Rolling Stones is the bastion of retractions once anyone with a brain goes wait a second. Remember the gang rape college story that almost shut down a fraternity until someone bothered asking the accused?
You're thinking of Crystal Mangum, the liar who falsely accused the Duke Lacrosse team members of gang rape. The false accuser got away without consequences. She murdered a boyfriend later.
The UVA rape hoax story published by the Rolling Stone was crafted by "journalist" Sabrina Erdely and false accuser "Jackie" ( pseudonym ).
"Jackie" got away wuthout consequences, but the Rolling Stone had to pay compensation to some of the people whose lives were crushed by rabid feminists crowds harassing them.
I was just talking to someone about this the other day. That "worst part" is definitely the intention.
I have a friend who works for a branch of children and youth services, and people are constantly calling in bullshit petty calls on their neighbors just to try to get them in trouble for something.
Example: "their fucking dog keeps barking... I'm gonna call cys and say their kids don't have fuckin shoes."
Or worse, you get, you get a jilted spouse, hot about the estrangement, calling in to say mommy's new boyfriend is diddling the kids, couching the children to spread egregious lies.
Its smaller scale instances of the same bullshit. Because they know that in public perception, that person isn't going to be "the guy who was wrongfully accused of child abuse," they're going to be "the guy who got away with diddling kids."
You are absolutely right on this one. Irreparable reputational damages that there are absolutely zero consequences for.
I agree 100% on the media front. The fact that there are no repercussions, and people dont even attempt to be unbiased anymore. The idea is we can't afford to be complacent and unbiased anymore there's too much at stake - and that's the mentality applied to literally all media.
On the former - I think there does need to be something like that, but the person I mentioned before raised a legitimate issue with that and it's kinda hard to get around. When it comes to child abuse, at least, you don't want to deter people from reporting abuse. If instead of being able to anonymously report, people had to provide their personal info, a lot of those anonymous reports wouldn't happen. On the most basic level, people just don't want to be involved so they report anonymously. Add on top of that they might get in trouble if the accused manages to get out of it? Catch my drift?
That's not to say it would make such an arrangement impossible, but it is a very real hurdle.
I think we would all hope that, but it is sadly not the case. At her work, summer is regarded as the "slow season," and early September is the "busy season." Which is obviously when kids go back to school, and are back to being surrounded by mandated reporters. And to add to that, she's told me dozens of stories that go something like:
mom's boyfriend beats or kids
relative calls CYS
mom still "loves" boyfriend, denies anything happening. Everyone at her agency knows she's lying, but they can't prove anything
case is closed until something egregious happens
In that situation, the relative would be liable. Which would discourage people in those situations from reporting, and it's a very common situation. Worse if in point 3 if for whatever reason the agency believes the mom.
This is a very specific example, but the concepts can be applied more broadly. So you think, alright well, we'll just make it so that you have to prove the false report was made intentionally with malice, but that still leaves the threat of legal action looming over the heads of any would-be legitimate reporters, possibly swaying them not to.
Something absolutely needs to change... just not sure how.
Not Duke. Rolling Stone was involved in publishing one about a UVA frat. Turns out it was completely false. Duke was a huge red pill for me.
If I hit the lottery I want to give a college money to endow a chair in media communications and condition it on me be allowed to teach two classes a semester on fake news.
Of course, so many people will never follow up, and much like the hydroxychloroquine fishbowl cleaner story — where the woman ended up being a staunch Democrat — a ton of people will continue to believe the lie.
These media outlets are never held responsible for the massive amount of misinformation they spread.
No, we don't have to talk about shit. RollingStone is a pile of shit and anyone who believes them is a fucking fool. They could tell me the sky is blue and I wouldn't even believe my eyes.
Let's take this as an object lesson and learn from our opponents' mistake: just because a story supports our bias what we believe, treat it with skepticism until you can confirm it.
Rolling Stones is the bastion of retractions once anyone with a brain goes wait a second. Remember the gang rape college story that almost shut down a fraternity until someone bothered asking the accused?
Remember to include what happened after. That woman murdered someone.
You're thinking of Crystal Mangum, the liar who falsely accused the Duke Lacrosse team members of gang rape. The false accuser got away without consequences. She murdered a boyfriend later.
The UVA rape hoax story published by the Rolling Stone was crafted by "journalist" Sabrina Erdely and false accuser "Jackie" ( pseudonym ).
"Jackie" got away wuthout consequences, but the Rolling Stone had to pay compensation to some of the people whose lives were crushed by rabid feminists crowds harassing them.
I was just talking to someone about this the other day. That "worst part" is definitely the intention.
I have a friend who works for a branch of children and youth services, and people are constantly calling in bullshit petty calls on their neighbors just to try to get them in trouble for something.
Example: "their fucking dog keeps barking... I'm gonna call cys and say their kids don't have fuckin shoes."
Or worse, you get, you get a jilted spouse, hot about the estrangement, calling in to say mommy's new boyfriend is diddling the kids, couching the children to spread egregious lies.
Its smaller scale instances of the same bullshit. Because they know that in public perception, that person isn't going to be "the guy who was wrongfully accused of child abuse," they're going to be "the guy who got away with diddling kids."
You are absolutely right on this one. Irreparable reputational damages that there are absolutely zero consequences for.
I agree 100% on the media front. The fact that there are no repercussions, and people dont even attempt to be unbiased anymore. The idea is we can't afford to be complacent and unbiased anymore there's too much at stake - and that's the mentality applied to literally all media.
On the former - I think there does need to be something like that, but the person I mentioned before raised a legitimate issue with that and it's kinda hard to get around. When it comes to child abuse, at least, you don't want to deter people from reporting abuse. If instead of being able to anonymously report, people had to provide their personal info, a lot of those anonymous reports wouldn't happen. On the most basic level, people just don't want to be involved so they report anonymously. Add on top of that they might get in trouble if the accused manages to get out of it? Catch my drift?
That's not to say it would make such an arrangement impossible, but it is a very real hurdle.
I think we would all hope that, but it is sadly not the case. At her work, summer is regarded as the "slow season," and early September is the "busy season." Which is obviously when kids go back to school, and are back to being surrounded by mandated reporters. And to add to that, she's told me dozens of stories that go something like:
In that situation, the relative would be liable. Which would discourage people in those situations from reporting, and it's a very common situation. Worse if in point 3 if for whatever reason the agency believes the mom.
This is a very specific example, but the concepts can be applied more broadly. So you think, alright well, we'll just make it so that you have to prove the false report was made intentionally with malice, but that still leaves the threat of legal action looming over the heads of any would-be legitimate reporters, possibly swaying them not to.
Something absolutely needs to change... just not sure how.
Not Duke. Rolling Stone was involved in publishing one about a UVA frat. Turns out it was completely false. Duke was a huge red pill for me.
If I hit the lottery I want to give a college money to endow a chair in media communications and condition it on me be allowed to teach two classes a semester on fake news.
how about fucking mattress girl?
Rolling Stones
retractionUPDATE: https://twitter.com/JerryDunleavy/status/1434534777651146754"Hospitals are some of the most dishonest institutions today"
I hate these fucking people
It must have been a mistake; because muh Matt Taibbi is the bestest righteous journalist and he works for Rolling Stone telling the truths.
Even Taibbi thinks the people running the media have gone mad. I disagree with most of his politics but I respect him for his critique of the MSM.
Of course, so many people will never follow up, and much like the hydroxychloroquine fishbowl cleaner story — where the woman ended up being a staunch Democrat — a ton of people will continue to believe the lie.
These media outlets are never held responsible for the massive amount of misinformation they spread.
... my question is: is this Rolling Stone consciously taking one for the team?
That is the propaganda system they are running today. This is how it works:
Rolling stone publishes a lie.
Other media outlets report on the story
Wikipedia makes a post about the fake numbers
Someone actually proves the story false
Rolling stone updates or retracts, but the other media do not
Rinse and repeat
No, we don't have to talk about shit. RollingStone is a pile of shit and anyone who believes them is a fucking fool. They could tell me the sky is blue and I wouldn't even believe my eyes.
"Welcome to Journalism, where everything's made up and the facts don't matter."
This says nothing about retraction. Only an "update."
Let's take this as an object lesson and learn from our opponents' mistake: just because a story supports our bias what we believe, treat it with skepticism until you can confirm it.