Media defending the UVa frat rape hoax story

I posted skepticism about the UVa frat gang rape story, and now others are openly calling it a hoax. But the mainstream feminist media is defending the story, even if it turns out to be false.

Rebecca Traister writes in the New Republic:

The dismantling of Erdely’s story — both by anti-feminist agonistes and by those genuinely dismayed by possible journalistic error — would mean that Jackie’s story of being beaten and raped by seven fraternity brothers will be dismissed, and that the reading public will be permitted to slip back into the comforting conviction that stories like Jackie’s aren’t real, that rapes like that don’t happen, that our system works, and that, of course, bitches lie.

That's right. If it turns out, as is likely, that Jackie and Erdely perpetrated a hoax, then the story will be dismissed.

Yes, rapes like that do not happen. That is why I was skeptical. Yes, bitches lie. That is why it is plausible that this story is a hoax.

Just look at how she wants us to believe the story, even if it is false!

The NY Times reports:

But some have also raised questions about the article. Its writer, Sabrina Rubin Erdely, a contributing editor at Rolling Stone, has faced criticism because she has acknowledged in interviews that she did not contact or interview the men accused of the rape. News organizations, seeking to be fair, usually seek comment from those suspected of criminal conduct.

In an interview Tuesday, Ms. Erdely said that she stood by her reporting.

“I am convinced that it could not have been done any other way, or any better,” she said. “I am also not interested in diverting the conversation away from the point of the piece itself.”

Yes, it could have been done better. She could have contacted the accused men, and could have looked for evidence verifying Jackie's story.

But notice her response: exposing her hoax is a diversion from the point of the story!

The subject of the article, who was identified by only her first name, had requested that her assailants not be contacted, and Rolling Stone decided that her situation was too delicate to risk going against her wishes, according to people familiar with the reporting process who declined to be identified because they were not authorized to speak publicly.

This is laughable. The Rolling Stone and Washington Post are going down as using hoax newspapers to promote a political ideology. The National Enquirer has higher standards.

I am reminded of an interview I once read of the director of a movie about the life story of a leftist activist. He was asked several questions of the form "Let me ask about the scene where ... did that really happen?" Each time, the director said no. Finally, the director said something like: "I don't know what you are trying to get at here. I decided at the outset that we were not going to let the facts get in the way of telling this man's story."

This attitude appears common in Hollywood, as shown by recent biographies of scientists Stephen Hawking and Alan Turing. Those big-budget movies got rave reviews on everything except the facts.

I would think that true rape victims would lead the charge in favor of honest reporting. But then I would think that black people would not align themselves with a 100% guilty thug like Michael Brown of Ferguson Missouri. (It appears that they now have a better example to protest, in the Death of Eric Garner.) As it is, I am inclined to believe that sensationalized rape stories are probably false as the mainstream media are happy with one side of the story.