Too many good points just to summarize or quote a few. If you are interested in journalism, check it out.
New Republic
New Republic
Rolling Stone Followup
- Thread starter What Would Jesus Do?
- Start date
The New Yorker has a good article out today as well
Rolling Stone and the Temptations of Narrative Journalism
Rolling Stone and the Temptations of Narrative Journalism
Good piece. So is the New Yorker piece. But as the TNR piece points out, it gives the incident too much importance to elevate it to the level of a special Columbia Journalism Review investigation, because it's so obviously just horrible, biased, unprofessional work.
This is nothing new, although it may be an extreme version. Look at the Duke lacrosse team case. Or go back to Janet Cooke's Pulitzer Prize that the Washington Post returned when it discovered she'd made it up.
Or go back to Walter Duranty, who won a Pulitzer at the New York Times writing about the Soviet Union prior to WW2, and simply parroted all the lies of the leaders, knowing them to be lies, because he thought the revolution and subsequent society should be promoted. (And the Times has repeatedly refused calls to return his Pulitzer.)
I'm not sure either of these two pieces is explicit enough, though, on the motivation of the reporters and editors. It was purely political. They wanted these stories to be true. They were so committed to their beliefs that they didn't question a story that affimed those beliefs.
They're still in denial, in a way. Nobody is getting fired, which is ridiculous. And the reporter's apology neglected to mention one group....the fraternity members her lies had libeled. The fraternity is going to sue, and I cannot imagine it losing the case. Good.
This post was edited on 4/7 2:29 PM by Lone Clone
This is nothing new, although it may be an extreme version. Look at the Duke lacrosse team case. Or go back to Janet Cooke's Pulitzer Prize that the Washington Post returned when it discovered she'd made it up.
Or go back to Walter Duranty, who won a Pulitzer at the New York Times writing about the Soviet Union prior to WW2, and simply parroted all the lies of the leaders, knowing them to be lies, because he thought the revolution and subsequent society should be promoted. (And the Times has repeatedly refused calls to return his Pulitzer.)
I'm not sure either of these two pieces is explicit enough, though, on the motivation of the reporters and editors. It was purely political. They wanted these stories to be true. They were so committed to their beliefs that they didn't question a story that affimed those beliefs.
They're still in denial, in a way. Nobody is getting fired, which is ridiculous. And the reporter's apology neglected to mention one group....the fraternity members her lies had libeled. The fraternity is going to sue, and I cannot imagine it losing the case. Good.
This post was edited on 4/7 2:29 PM by Lone Clone
It seems to me the common thread is writers on the left wanting a story to be true so badly they either completely falsify their stories or stop using good journalism because it gets in the way of their narrative. As far as your last paragraph, that's the biggest stunner. Every one associated with this story should be fired. Hopefully not firing them will make the award millions of dollars larger. The University needs to sue also.
Great read and WWJD's link too.
I find it just stunning that no one is getting fired over this. I can't wait for the lawsuits though.
Similar threads
