely on and trust.

Rolling Stone did accept the report from Columbia University and fully admitted that they made a massive mistake. I think their response was sufficient because they have taken the blame and not tried to make excuses for all the issues in their reporting and publishing. They have also been very public with their faults and reporting and editing oversights.

I am a fan of Rolling Stone, and honestly, I was shocked at this monumental mistake. I will continue to read the magazine, but I will always wonder about the credibility of stories now. I think they have lost credibility with their readers and will have to work very hard to gain it back. Because “A Rape on Campus” made it to press, the magazine will experience close scrutiny on stories for years to come. As bad as this story issue was, I do not think the magazine has an unethical core that has been exposed. I think the writers and editors were comfortable, thus they allowed for lax reporting and editing. They made huge mistakes that journalists should not make, but I think they recognized their fault and were very honest and sincere in wanting to mend the wrongs and get back in the public’s good graces.

The reporting methods of Chip Shotten and the methods used in the Rolling Stone case do share similarities. The reliance on sources without doing any background research or efficient newsgathering is a huge similarity. Chip continued to pay his confidential source because he had faith in her story. But in the journalism business, faith is not enough. You have to go back to the basic fundamentals of journalism and gather a story that is credible, well rounded and well supported. While Chip’s case was much worse, both cases made mistakes in their reporting and newsgathering and paid the price for it.