And, Yes, I Am Alive

Posted on June 30th, 2015 in Uncategorized | 5 Comments »

Sorry guys. I’ve know I’ve been a complete bust as a blogger lately. I’ve just had so much going on—lots of (good) stuff at the day job, and two young kids who will soak up all the time and attention that I can give them. But thank you for bearing with me.

Here are some things that I would have written about had I had the time to write about them.

1) Emma Sulkowicz’s bizarre performance art video
2) The abundance of wildlife that has been traipsing across my yard—and in my home—this summer
3) Presidential politics and the Supreme Court
4) My deep, deep desire to go see one of the upcoming Grateful Dead shows—and why I have resisted the urge
5) Various literary frauds
6) A-Rod and the absence of steroids
7) The competitive world of suburban children’s birthday parties
8) Why Hillary is vulnerable
9) So much more

So I will try to get back on track promptly.

I’m Still Here

Posted on May 26th, 2015 in Uncategorized | 34 Comments »

My apologies for the fact that I haven’t written much lately. It’s been an unusually busy time at the day job.

I did want to let folks know that, yes, as some of you have figured out, I was subpoenaed because of this blog. The subpoena, which was delivered by a very nice guy straight to my office, came as a result of comments made on a post about the trial of Mark Zimny, an education consultant who was recently found guilty of committing fraud against one of his clients. I wrote one post about the subject a few years back, but that post has become a sort of bulletin board for all those interested in the case—and apparently it has a small but passionate following.

One of the commenters appeared to be a member of the jury in Zimny’s trial, and his/her comment suggested that the jury had begun discussing the case among themselves before receiving the judge’s instructions, which may or may not be grounds for a mistrial.

The subpoena, which actually came from the district attorney involved in prosecuting the case, compelled me to provide the IP address of the commenter.

(As any commenter on this blog knows, I do not require registration for comments, though I do have to approve any comment which contains a hyperlink. Therefore, an IP address is the only information that I could provide about a commenter.)

I got the subpoena on a Friday; I was compelled to appear in court on Monday morning. It came with a check for $45, apparently to cover round-trip transportation between New York and Boston.

Deeply irritating.

I consulted with a friend who works in media law for an international media conglomerate, and asked him about their policy regarding the anonymity of commenters. He advised me that his conglomerate does not provide it, and that most media firms do not believe that preserving the anonymity of commenters is a First Amendment issue. Which is a good thing for all us to bear in mind.

On Monday morning, I emailed the information to the district attorney. I’ve had no communication with them since, and I have no idea if anything came of it.

As to the Zimny post—it has been nothing but a pain in the ass for me. (I previously had to delete a threatening comment.)

I am still debating whether to simply delete it.

In any case, apologies for the silence on this end. Stay tuned—there’s more stuff coming.

Now Nicole Eramo is Suing

Posted on May 12th, 2015 in Uncategorized | 74 Comments »

The Washington Post reports that UVA dean Nicole Eramo is suing Rolling Stone for $7.5 million.

Eramo, who is the university’s chief administrator dealing with sexual assaults, argues in the lawsuit that the story destroyed her credibility, permanently damaged her reputation and caused her emotional distress. She assailed the account as containing numerous falsehoods that the magazine could have avoided if it had worked to verify the story of its main character, a student named Jackie who alleged she was gang raped in 2012 and that the university mishandled her case.

“Rolling Stone and Erdely’s highly defamatory and false statements about Dean Eramo were not the result of an innocent mistake,” according to the lawsuit, which was filed in Charlottesville Circuit Court. “They were the result of a wanton journalist who was more concerned with writing an article that fulfilled her preconceived narrative about the victimization of women on American college campuses, and a malicious publisher who was more concerned about selling magazines to boost the economic bottom line for its faltering magazine, than they were about discovering the truth or actual facts.”

It’s actually pretty hard to argue with those allegations. There’s no question that Sabrina Rubin Erdely was more concerned with writing an article that was about fulfilling her preconceived narrative than she was about telling the truth; stupidly, she essentially admitted that before the whole thing started to fall apart. And Rolling Stone was so sloppy, so careless, you’d have to think that buzz and the resulting boost in advertising/circulation were significant rationales for publishing this story.

Given that Rolling Stone and Erdeley both had ample evidence to show that Eramo handled the Jackie situation quite well, yet still chose to suggest very much the opposite, I think Eramo is going to have a strong case.

Generally, I don’t like to see magazines sued, because it’s a tough business and most journalists really do try to do their work well and conscientiously. But in this case, I can’t be that upset. Rolling Stone’s article was the worst piece of journalism I’ve seen in many years. In this one case at least, I’d say that publishing such crap does more harm to the profession than the libel suits that follow it.

Remembering Dave Goldberg…Truthfully

Posted on May 4th, 2015 in Uncategorized | 54 Comments »

I was shocked and saddened on Saturday to learn of the death of Dave Goldberg, the CEO of Survey Monkey who is probably better known as Mrs. Sheryl Sandberg, at age 47. I don’t know him or his wife, but as a guy about that age who also has two young kids, I was very much affected by the news of his death.

Readers of this blog will know that I am not a fan of Sandberg, but that’s irrelevant: It’s a tragedy to lose a husband and father at such a young age. My heart goes out to his family.

That said, I was startled to see the massive, above-the-fold story on page 1 of today’s Times Business section: “Dave Goldberg Was Lifelong Women’s Advocate.”

Are you kidding me?

The Times’ Jodi Kantor, who is usually quite good, wrote this piece of hype tripe.

According to Kantor, Goldberg grew up in progressive Minnesota, where, a friend says, “there was woman power in every aspect of our lives.”

Later, when Dave Goldberg was in high school and his prom date, Jill Chessen, stayed silent in a politics class, he chastised her afterward. He said, “You need to speak up,” Ms. Chessen recalled in an interview. “They need to hear your voice.”

Later, when Goldberg was CEO of a digital music company and one of his employees had a baby, he—wait for it—”kept giving her challenging assignments…but also let her work from home one day a week.”

After Goldberg’s music company was bought by Yahoo, Kantor writes, “Mr. Goldberg became known for distributing roses to all the women in the office on Valentine’s Day.”

This is feminism? I would have thought that a boss giving roses to women who work for him might fall into the opposite ledger, even on Valentine’s Day. But I guess the definition of feminism is different depending on what social class you belong to. If you went to Harvard, according to the New York Times, you can give roses to your female employees; if you went to SUNY-Albany, that’s a serious no-no.

Here’s another example of Goldberg’s work on behalf of women:

“When Mellody Hobson, a friend and finance executive, wrote a chapter of “Lean In” about women of color for the college edition of the book, Mr. Goldberg gave her feedback on the draft, a clue to his deep involvement.”

Mellody Hobson, if you don’t know, is one of the world’s richest women, and not just because she’s a partner in a Chicago investment firm, but because she’s married to Star Wars creator George Lucas. Reading her chapter is not exactly philanthropy; it’s a sign of how well-connected the world’s richest people are. There are greater efforts to make on your wife’s behalf.

As Goldberg and Sandberg became immensely rich, Kantor continues, they hashed out their roles in their marriage.

He paid the bills, she planned the birthday parties, and both often left their offices at 5:30 so they could eat dinner with their children before resuming work afterward.

Never mind that this is a predictably gender-based allocation of responsibilities (he handles the money, she makes social plans), but…so frigging what? Every single married couple in America has a division of labor something like this. It may be worth pointing out that both could leave their offices at 5:30, because no one was in a position to tell them that they couldn’t. And when they got home—a home, by the way, with six bedrooms, a gym, a screening room, an office, a basement with full bar and wine cellar, and so on—they likely found their kids freshly scrubbed, dinner being made, and the house spotlessly clean—because they are rich, and have people to do this sort of thing for them. And I am not begrudging them their wealth, which they earned fair and square—just saying it’s a lot easier to be a model parent when have essentially limitless financial resources.

I want to elaborate on what bothers me about all the commemoration of Goldberg as a feminist champion, but first, let me say that none of what I write is intended as a slight against Dave Goldberg. He sounds like a really impressive, good human being. So far as I can tell, he never proclaimed himself a great humanitarian, so my criticisms are only intended for those who present him thusly.

Because to champion Goldberg as a “lifelong woman’s advocate” based on these works is ridiculous. Goldberg did the same things that millions of men do every day in their lives: We treat women with respect and we support them professionally and personally. This is not, frankly, a big deal, unless you’re comparing him to Isis. Or Floyd Mayweather.

So calling Goldberg a “lifelong advocate for women” is kind of like calling Sheryl Sandberg a feminist—it’s true, but in a mild, setting-the-bar-low kind of way. This is feminism-lite. Wow—you let your new mom employee work from home one day a week. That’s perfectly fine, but it’s really not a big deal. You read a book chapter written by a wealthy woman who is writing an essay on feminism for another wealthy woman. That’s not advocating for women; that’s just good business.

The problem, I think, is that you can’t say Dave Goldberg ever really risked anything for his advocacy, ever really challenged anything that was difficult—at least, not that I’ve ever seen written about in public. He and his wife were a good match that way. Sheryl Sandberg’s answer for women fighting the glass ceiling was to speak up more, to “lean in”—as if institutionalized corporate sexism were so easily conquered. I don’t think Ellen Pao deserved to win her lawsuit against Kleiner Perkins, but it’s possible that she did more for women in Silicon Valley than Sheryl Sandberg ever has. She certainly risked more. When asked by Bloomberg about Pao, by the way, Sandberg said this:

“I thought what was so interesting about the trial is that so many women, not just in technology, but across industries, see their own experiences there.”

I can’t imagine a safer, less threatening answer than that—it completely neutralizes the idea that tech has a special problem with sex discrimination, and refrains from commenting one way or another on the merits of Pao’s case. It’s the kind of bland, meaningless pap that gives credence to all the rumors that Sandberg aspires to run for public office. She’d probably do great at that.

Finally, let’s remember that Goldberg and Sandberg were an immensely rich power couple. Their wealth is relevant: It makes them a sexy media story that gets them a lot of friendly ink—especially as Facebook becomes an increasingly vital partner for established media.

But at the same time, Goldberg and Sandberg’s wealth should have liberated them to do far more than they have done—at least to be seriously considered as lifelong advocates for women. Because let’s face it: rearranging your work schedule or making sure you’re home to kiss your kids goodnight is a helluva lot easier when you have the best child care money can buy; the best schools money can pay for; and when you are the boss of your own company or very close. This is easy. Kantor doesn’t provide one example of something Goldberg did where he actually risked social ostracism or money or continued employment or—well, anything, really.

What is hard is really fighting for women against people who fight back when you don’t have resources, don’t have money, don’t have allies, don’t have media access, don’t have skills. Erin Brockovich. Norma Rae. Mulala Yousafazai, the girl in Afghanistan who got shot by the Taliban for advocating education for girls. These are advocates for women. Giving your new mom employee a day to work from home is a perfectly fine thing. But it doesn’t make you a women’s advocate in any meaningful way.

One final note on this: Neither Sandberg nor Survey Monkey have said a word about how Goldberg died, and the mainstream media has said nothing about it. I have never before seen a person whose death generated such an enormous amount of attention—particularly such a young person—without a single established news source addressing the lack of a stated cause of death. Dave Goldberg’s story isn’t fully told yet.

Update: The Times has a report saying that Goldberg may have died after exercising.

UVA Dean Nicole Eramo Speaks

Posted on April 22nd, 2015 in Uncategorized | 88 Comments »

…and it’s not pretty for Rolling Stone.

I don’t have time to comment much on her letter just yet, except to say that, really, the idea that Sabrina Rubin Erdely will continue to work in journalism seems ever more bizarre.

Final Open Letter to Rolling Stone

The Voice of Denial

Posted on April 14th, 2015 in Uncategorized | 79 Comments »

I got a pingback on my blog—that basically means someone referenced me in another blog—from a blog called “Hell Funny.” The author of the blog is a writer for an alternative newspaper and a self-described survivor of sexual assault. (She says she was in “an abusive relationship,” but, at least in this post, doesn’t give any specifics. In this blog post, she does, but the definition of sexual assault that she seems to be suggesting is…well, you be the judge.)

The argument of this woman: Journalism has let her and other sexual assault victims down by questioning Jackie’s story.

She writes:

How could Richard Bradley, the editor-in-chief of Worth magazine, be so dismissive as to reduce the account to “apocryphal tropes”? How can journalism, the profession that I so deeply love and the field that saved me, be failing me as a survivor of the trauma that has so shaped the journalist I am?

Journalists calling for higher level of scrutiny in sexual assault stories, or suggesting that more cases be treated as potential false reports, are not improving journalism. They are falling back on rape-culture tropes and weighing survivors down with an even heavier burden of proof than the one we must already carry. Instead, they should be educating themselves on the realities of trauma and focusing on how to improve their reporting on sexual violence.

She posted this today, by the way.

I’m all for learning more about the realities of trauma and reporting on sexual violence if that’s what you’re covering. But there’s a problem: Jackie’s story wasn’t about sexual violence. It was about an emotionally disturbed girl who appears to have been engaging in catfishing to make someone jealous. The only sexual manipulation that we know for sure happened here was perpetuated by Jackie.

So that line about how “journalists calling for a higher level of scrutiny in sexual assault stories…are not improving journalism?” Sorry, I can’t agree. A higher level of scrutiny would have saved people an enormous amount of pain in the Tawana Brawley case…the Duke lacrosse case…the Patrick Witt case…and the University of Virginia case. (I’m sure there are plenty of other examples.)

It doesn’t mean we abandon sensitivity when reporting on those who allege rape; journalists should be sensitive to the victims of any crimes, especially ones that are deeply physically and emotionally painful. It does mean that we don’t abandon our professionalism.

In the End, It’s All About Rape Culture—or the Lack Thereof

Posted on April 7th, 2015 in Uncategorized | 361 Comments »

I’ve taken a couple of days before responding to Columbia Journalism School’s report on the Rolling Stone/Sabrina Rubin Erdely/Jackie fiasco. There’s always pressure to provide near-instantaneous reactions to news events, but the report is long and substantive. I wanted to take some time with it.

At last, I’ve finished the thing —and I have plenty of reactions.

The blog post below is long, probably too long, so forgive me, and if you don’t feel like reading all of it, just skip to the last couple paragraphs.

Anyone reading this blog probably know the gist of the report. (And thank you all for your comments—I’ve really enjoyed reading them.) Here’s the takeaway: Rolling Stone screwed up in every way imaginable, but no one’s going to get fired, the magazine has no plans to change its editorial or fact-checking procedures, and Sabrina Rubin Erdely will again grace the magazine’s pages with her Hemingway-esque prose and ironclad reporting.

This heads-will-not-roll resolution, along with comments from owner and editor-in-chief Jann Wenner that again seemed to put the onus of responsibility on Jackie, doesn’t seem to have quelled the anger over Rolling Stone’s bogus journalism. (Although part of me agrees with Wenner: Jackie is a liar, and we shouldn’t forget that. She does not escape responsibility because, as I heard managing editor Will Dana say on NPR the the other day, she’s “a girl.” She’s a college junior, a young woman, a legal adult, and of an age where, if you called her a girl, many women of her age would take offense. Let’s put it this way: She is old enough to know better, and to suggest otherwise is sexist.)

Anyway. I thought the Columbia report was…pretty good. Its authors clearly put a lot of time and thought into it. Its strength—and, depending on your perspective, its weakness—was the tight focus of its scope. There is a lot that Steve Coll and his colleagues did not get into or did not get into much: whether anyone should be fired, catfishing, the Department of Education’s crusade against the “epidemic” of campus sexual assault.

But in terms of what it did do—investigate the reporting, editing and fact-check processes at Rolling Stone—I thought the report was very solid.

In all immodest candor, I also thought that Columbia dean Steve Coll et al essentially confirmed all the doubts that I raised six months ago.

Again, in the spirt of full disclosure, there is one thing that bugs me about the reference to me in the report, the acknowledgment of my “early if speculative” blog posting calling Sabrina Rubin Erdely’s article into question. I’ve encountered this theme—that I was “speculating”—repeatedly since I wrote my blog, and it frustrates me. By framing what I wrote as speculation, a number of mainstream publications, such as the Times and the New Yorker, feel free to ignore my blog when detailing how Erdely’s story was dismantled by press critics.

The supposition that I was “speculating” misses the larger point of what I wrote;the foundation of my argument was not “a hunch,” but basic professionalism. Any decent editor who is honest with him or herself would tell you the same: Even if Jackie’s story turned out to be true, it still shouldn’t have been published as it was reported and written. Will Dana should have sent it back to the editor and writer with a note saying: “You don’t have this story. Go back and do your jobs.” It was not “speculative” to say that the story should not have been published without further reporting; it was Journalism 101, the kind of thing that they teach (I assume) in the first couple weeks at Columbia Journalism School. And I didn’t have to have access to all the fact-checker’s notes and interview transcripts to know that; any reader with some small degree of journalism experience could know that—and, frankly, should have.

My suspicion that Jackie’s story was not true was based on the idea that if it were, Rolling Stone would have shown us the reporting to back it up. Since Rolling Stone did not, one had to conclude that the evidence to support Jackie did not exist.

There. Got that off my chest.

I want to go through a few specific things that I jotted down as I read the CJS report, and then I’d like to conclude with where I think it does fail in one very important way.

1) In Sabrina Rubin Erdely’s public statement, she makes no apology to the fraternity she defamed. I imagine she feared, or was told, that doing so might have legal implications. I doubt that that would be the case; whether that was her intention or not, she obviously harmed the fraternity. There can be no doubt about that. So it is particularly galling that instead of apologizing to people on whom she inflicted tangible harm, she apologizes to ” any victims of sexual assault who may feel fearful as a result of my article.” What about people whom she falsely accused of rape?

Rubin Erdely owes Phi Psi and its members—probably all fraternity members, frankly—an apology. That she refuses to acknowledge her obligation says something about her character.

It also suggests that, despite everything, she still believes, whether Jackie’s story is true or not—it obviously isn’t—some larger truth about rape culture and the predilections of fraternity members. Seen in this light, her refusal to apologize actually strengthens the fraternity’s lawsuit; it reinforces the idea that Sabrina Rubin Erdely really, really doesn’t like fraternities—and was determined to portray their members as rapists.

2) The Columbia report notes that Rolling Stone refused to waive its attorney client privilege and give Coll access to their lawyers. The tautological reason Rolling Stone gave: That to do so would be waiving attorney-client privilege. (Get it? They wouldn’t waive attorney-client privilege because that would mean waiving attorney-client privilege.)

The magazine’s lack of transparency casts doubt on virtually all of what Rolling Stone has to say in its own defense.

Here’s why: With a story this sensitive, good libel lawyers—and I assume Rolling Stone has very good lawyers—are, or should be, very much in the mix. On sensitive stories, they become something akin to editors with a law degree. You simply could not publish such an accusatory article without having it very heavily lawyered; there is, or ought to be, a lot of discussion between the editor-in-chief and the magazine’s libel lawyer(s). That Rolling Stone won’t disclose their lawyers’ advice suggests that the magazine did not take it, or did the least amount possible to satisfy legal concerns. After all, if the lawyers argued that the magazine had done excellent work and was on safe ground publishing the story, disclosing that information would likely have discouraged any potential lawsuits—like the one Phi Psi is now pursuing against the magazine.

In other words: It’s highly likely that Rolling Stone had a prepublication warning that this story had significant problems—and published the story anyway. Because they knew it was a sexy story, and they were willing to take the risk.

3) Sabrina Rubin Erdely claims that she spoke to Jackie several days after publication and just happened to ask her, “Oh, by the way, what was Drew’s real name? You can tell me now.” [I’m paraphrasing, of course.] And that when Jackie fudged on the spelling of Drew’s last name, Erdeley suddenly got suspicious.

This anecdote is, I suspect, a load of hooey. There were, after all, many, many pre-publication indicators that Jackie was not a reliable source, yet Erdely never got suspicious then. Jackie won’t return calls, she threatens to back out of the story, Jackie’s mother won’t return calls…. Let me tell you something: If you have a source who’s claiming she was gang-raped, and tells you to talk to her mother for corroboration, and the mother won’t return your phone calls—you get nervous fast.

It’s incomprehensible to me that there could be red flags like this and only now, post-publication, when Jackie misspells Drew’s last name, does her spider sense start to tingle. (It’s worth noting, by the way, that the reason Jackie would have claimed she didn’t know the exact spelling of Drew’s last name would be to hide the fact that there was no Drew, and make Drew’s non-existence harder to establish—a fine example of Jackie’s calculated deception to keep her horrible fable from coming apart.)

Erdely claims that she asked Jackie this question at this point because Drew was “at-large” and “dangerous.” That claim does not pass the smell test. For one thing, this would have been the case pre-publication as well as post. For another, in the wake of the 2.7 million readers Erdely’s story attracted, it’s implausible that Drew was sitting back is his frat boy lair planning his next gang rape. This is not Silence of the Lambs we’re talking about.

I think Erdely told this story to try to look like she was being responsible and thorough, even if only after the fact. My bet is that she was probably reacting to something—post-publication phone calls from skeptics? my blog post? the reporting of T. Rees Shapiro or Hanna Rosin?—that rattled her, and she was starting to panic, and trying to confirm what she should have confirmed (or not) before the article was published.

Which is another way of saying that I don’t think Jackie is the only liar in this matter.

4) Sabrina Rubin Erdely is a terrible journalist. This harsh but inescapable truth is born out again and again throughout the Coll report, though its authors are kind enough not to connect the dots. (Not me.) There are many reasons, but the most basic one is that Erdely knew what story she wanted to write before she wrote it—and her faith in her own righteousness blinded her to everything that could have prevented this disaster.

More on the subject of Rubin Erdely’s terrible journalism later.

5) The one true thing about Jackie’s story…is that it disproves Sabrina Rubin Erdely’s story. Erdely used Jackie to argue that UVa is indifferent to allegations of sexual assault. But as we know now, the university took Jackie’s story very seriously. Jackie spoke with a dean who subsequently checked up on her multiple times; was offered counseling; was offered the opportunity of pursuing the matter through university channels or through the police; and was recommended to a rape survivor group. Then, she was taken seriously when she claimed that she’d been hit in the head with a bottle, although there was ample reason to suggest that this incident was fabricated. Does this sound like official indifference to you?

Reading between the lines, it’s hard not to to think that the officials at UVa who heard Jackie’s story didn’t believe it—and yet they took it seriously, handled it professionally, and did what they could given that their complainant refused to file a complaint. Yet they are maligned by Erdely as indifferent, uncaring.

So why did Rubin Erdely choose as her avatar of official indifference a woman whose story actually disproved her thesis? Because Jackie’s tale of gang rape was just too sexy not to lead with.

6) Sabrina Rubin Erdely is a terrible journalist, part II.

In the Columbia report, Erdely explains that if she had spoken to the three friends whom Jackie encountered on the night in question—as she should have—and the three friends contradicted Jackie’s story—as, of course, they later would—she would have instantly abandoned Jackie and gone in search of a rape victim free of those “contradictions.”

As the report puts it:

If Erdely had learned Ryan’s account that Jackie had fabricated their conversation, she would have changed course immediately, to research other UVA rape cases free of such contradictions, she said later.

(Note how the word “contradictions” is actually here a euphemism for “lies.”)

Let’s consider that for a moment, because it sounds virtuous, but isn’t. Sabrin Rubin Erdely started with a thesis and went in search of someone—and some place—that fit her thesis. She found Jackie and the University of Virginia. But, she admits, if she had discovered that Jackie was a liar, it wouldn’t have caused her to question her thesis. (To which the only response is, if that doesn’t cause you to question your thesis, what would?) Instead, she’d just go find another person who would better conform to what she already wanted to write.

And if that person proved to be a fraud as well, she’d find another…and another…

I am not a lawyer, so I don’t know if Phi Psi has a strong case against Erdely and Rolling Stone. But if the famed “actual malice” test—you are intending to defame someone—is relevant, it seems to me that Erdely has just given the fraternity some explicit evidence of such malice. Even if her “victim” was a liar, Erdely has no doubt: Frat boys are rapists.

7) There are significant discrepancies between Erdely’s recollection of the editing process and those of her editor, Sean Woods; these are not easily explained by differing interpretations or foggy memories. At least one of these people is lying.

8) As the Columbia report points out, Sabrina Rubin Erdely is a terrible journalist (part III).

Consider her outreach to the fraternity officers; she crafts emails that are deliberately vague and essentially impossible to rebut; they suggest that Erdely did not want Jackie’s story to be disproved.

“I’ve become aware of allegations of gang rape that have been made against the UVA chapter of Phi Kappa Psi,” Erdely wrote. “Can you comment on those allegations?”

That is a deeply and deliberately dishonest way to ask for comment about a specific incident; the recipient of that email couldn’t possibly comment on such a vague question. It makes me think that Erdely wanted to make it look like the fraternity was stonewalling, because that would reinforce her caricature of fraternities as sinister and predatory. And, of course, because she wanted Jackie’s story to be true; she had a lot to gain if it were.

9) Sabrina Rubin Erdely saw what she wanted to see.

All of Jackie’s dissembling—her failure to return phone calls, her evasiveness, her refusal to name names, her threat to pull out of the story—were behaviors that should have set off alarms in any good reporter. Not Erdely. To her, Jackie’s “behavior seemed very consistent with a victim of trauma.” In other words: Every single thing that Jackie did that would, to most reporters, suggest she was an unreliable source, actually confirmed to Erdely that Jackie was a reliable source. In that scenario, there is literally nothing that Jackie could do that would not then be evidence of her credibility. If she swore on a Bible that she was lying, it would only prove how “traumatized” she was.

10) Sabrina Rubin Erdely is not just a horrible reporter, she is a deeply dishonest one. According to the Coll report, two sources in the story publicly claimed that they did not say that Erdely attributes to them.

Allen W. Groves, the University dean of students, and Nicole Eramo, an assistant dean of students, separately wrote to the authors of this report that the story’s account of their actions was inaccurate.

Those claims are detailed in a footnote in the report; they should not be a footnote, because they speak to the credibility of Erdely’s reporting throughout. But they are worth acknowledging here.

Eramo’s letter to Coll is long and worth reading; this, to me, is the most telling section.

….contrary to the quote attributed to me in Rolling Stone, I have never called the University of Virginia “the rape school,” nor have I ever suggested — either professionally or privately — that parents would not “want to send their daughter” to UVA.

Those were enormously damning quotes when they were published, essential to Erdely’s argument, and at the time, they struck me as remarkable. A university employee would say these things? That didn’t feel right. I believe Eramo; at the least, Erdely misquoted her; at the worst, Erdely made up quotes.

Allen Groves wrong a long and detailed letter in which he defends himself against Erdely’s portrayal of him as glib and dismissive about the fact that UVa was being investigated by the Department of Education for Title IX violations. You should read the letter; it’s fascinating. But the most telling part is when he recommends interested parties to watch a video of the meeting that Erdely describes in a way that really does make Groves sound like an ass.

Let me tell you something: When someone who is written about as being dismissive of rape encourages people to watch a video of the incident in question, he’s probably been presented unfairly. I believe Groves.

(And by the way: A fact-checker should have watched that video and pushed back against the way Erdely characterized what Groves said and how he said it. A hundred bucks says that didn’t happen.)

10) Sabrina Rubin Erdely is a terrible journalist (part IV) who puts the blame for her mistakes on other people.

“In retrospect,” she tells Coll about not calling the alleged rapists, “I wish somebody had pushed me harder.”

No. Just…no. You’re accusing people of rape. You don’t need an editor to tell you to get their side of the story. You need a conscience.

11) Managine editor Will Dana’s lack of oversight is hard to explain—and excuse.

He tells Coll that he did not know of the holes in reporting, editing and fact-checking the piece contained when it arrived at his desk. It is incomprehensible to me that a managing editor of a national magazine could be publishing a story of this gravity—containing such horrific allegations—without being deeply involved in it every step of the way. Even if he weren’t: All you had to do is read the damn thing to know that it was ridden with problems.

And again: The lawyers must have pointed out these problems. So I’m again forced to wonder if people are being honest here. Even if Dana didn’t know about the deeply flawed editorial process when the story landed in his in-box—which he should have—he must have known about it at some point.

But, to be fair, the fact that he actually went ahead and published the story suggests that he is telling the truth—that he was completely asleep at the wheel.

12) I have seen a lot of published fretting—not just in Erdely’s statement—about whether this fiasco will discourage victims of rape from going public. This sentiment, which I have seen far more of than I have seen empathy for the people Erdely falsely accused of rape, strikes me as odd. A horrific story of rape, which, following its publication in a national magazine, had an enormous impact, is discovered to be a fraud. And the response is: Well, we should all worry about the potential impact on rape victims’ ability to come forward to speak the truth.

I have a different take: Let’s agree that if you don’t lie and claim that you were gang-raped as part of a fraternity initation ritual, you’ll be treated with respect. And if people treat you disrespectfully based simply on past frauds, then shame on them.

But in the meantime, let’s remember that the only known victims of this story are members of the Phi Psi fraternity, fraternity members in general and the University of Virginia. These individuals and institutions suffered in tangible ways; you might even say that some of the fraternity members were “traumatized.” The argument that the people we should worry about first are rape victims could actually—if I may borrow a phrase from Sabrina Rubin Erdely—re-traumatize them.

13) Rolling Stone should not have taken down Rubin Erdely’s article. Doing so doesn’t feel like an attempt to do the right thing or correct the record; it feels like an attempt to whitewash history. Kind of like when Vogue took its profile of Syria’s absolutely lovely first lady (“A Rose in the Desert“) off its website….

I’m wrapping up here, so thank for your patience, and if you can, bear with me just a little bit longer.

Remember how I said that I thought Columbia made one big, fundamental mistake?

Here it is.

The only part of Sabrina Rubin Erdely’s article closely examined by Columbia was the lede, which detailed Jackie’s incredible story of gang rape.

Columbia should, in fact, have closely examined the entirety of Erdely’s article.

Because ultimately, this article was not really about Jackie. Take a pencil, lop the Jackie story off the top, and the article could have run pretty much as it was.

The article was about the existence of rape culture and university indifference to said culture.

Jackie’s story was supposed to be proof of that, and Jackie’s story was a lie. But no one at Rolling Stone—not Erdely, not Dana, not Woods, not Wenner—seems to have considered just the possibility that maybe, must maybe, they were wrong about this.

Jackie’s lies do not in and of themselves disprove Rubin Erdely’s rape-culture thesis.

But if you examined the rest of the article with the same critical eye that you examine Jackie’s story, you’ll find that it, too, is deeply deceptive. “A Rape on Campus” is fashioned on selective presentation of material, the use of bogus or discredited statistics, quotes that are either fabricated or taken out of context, unconfirmed allegations, anonymous sources, the deliberate exclusion of evidence contrary to the author’s thesis, and material that is either fabricated or presented in a way that is so profoundly misleading it can only be evidence of incompetence or dishonesty. (The multiple verses of a UVa fight song, for example, that nobody at UVa has actually heard.)

Sabrina Rubin Erdely was not first and foremost trying to obtain justice for Jackie; that was incidental. Her intention was to prove the existence of rape culture and to shame and ostracize those whom she fervently believed participated in it.

When you know how Rubin Erdely went about her work, you are forced to conclude that she failed, that the rest of her story is as unbelievable as Jackie’s story—it’s just concocted in a slicker way. In the ongoing debate about sexual assault on campus, we must remember this.


Blogger’s note: I’ve made some small tweaks and grammatical corrections since my original post.

Responding Soon

Posted on April 6th, 2015 in Uncategorized | 137 Comments »

Thanks for all the feedback about the release of Columbia Journalism School report on the Rolling Stone fiasco.

I’m taking some time to read the report carefully—it’s long!—and will post some reactions shortly.

Friday Afternoon Video

Posted on March 27th, 2015 in Uncategorized | 6 Comments »

This is Holy Moly, from Matthew E. White. You may not have heard of him; I barely have. He’s good.

Some Thoughts on Ellen Pao’s Marriage

Posted on March 25th, 2015 in Uncategorized | 51 Comments »

I’ve been following the Silicon Valley story of Ellen Pao with interest. Pao is the former partner at venture capital firm Kleiner Perkins who is now suing the firm, alleging sex discrimination. She claims that she was treated differently than male employees were; Kleiner claims, basically, that she wasn’t very good.
The case has attracted enormous interest in Silicon Valley as an avatar for discussion about gender imbalance in the tech world.

It’s certainly interesting, from that perspective. But I’ve been following it closely for another reason: Ellen Pao is married to a man whom I’ve written about in depth. His name is Buddy Fletcher, and and he has a history of filing dubious lawsuits inspired by perceived slights and financial desperation. In my opinion he is, at the very least, a scoundrel; the forces of law may yet prove him a criminal.

I wrote about Fletcher in Boston magazine; he’s a Harvard graduate, an African-American man, who went to Wall Street and tried to make a lot of money. He left his first job at the brokerage firm Kidder Peabody and promptly filed a lawsuit alleging racial discrimination. Like Ellen Pao, Fletcher charged that he was treated differently from the great majority of employees whose identity did not match his. In my article, I found that the grounds for that lawsuit were thin at best. Fletcher didn’t win it—in fact, he lost the ruling on whether he was discriminated against—but he was awarded back pay of about a million dollars. He claimed that as a victory, and the press played along. So when Fletcher opened a hedge fund that appeared to generate remarkable, almost unbelievable returns, the press proclaimed him a financial genius—an African-American who had taken lily-white Wall Street by storm.

He is broke now, because he is not a financial genius, and there is ample suggestion that he is broke even though he siphoned money from his hedge fund—including retirement money from Louisiana firefighters—to support a lavish lifestyle that included the ownership of three apartments at the Dakota, John Lennon’s old apartment building in New York. (If you don’t know it—it’s pricey.) That didn’t stop him, after he tried to buy a fourth and was rejected by the board after it scrutinized the state of his finances, from suing the apartment building for racial discrimination. That suit trudges endlessly on, even though Fletcher has gone through teams of lawyers because he consistently declines to pay them.

One other fact about Fletcher that’s worth knowing: Until he fled New York, married Ellen Pao and had a baby, he had lived his entire adult life as a gay man. Not bisexual—gay.

The judge in Pao’s case has ruled that none of this is admissible, and I think that’s the right decision; in court, Pao’s allegations should stand or fall on their own merits. The mainstream media seems to have decided that it’s sexist or something to write about her marriage, and so I haven’t seen a single smart article that really explores her relationship with Fletcher and whether it’s had any impact on her decision to sue Kleiner Perkins.

But I can’t help but think that her relationship with Fletcher is relevant, even if you can’t establish that legally. I’ll be honest: First, the fact that Pao married him makes me wonder about her, and not just because of his sexual orientation. It just wouldn’t take much digging to find out that Fletcher’s financial ethics are highly questionable. Either Pao didn’t care—not great—or didn’t know. In which case, you have to wonder what kind of a venture capitalist she is. If can’t do basic due diligence on a marital prospect about whom much has been written, how could you be trusted to give good advice on a company in which to invest millions?

It’s also hard not to wonder if the suit isn’t inspired by Fletcher in some way; until the past couple of years, he had made quite a lot of money off allegations of racism and the use of race as a marketing tool.

And the other way it could have been inspired by him, of course, is due to the fact that he needs the money. He is more than broke; he’s deeply in debt. I don’t know how many lawsuits he’s now defending himself against, but the latest was filed a day or so ago.

Ellen Pao could conceivably make tens of millions of dollars off her lawsuit—the jury is deliberating even as I write this—which probably wouldn’t resolve all of her husband’s financial issues, but would certainly help.

And that’s why Pao’s case, much as some people would like it to be a litmus test of sexism in Silicon Valley, is just a terrible way to air these issues. It—and Ellen Pao—are far too complicated for that.