Rolling Stone, rape journalism and corrections.

No, Alma. But the bad journalists do not represent the majority.

 

The bigger the name, the less likely they are to get in trouble.

And, if we're comparing it to other "broken" institutions, I would think the rate that punishment is meted might be similar.

Journalists can also get a second chance. A guy like Darren Wilson will never be a cop again. But, Mike Barnicle can sit on the set of Morning Joe and tell us how terribly broken our criminal justice system is.

 

C. Congress

 

The cop in Cleveland who killed Tamir Rice got to be a cop a second time.

 

Matt Taibbi runs interference for Will Dana, who should be updating his resume.
https://twitter.com/mtaibbi

 

With regard to fact-checking ...

How much of the article would have been subject to fact-checking? The FC would call 'Jackie' to confirm what she told Erdely, right?
FC wouldn't be responsible for checking with "Drew" or the fraternity? No, right? Because it can't be verified?
Calling the UVA IFC to see of the date and time of the fraternity function matched Jackie's story? Yes? No?

How much is fact-checking as opposed to an editor asking questions?

 

Depends in the publication.

Some shops require notes, showing who you talked to, what they said. That's the bare minimum, and probably not used by most magazines. Most mags require full transcripts of interviews. Better places want transcripts with audio recording, then calling the source to double check those quotes and info are accurate. From what I've heard, some of the Manti Te'o stuff happened because the dad confirmed Te'o comments about Leani existing and dying. The highest level is a place like the New Yorker where assign a fact checker who then takes a red pen and re-reports every line in the story. Every line gets a check mark, or it doesn't appear in print. A detail like the pool thing, or the night of the party, never makes it into a publication with highest fact check standards (New Yorker, Economist).

Editors job would be asking bigger, logical questions.

Without knowing, I'd say RS just required a transcript from Jackie for her parts. The fact that quotes from "Andy" we're allowed to appear in this piece even though Erdley never spoke with him is appalling unless someone faked notes or a transcript.

 

Your description and guess about RS's requirements from Erdely, fly in the face of Taibbi's tweeting description of RS rigorous fact checking.

I didn't pay attention, but how long ago had Erdely interviewed Jackie .. what was the turnaround time between the interview and publication?

 

RS claims months.

Taibbi also left RS for at least six months, maybe a year, to be the editor of a publication that never got off the ground (in part because he feuded with the owner) and it was killed. It's the thing Glenn Greenwald is working for now. Who knows if the fact-checking changed due to budget stuff.

 

However, a couple of bad cops certainly do represent the majority. Or so I've read on this site.

 

Out of curiosity, does anyone have an idea as to how much someone like Erdely would be paid for features of that length by Rolling Stone?

("Too much" is not considered an answer, either.)

 

She is almost certainly on a multi-story (6-8 a year, I'd guess) contract that pays six figures or more. I highly doubt she is paid by the story.