Someone Cried Wolf and Paid the Price

Where do I begin? The original Rolling Stone article that was published and retracted this past year is a perfect example of what NOT to do in the world of journalism. Rolling Stone is not known as a political magazine, but when the opportunity arose for Sabrina Rubin Ederly, she grasped it so hard she was blinded by the substantial plot holes in the story. It is not entirely her fault however. Editors are paid employees that check the work of writers. This includes checking plot structure and clarity. But it seems as if the editor responsible for this article lacked such qualities. The article was based on a lie. This” Jackie” character reported a rape at the university of Virginia fraternity party. Rolling stone never fact checked the story that Jackie reported.

The main issue I have with the article is that it was published. It went through the journalist and editor. Two people who dedicate their lives to journalism and informing people of the truth.

There are standards in journalism. There are certain ways of informing the people with solid information. There had to be doubts in the minds of Sean Woods, the primary editor and Ederly, the writer of the controversial article, before publishing this article. “The editors invested Rolling Stones reputation in a single source,” the University of Columbia report concluded on the matter. You cannot simply break the rules of journalism in order to get more hits on their website.

CNN Money reported that Charlottesville police had recently announced they could not find any evidence that a rape occurred. But they stressed that their findings did not mean that she hadn’t been raped and that they were keeping the investigation open.

Jackie refused to cooperate with Charlottesville police and Columbia University. Her lawyer claimed that it was in her best interest to remain silent.

The worst part is that Ederly issued a public apology, but nowhere within the apology is there a mention of the under fire fraternity. The fraternity has had to endure a plethora of criticism throughout the year. Their house had been vandalized on campus. Members of the fraternity were subject to defamation.

You must admit when you have wronged. The retraction was a good move, but it was enough. The apology which failed to address those whom were truly affected was abysmal to say the least. The fraternity was not the only deserving of an apology, the public and those who read Rolling Stone deserved an apology as well.

In recent memory, there have been other journalists caught not following the rules. Brian Williams was one of the foremost trusted news Anchor in the world. After he “misremembered” some very detailed events, he was suspended without pay for six months. The news world made an example out of Williams, showing that even the greatest can fall. Rolling Stone has decided not fire Ederly. This may be due to the fact that this was not entirely her fault. Granted, she wrote an unprintable piece, but there are eyes which are paid to turn away such unprofessional work in order to keep up their reputable status in the news industry.

Unfortunately for the consumer of news in today’s day in age, news is no longer what is important. It is what is relevant and what gets the most attention that gets the most news coverage. So for the sake of what is trending, Rolling Stone gambled their entire credibility on what I can only name, a hunch of a story. This new version of news is destroying the very fibers of what the news is supposed to be about. Sexy, trendy, and website hits are the new requirements for what makes news today. The rolling stone article is a clear cut example of the latter. Rape is a trending topic and it gets the attention of readers. This is why they published the article without any hesitation. They knew that publishing an article about a college rape would get national attention and their name would be all over the reports. Talk about free advertising.

I understand that it is an important topic that people must stay informed about. But that is not what I am disputing. I am disputing the fact that because newspapers and magazines crave to be the first to release news, they are losing their integrity. Who knows how many times misprints due to the inability to fact check will occur.

What is so damn hard about telling the truth and doing some basic research?

You are a journalist Ederly. You are published magazines with thousands, if not millions of readers Rolling Stone, show some class! Even though Rolling Stone is an edgy magazine and don’t focus their attention to harder news, fact checking is still a responsibility that journalists have to their readers and print the truth.

I hardly ever read Rolling Stone before and after this eventful saga of dimwitted journalism, I doubt I will pick it up again. If you ask me, whatever credibility Rolling Stone had before this article came out, has gone completely out the window.

 

-Nick Ortiz