People in the media still are concerned about rapists and their victims? Really?
Posted on 12/07/2014 2:50:11 AM PST by Cincinatus' Wife
Well, this is awful.
The Web blew up Friday afternoon with the news that Rolling Stone magazine no longer stands behind last month’s horrific, explosive story of a gang rape at a University of Virginia fraternity. A report in The Washington Post cast central elements of her story into serious doubt. Her friends and supporters now say they’re dubious, too.
It’s disastrous for everybody involved. At this writing, the victim, Jackie, insists she was telling the truth about being raped by seven students. Whatever the truth, she must be in a world of pain right now, particularly if she tried to extricate herself from the magazine story before it was published, as she now maintains.
The destructive fallout goes beyond one woman’s suffering. The Rolling Stone story, which had helped make it all but impossible to ignore the scourge of campus sexual assault, is now going to do the opposite. Because now, emboldened by this one possibly fabricated story of rape, the chorus of people who believe women routinely make these things up will grow louder.
It already has. You could see them doing their happy dances in the comments below the Post story, which, a couple of hours after it went up, looked a lot like 1950. If it turns out to be entirely false, Jackie’s story will join other fake narratives—the Tawana Brawley debacle, the accusations against the Duke lacrosse players—as weapons for those moral cave-dwellers who would have you believe that women “cry rape” all the time for attention, or revenge.
“No matter what the reality is,......
That sucking sound? That’s us being dragged back into the last century.
Can we please not go there?......
(Excerpt) Read more at bostonglobe.com ...
--------------------------------
"The issue is never the issue, the issue is always the revolution." - Saul Alinsky.
"...In 1969, the year that publishers reissued Alinsky’s first book, Reveille for Radicals, a Wellesley undergraduate named Hillary Rodham submitted her 92-page senior thesis on Alinsky’s theories (she interviewed him personally for the project). In her conclusion Hillary compared Alinsky to Eugene Debs, Walt Whitman and Martin Luther King.
The title of Clinton’s thesis was There Is Only the Fight: An Analysis of the Alinsky Model. In this title she had identified the single most important Alinsky contribution to the radical cause – his embrace of political nihilism. An SDS radical once wrote, “The issue is never the issue. The issue is always the revolution.” In other words, the cause of a political action – whether civil rights or women’s rights – is never the real cause; women, blacks and other “victims” are only instruments in the larger cause, which is power."
Guided by Alinsky principles, post-Communist radicals are not idealists but Machiavellians. Their focus is on means rather than ends, and therefore they are not bound by organizational orthodoxies in the way their admired Marxist forebears were. Within the framework of their revolutionary agenda, they are flexible and opportunistic and will say anything (and pretend to be anything) to get what they want, which is resources and power......."
Barack Obama's Rules for Revolution - The Alinsky Model
-----------
"Award-winning freelance magazine journalist
“Sabrina Rubin Erdely is an award-winning feature writer and investigative journalist, and a Contributing Editor at Rolling Stone. Her work has also appeared in SELF, GQ, Philadelphia, The New Yorker, Mother Jones, Glamour and Men’s Health, among other national magazines. Her articles have been anthologized in Best American Magazine Writing and have received a number of awards, including two National Magazine Award nominations.
Erdely specializes in long-form narrative writing, especially about crime, health and social issues. She has written about con artists, murder investigations, vicious divorces, power brokers, lovable eccentrics, bioweapons, cults, sexual violence, medical ethics, hackers, LGBT issues, and teachers who have affairs with students—among other subjects.”
Fox News reported last night that all the “people” that were fact checkers that made R/S a credible reporting source were laid off due to budget constraints...or, maybe they wanted to use their reputation to further the Left’s agenda and this one story bit them in the rear!
At any rate, they have fallen next to the NY Times and the rest of the socialist propaganda news papers still eking out an existence...
Note the implicit assumption.
Women do NOT routinely make these things up, and anybody who believes or says so is a horrible person.
We now have at least three high profile cases (Brawley, Duke, UVA) where the story is indeed "made up." A reasonable person would at this point say something like, "Maybe we should make an attempt to find out what percentage of rape stories are made up. And develop better ways of determining which are and which are not."
Instead all we get is a call to assume all accusations are true.
Ms.Erdely seems to be quite the prolific writer. One has to wonder how many of her stories were just as fabricated as this one was. Jayson Blair had a similar resume until he was caught as I recall.
Concern trolls at the Boston Glob are concerned...
Boston Globe publishes bogus GI rape pictures (Yellow Jounalism at Pinko Paper)
World Net Daily ^ | My 12,2004 | Sherrie Gossett
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1134268/posts
Boston residents got more than they bargained for this morning when their copy of the Globe came complete with graphic photos depicting U.S. troops gang-raping Iraqi women. Problem is the photos are fake. They were taken from pornographic websites and disseminated by anti-American propagandists, as first reported by WND a week ago.
WND contacted the Globe to question staff about the photos. Asked whether the photos were the same as the porn photos WND already investigated, reporter Donovan Slack said, “I have no idea. I’m surprised the editor even decided we should write about it.” She added: “Oh my God, I’m scared to answer the phone today.” “It’s insane,” said Slack. “Can you imagine getting this with your cup of coffee in the morning? Somehow it got through all our checks. Our publisher’s not having a very good day today.”
Slack sent the photos to WND, which immediately confirmed they were the same porn photos reported on last week.
...The photos accompanied an article about Boston city councilor Chuck Turner, who distributed the graphic photographs yesterday at a press conference with activist Sadiki Kambon. Turner told reporters the photos showed U.S. soldiers raping Iraqi women. “The American people have a right and responsibility to see the pictures,” Turner said.
Kambon, who is director of the Black Community Information Center, said at the news conference he received the photographs by e-mail from Akbar Muhammad, a representative for the Nation of Islam.
The Globe was provided with a statement by Muhammad who wrote, “There aren’t any doubts in my mind about the reports on torture of Iraqi prisoners. All you have to do is look at the pictures of Saddam Hussein after his capture when he was being examined on television across the world. He appeared to be drugged and unaware that he was being filmed to be humiliated and disgraced in front of the entire world.”...
People in the media still are concerned about rapists and their victims? Really?
I don’t remember Jacko or Roman getting much covering fire from the US media.
Bill certainly did, though.
Did the media end up dispelling the stories about Bill as false? Drag a hundred dollar bill through a trailer park...? Bimbo eruptions? Nuts and sluts?
The man is a contender to be returning to the White House and yet it isn’t in the news cycle regarding our “rape culture”.
When he was elected in 1992, he said theirs (Bill and Hill) would be a co-presidency. He’s already said that he would sit in on meetings if Hillary asked him to. At least some of the electorate believe that he would offer some initiatives and that electing Hillary in 2016 gives them another Bill Clinton presidency (by proxy).
The talking point is that these are old scandals that have already been addressed.
Cases of rape determined to be “false” vary from 2% to 10%.
But the standard to make this determination are pretty high. It basically needs to be impossible for the crime to have been committed. As in the accused was in South America at the time.
“The determination that a report
of sexual assault is false can be made only if the
evidence establishes that no crime was committed
or attempted”
Not classifying a rape report as false under this highly restrictive definition thus by no means should be considered confirmation that it is true.
A truly accurate study of how many false accusations are made would be interesting. The problem, of course, is that people who study it are likely to be activists in the cause. Not a recipe for good science. And of course that in probably a majority of cases it’s impossible to determine for sure whether a rape accusation is true or false.
Bill is still the only president of my life who I simply cannot stand to listen to. Not a fan.
- Clinton on Flowers [YouTube] "“I’m sitting here because I love him and I respect him and I honor what he’s been through and what we’ve been through together. And, you know, if that’s not enough for people, then, heck, don’t vote for him.” "
Jan 26, 1998 
[YouTube video]: Clinton, "I did not have sexual relations with that woman... Miss Lewinsky.
The War on Women: Juanita Broaddrick and Bill Clinton "To set the stage for why the country needs Hillary Clinton to be the next president, Democrats are trying to force-feed Americans a “war on women” pablum, when such a war--as they present it--does not exist. For the real “war on women,” however, Democrats might turn to Hillary Clinton herself and her husband, former President Bill Clinton.".......
1997: Clinton V. Paula Jones........... "Now the efforts to discredit Jones became intense. Bennett produced Jones's original fee agreement with Daniel Traylor, the Little Rock lawyer she had first retained. In it, she had agreed to share in the profits from book deals and movie rights. Bennett also found an intermediary, an old acquaintance of Clinton's, whom Traylor had unsuccessfully asked to approach the White House for a money settlement. Jones, who has passed a lie-detector test arranged by her lawyers, now says she has no interest in profiting from the case; she has promised to give any money she wins to charity. She has turned down the usual tabloid deals, though she made $50,000 for endorsing a brand of jeans, half of which went to her lawyers.
The White House campaign was effective. "Drag a hundred dollars through a trailer park and there's no telling what you'll find," said James Carville, Clinton's colorful consultant. Even Gennifer Flowers chimed in. "It's not like Bill to pull down his pants," she declared to the New York Daily News. "He simply wouldn't have done it." The press was bemused and scornful, falling for the Clintonite spin. (NEWSWEEK'S Evan Thomas, the author of this piece, said on a Washington talk show that Jones was just "some sleazy woman with big hair coming out of the trailer parks.") This elitist attitude was widely shared by the establishment press.
In the public mind, Jones's story was by and large relegated to the right-wing fringes. In some ways, the White House spinners had won. But in the long run, they may have done their boss more harm than good. True, Bennett has been able to delay the case. When the Supreme Court agreed to review the question of presidential immunity from civil suits, the practical effect was to put the case on ice until after the November elections. Privately, Bennett said just doing this was, in his eyes, "victory." Even if the Supreme Court decides to let the case go forward, Bennett can continue to stall with various motions to dismiss. But he cannot delay pretrial discovery for the next four years.
Meanwhile, the press is waking up. The catalyst was the article that appeared in The American Lawyer by Taylor, a former legal correspondent for The New York Times. Taylor wrote that he, too, had initially dismissed Paula Jones as a gold digger. But after interviewing her girlfriends Blackard and Ballentine, he changed his mind. The evidence against Clinton was actually pretty strong--much stronger, he pointed out, than Anita Hill's charges against Clarence Thomas during the justice's confirmation hearings in 1991. Taylor accused the press of hypocrisy and class bias--of believing Hill, a Yale Law grad and a feminist, and not Jones with her big hair. Taylor's article was widely read in newsrooms and editors' offices, including those at NEWSWEEK. No one will probably ever know for sure what went on in the room at the Excelsior Hotel on that May day in 1991. But judg-ing from the available testimony, Clinton has a strong interest in not allowing a public inquisition to go forward. Depositions, even taken under court-ordered secrecy, have a way of leaking. The president's best bet may be to do what he failed to the day before the suit was filed: settle the case. It may require an apology, but the alternative seems worse.".......
Bill and Hil and their group didn’t wage a “war on women.” They waged a “war on women who endangered Bill Clinton.”
And all their feminist allies stood in lockstep with them.
>> the chorus of people who believe women routinely make these things up will grow louder.
Yes, but only because it IS the truth.
“..In 1969, the year that publishers reissued Alinsky’s first book, Reveille for Radicals, a Wellesley undergraduate named Hillary Rodham submitted her 92-page senior thesis on Alinsky’s theories (she interviewed him personally for the project). In her conclusion Hillary compared Alinsky to Eugene Debs, Walt Whitman and Martin Luther King.”
Republicans should start running this as an ad NOW. Make sure the entire nation knows before Hillary even throws her pointed black hat into the ring.
We lso have Lena Dunham’s lie(s) too.
That's the sound of a liberal being sucked into a cliche'.
SFL
............”The dance between reporter and source in this case seems to have been a dicey one. The reporter, Sabrina Rubin Erdely, told us on the DoubleX Gabfest that she had been looking at different campuses to find an example that would illustrate how badly universities handle allegations of campus sexual assault. She came upon Jackie’s story of a gang rape, and, as any reporter would, concluded this was a story that needed to be told. If universities couldn’t even properly handle a brutal, orchestrated gang rape, then the system was seriously broken.
Jackie told the Post that she felt “manipulated” by Erdely. She said that she was “overwhelmed” by sitting through interviews with her and asked to be taken out of the story, but Erdely said it would go forward anyway. Jackie said she “felt completely out of control of my own story.” Erdely has implied that she made an agreement with Jackie that she would tell her story but not try to contact her assailants. Rolling Stone explained in their statement today: “Because of the sensitive nature of Jackie’s story, we decided to honor her request not to contact the man she claimed orchestrated the attack on her nor any of the men she claimed participated in the attack for fear of retaliation against her.”........
“The destructive fallout goes beyond one woman’s suffering.”
One fraternity chapter and the entire fraternity system, was tried and convicted in the press and in marches by students in the outrage following the story. Whether or not any incident occurred, the facts uncovered since the story seem to exonerate any such incident being perpetrated by a member of the fraternity or occurring at the fraternity house, much less being indicative of the entire fraternity system.
Nonetheless, based on a sensational story, about an alleged crime that was never reported to the authorities, told by an anonymous “victim” to a reporter with a very specific political and social agendas, printed in a magazine promoting the same agendas, and accusing unidentified male students of a horrific criminal act was used by the president of the university as the sole basis for a decision to suspend all fraternities and sororities on campus. Mere accusations that had not been investigated, much less proven, were validated by the UVA president taking unprecedented action to punish 25% of the male undergraduate student population plus the female students belonging to sororities.
The founder of the University of Virginia, Thomas Jefferson, wrote, “this institution will be based on the illimitable freedom of the human mind. for here we are not afraid to follow truth wherever it may lead, nor to tolerate any error so long as reason is left free to combat it.”
As of today, the progressive president of the university has not lifted her suspension of the fraternities and sororities. Why?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.