The rising doubts about the Rolling Stone rape story at a University of Virginia fraternity have become so widespread that now even Salon is becoming skeptical. However, Salon writer Erin Keane admits she completely bought into the story until other sources began checking it out. The admission can be seen in the headline of her story: "Rolling Stone’s UVA rape story backlash: When narratives are so compelling that we don’t notice unbalanced reporting."
What's with this "we" business, kemosabe? Within five days of the publication of the Rolling Stone story, a former editor of George magazine published his doubts about the story. Soon others also weighed in expressing skepticism of the story in which the author didn't even attempt to interview the alleged perpetrators. So here is Keane admitting to having emotionally swallowed the story hook, line, and sinker until more rational heads weighed in:
I started reading Sabrina Rubin Erdely’s Rolling Stone story “A Rape on Campus: A Brutal Assault and Struggle for Justice at UVA” expecting another version of a story I’d read, depressingly, so many times before of unresolved sexual assaults on campus. But from the first paragraph, I was hooked on overachieving, finally-able-to-cut-loose Jackie — the way she slyly ditches her spiked drink so she can stay sober but not look like a scared freshman, her excitement over her first big party, what she wore and how she fixed her hair. Erdely brings Jackie right into my living room with me and when she is gang raped in the frat house all of the breath rushes out of my lungs. I gulp the rest of the story down and by the end I am stunned. The searing unfairness of how Jackie has been treated by the people of an institution she trusted, where she could have felt liberated and empowered instead, is simply crushing. Not only am I devastated on her behalf, I’m also devastated on behalf of every girl and woman who’s ever been brutalized like that. That’s what a good story written extremely well should do. That’s art.
That's art but is it fact? Keane now admits to being so blinded by the art that she didn't notice certain inconvenient facts until it was pointed out by others:
That I don’t even notice that Erdely never mentions trying to get an interview with the men Jackie says raped her until I read the follow-up pieces this week speaks volumes about how well Erdely crafted the narrative. Some critics say Erdeley should not have agreed to Jackie’s request that she not contact the men she accused of rape, that journalistic diligence demands that they be given the opportunity to address the accusations or refuse to comment....
But this isn’t Jackie’s memoir. “A Rape on Campus” is journalism, and now the story isn’t just about Jackie, it’s about the concessions Erdely did or did not make in pursuit of a powerful story, which has now sparked a police investigation, a frat suspension and institutional reforms. The emotional payoff for being invested in Jackie is intense and ongoing...
And the emotional payoff for being invested in the story by Erin Keane was total gullibility until wiser heads began to actually fact check the story.
Exit question: If the Rolling Stone rape story proves to be fraudulent, will Erin Keane call upon the University of Virginia to lift its suspension of fraternities?
