These are not the best of times for much of print media. The scenario is an all-too-familiar one for well-chronicled reasons.
So what the print world didn’t need right now is the Rolling Stone magazine mess.
In attempting to remain relevant and score a high-profile exposé, it published an explosive, 9,000-word article, “A Rape on Campus,” last November. In its rush to bad judgment, it paid lip service to the possibility that its story of a gang rape at the Phi Kappa Psi fraternity house at the University of Virginia wasn’t, well, true. Instead of ratcheting up scrutiny for a purported crime that hadn’t been reported to authorities, it lowered the fact-check bar.
In so doing, it violated journalistic norms well known to high school reporters, editors and faculty advisors.
It starts, fundamentally, with a source. Almost always, that primary source will be identified. But on rare occasions–think “whistle-blower” retaliation, national security implications or sexual-assault sensitivity–that’s not the case. But when such sources remain anonymous (via pseudonyms), their reliability has to be cross-checked and corroborated via multiple, independent secondary sources. Especially if such sources had been quoted in the story.
None of that, unconscionably, was done here. Nor were any perpetrators named. This all came to light in a devastating report recently released by the Columbia Journalism Review, which in a blistering critique castigated the magazine for “reckless research” in a piece rife with “bad journalism.”
In fact, when they were contacted after the fact by the Washington Post, the secondary sources denied quotes attributed to them by Rolling Stone. Moreover, according to CJR, the magazine didn’t provide the fraternity with enough information to respond adequately to questions. As a result, the magazine never learned, for example, that there were no fraternity functions on the weekend specified in the story.
The Rolling Stone managing editor has since issued a retraction and apologized for the discredited article. Inexplicably, no one is being fired for negligently ignoring the principles of Journalism 101.
The bottom line here remains basic. Even if you’re doubling down on a story that will yield mega publicity while addressing a growing societal scourge, the rules don’t change.
In looking out for sexual assault victims, both now and future, remember “victim” can be an inclusive term. In this case, it includes the University of Virginia, Phi Kappa Psi and the truth.