What the Rolling Stone Did Wrong
By Mark Love ‘16
The Rolling Stone committed an egregious act that violates journalistic ethics across the board. Not only did the staff fail to challenge the words of their main source, the alleged victim, they also refused to communicate with the alleged attackers nor the additional sources provided by the so-called victim. The worst part about this fiasco is the fact that all of this could have been avoided had the staff of Rolling Stone practiced basic journalistic practices. The story did not have any complexities; unfortunately, rape on college campuses is less of an anomaly and more of a fairly frequent occurrence. The staff only had to follow up on the information that the girl had given them. She specifically gave names and even mentioned the exact fraternity house along with dates of the “rape”. The staff was given all of the imperative information without any investigative work done; therefore, fact checking should have been a simple task.
As far as job termination, Sabrina Erdley should receive the axe for her lackadaisical reporting. Her actions, or inactions, has caused turmoil that spirals beyond journalism. Actual rape victims may resist opening up about the experience because of fear of adversaries questioning her validity. Erdley allowed this imposter to carry out a tale that has actually happened to others. To make matters worse, she has yet to issue out a public apology to the members of Phi Kappa Psi as they deal with the aftermath of this ordeal. Aside from Erdley, Rolling Stone should take more ownership for their mistake. In the report provided by the Columbia Graduate School of Journalism, the editor for the Rolling Stone merely brushed off the faulty article, without clearly stating the punishment that should follow. Also, in the New York Times article, the magazine outright refused to address any changes in their editorial process when collecting information for future stories. Furthermore, the publisher of the magazine specifically mentioned Erdley stating that she will remain staffed with the magazine despite her glaring errors. From the publisher to the reporter, the entire magazine is flawed for making this mistake and not taking necessary precautions to prevent a similar mistake from happening again.
Overall, I fully support the fraternity perviously in question for pursuing legal action against the magazine. The Rolling Stone is a national, popular publication with a strong following. Many eyes read the disparaging article about the fraternity. Any organization with rape allegations hovering it, rather it is true or not, will face public turmoil regardless. Rape is no laughing matter, and the fraternity will have this reputation for years to come.
