Apologies We Don't Expect to See

Monday afternoon, the police department in Charlottesville, Virginia, held a press conference to announce the results of its investigation into claims by a "reporter" for Rolling Stone magazine that a horrific rape had taken place on the campus of the University of Virginia.

Much like the contemporary newspapers that put their retractions back on page E37, the post-hype aspects of the case may have escaped the average news consumer.  Suffice it to say that the "reporter", Sabrina Rubin Erdeley, made up a story, purporting to have quoted the alleged victim, called "Jackie" in the article, as having been effectively gang-raped at the UVa Phi Kappa Psi house.

Once the Phi Psis started to notice that elements of the story didn't add up -- starting with the fact that there was no party at their house on the night the party where it was supposed to have happened took place -- all the facts of the case subsequently fell apart.  The person described as the leader of the "assault" was supposed to have worked at a place where no one in the fraternity worked, for example.  Phone calls she said she made that night didn't match her cell phone records.  And interviews with fellow students started to paint the picture of someone who, politely, had issues with reality.

So it was no surprise when the Charlottesville police explained that, after careful investigation, the story in Rolling Stone was in their words, "suspended", because there was zero evidence that anything had happened and, while they could reopen it if anyone came forward with additional evidence, the allegation was made up and a waste of their time.

Rolling Stone had already admitted as much. Back in December, they published a statement that “in the face of new information, there now appear to be discrepancies in Jackie’s account" and, hilariously if it weren't so tragic for the accused, "we have come to the conclusion that our trust in her was misplaced.”  They then added that the whole fault lay with the magazine for not properly reporting it, and absolved "Jackie" of blame.

Let us set aside for the moment the fact that "Jackie" exists, but refused to speak to police after December, and set aside the fact that the reporter, Miss Erdeley, should not have a job in journalism anywhere again, even in Yahoo News.  Let us set aside the fact that by "absolving Jackie of blame", the magazine has effectively said that something actually did happen -- leaving open the rape narrative even in the absence of an actual rape.  Let us also set aside the fact that the entire Greek system at UVa was shut down for weeks in the aftermath of reporting on an event that didn't occur.

Journalistic ethics demand that the Rolling Stone magazine stand up and have the brass cogliones to apologize profusely to the members of the UVa chapter of Phi Kappa Psi for the worst, most shameful false accusation -- that of allowing forcible rape to have occurred in their chapter house.  The editor in chief of Rolling Stone is obligated, by all that is right, to take full blame for its own slanderous fake reporting and for allowing the ridiculous punishment of the Greek system in general, and Phi Kappa Psi in particular.

It won't happen.  Liberals don't apologize because they think they're never wrong, and the media rarely do, because it devalues the product they are selling.  By failing to put any of the blame on this "Jackie" or, worse, protecting her name from publication, they have not only not apologized, but left out there the shred of possibility -- even though there is none -- that "something" must have happened.

Still, the Rolling Stone should start a trend and stand up and say "We facilitated a lie.  We apologize profusely to the Phi Kappa Psi fraternity and the University's Greek system.  We will take proactive steps to ensure that falsehoods do not appear in our magazine again."

We will be waiting a long time for that one.

Copyright 2015 by Robert Sutton