8 réponses à ce sujet

[The Hierophant]

it's lack of journalistic protocol? Especially after the accussed suffered harrassment like vandalism, and death threats.

http://www.nytimes.c...f-virginia.html

[mousestalker]

People still read it?

Really?

It's pretty much past its expiration date. The owner is older than me and the editorial staff has to be up there in years as well. Not mention the whole "printed magazine" thing is pretty much dead.

Even back in the day it never really had much in the way of credibility. Doing massive amounts of drugs with seventies rockers tends to obliterate any connection to reality a writer might have had.

[Voxr]

Well yeah. Your job is to provide credible information on a story or as it develops. They f**ked up, so yes further scrutiny is justified I think.

[Draining Dragon]

People still read that schwarbage?

[The Hierophant]

Yeah. Set off a national firestorm too.

[Rorschachinstein]

The fact that something as sensitive as rape was handled so poory by rolling stone is an absolute disgrace that has probably hurt journalists and actual rape victims. If you cry wolf enough times, people will be furious, especially with how badly the publication portrayed the accused and the university. It sent people on a witch hunt in McCarthysm fashion based on absolute lies just to support some feminist statistic. And people are mad as hell.

[mousestalker]

Oh, and the fraternity in question is suing them. The folks at Rolling Stone aren't very happy right now.

[SwobyJ]

I'm for scrutiny of all journalists and publications. They don't seem to have proper accountability otherwise, we keep seeing.

[Sundance31us]

It should go the way of Omni magazine, but that's just my opinion.