Rolling Stone revised its apology yesterday. They took out the "misplaced trust" in Jackie of the original, they say the fault is "ours" not "hers." The Stoners stated reason for the change is that the original seemed to "blame the victim."
If Jackie told material, untrue things to Sabrina Rubin Erdely, Jackie should be blamed. I, or most of me anyway, believes absolutely that Jackie told those things to Ruby. I don't think Ruby made them up out of whole cloth. Jackie had told others the gang rape story prior to Ruby's arrival in Charlottesville, where she checked her wits at the door. "It was Jackie's story," according to Ruby.
"According to Ruby:" Therein is the problem with the whole me willing to blame Jackie at this moment. What if Ruby did make it all up, or most of it? Only a little part of me entertains that possibility but it has happened before!
In 2003 Jayson Blair was caught plagiarizing and making up stories at The New York Times.
In 1998 Stephen Glass was caught having fabricated stories out of whole cloth for The New Republic.
In 1980 Janet Cooke WON A PULITZER PRIZE at the Washington Post and THEN Post editor Bob Woodward discovered the whole thing had been invented by Cooke.*
Rolling Stone says it is continuing to investigate "Jackie's story" (Irony has left Rolling Stone headquarters.). Has self-preservation left the building too? Surely, Rolling Stone's lawyers shit themselves when they read that their client had taken all the blame. In genuflection to political correctness. But what if it wasn't? What if Rolling Stone fell on the sword because they have determined that Ruby had made it all, or substantial, material parts of it, up? (Their lawyers would still have shit.) A truly guilty conscience though is usually a better bet as spur to confession than is political correctness to a false confession.
This is not the first time for Rolling Stone and Ruby, either. In 2011 she wrote a story about sexual abuse in the Catholic Church based on an account given by "Billy Doe." According to Wikipedia both "Jackie's Story" and "Billy Doe's" story "have been heavily criticized for containing inaccurate or false details and accusations."
*The title of Cooke's fiction was "Jimmy's World."
If Jackie told material, untrue things to Sabrina Rubin Erdely, Jackie should be blamed. I, or most of me anyway, believes absolutely that Jackie told those things to Ruby. I don't think Ruby made them up out of whole cloth. Jackie had told others the gang rape story prior to Ruby's arrival in Charlottesville, where she checked her wits at the door. "It was Jackie's story," according to Ruby.
"According to Ruby:" Therein is the problem with the whole me willing to blame Jackie at this moment. What if Ruby did make it all up, or most of it? Only a little part of me entertains that possibility but it has happened before!
In 2003 Jayson Blair was caught plagiarizing and making up stories at The New York Times.
In 1998 Stephen Glass was caught having fabricated stories out of whole cloth for The New Republic.
In 1980 Janet Cooke WON A PULITZER PRIZE at the Washington Post and THEN Post editor Bob Woodward discovered the whole thing had been invented by Cooke.*
Rolling Stone says it is continuing to investigate "Jackie's story" (Irony has left Rolling Stone headquarters.). Has self-preservation left the building too? Surely, Rolling Stone's lawyers shit themselves when they read that their client had taken all the blame. In genuflection to political correctness. But what if it wasn't? What if Rolling Stone fell on the sword because they have determined that Ruby had made it all, or substantial, material parts of it, up? (Their lawyers would still have shit.) A truly guilty conscience though is usually a better bet as spur to confession than is political correctness to a false confession.
This is not the first time for Rolling Stone and Ruby, either. In 2011 she wrote a story about sexual abuse in the Catholic Church based on an account given by "Billy Doe." According to Wikipedia both "Jackie's Story" and "Billy Doe's" story "have been heavily criticized for containing inaccurate or false details and accusations."
*The title of Cooke's fiction was "Jimmy's World."
