Sing it Now: "The cover of the Rolling Stone. . ."

     Jann, how could you?

     For those of us who grew up with Rolling Stone, who turn to it to follow the bands that ushed our maturity and for in-depth features and investigative pieces, this was a betrayal.

      There are a few must-read magazines:  The New Yorker, Vanity Fair, The Atlantic. . . and
Rolling Stone.

     We need long-form journalism, especially today when everything is condensed and aggragated.

     So, what happened with the "campus rape" story?

     Steve Coll, dean of Columbia Journalism School and Kaitlyn Flanagan of The Atlantic discussed just that during a session a the Society of Professional Journalists National Convention in September in Orlando, Fla.

     Coll noted his two daughters first drew his attention to the story.  They were shocked, he said, but thought the premise was plausible as "a symbol of frats," so he read it.

     "I was frustrated by the omniscient magazine narrative," the Pulitzer-Prize-winning New Yorker writer noted.

     Flanagan noted her magazine "gave frats the white glove treatment," but no one believed Rolling Stone didn't have proof.

     Rolling Stone reached out to Coll after an investigation by the Washington Post proved the assualt couldn't have happened as reported.

      Coll explained reporter Sabrina Ruben Erdley turned over all of her files and a number of drafts of the story.  He and a team reviewed all of the material to determine how the editing process failed. 

     He told the audience of professionals and students he investigated what actually happened on campus, what happened at Rolling Stone and what was the best way to evaluate the situation.

     Flanagan said these cases are "living nightmares of our own creation," for journalists.
  
     Coll said Erdely's "basic tradecraft was solid."  He emphasized this was not one of the unfortunate recent cases involving fraud. "This was a failure of collaborative judgement," he said.

     He characterized Erdely as smart, "she wouldn't not have gone on a professional suicide mission."

     Flanagan called it as "clash of cultures. . .the victim culture, you don't challenge."
 
     Coll noted Erdely was interested in maintaining trust with "Jackie," as she identified the victim, a case of becoming invested in reporting over verification. And, Jackie was not a public person.

      The fault, Coll discovered, was in trying to protect a young woman who said she had been gang raped.  Editors chose to use pseudonyms rather than upset Jackie by tracking down three friends she claimed to have told about the rape and whose full names she never divoluged. 

      Erdely started with the Congressional testimony of a UVA administrator, but Congressional testimony isn't vetted. 

      Flanagan said it there was anything that seemed fraudulent, it was Erdeley's feeling "I want a story that proves there is a rape culture on campus."  Not an objective journalism way to start. Colle noted she remained within the activist community.

      They didn't let Erdely off the hook, especially when she convinced editors she couldn't reach people who should have been very easy to reach, like the three friends.

      There are many object lessons that come from this.  Probably the most meaningful is to always practice good journalism.