Rolling Stone admits it screwed up big on UVA rape story

Rolling Stone took a huge gamble when it ran a big story on an alleged fraternity rape at the University of Virginia based on the comments of the victim, Jackie — and agreed to her request that the magazine not check out her facts by contacting the alleged assailants. Rolling Stone had multiple sources, but still was banking on Jackie being completely truthful and also completely accurate about the facts. Well, today Rolling Stone posted a note saying it's trust in Jackie was misplaced -- "there now appear to be discrepancies in Jackie's account."

Journalism 101.

A Washington Post story adds that "several of the woman’s close friends and campus sex assault awareness advocates expressed doubt about the published account." Rolling Stone's note:

To Our Readers:

Last month, Rolling Stone published a story titled "A Rape on Campus" by Sabrina Rubin Erdely, which described a brutal gang rape of a woman named Jackie at a University of Virginia fraternity house; the university's failure to respond to this alleged assault – and the school's troubling history of indifference to many other instances of alleged sexual assaults. The story generated worldwide headlines and much soul-searching at UVA. University president Teresa Sullivan promised a full investigation and also to examine the way the school responds to sexual assault allegations.

Because of the sensitive nature of Jackie's story, we decided to honor her request not to contact the man she claimed orchestrated the attack on her nor any of the men she claimed participated in the attack for fear of retaliation against her. In the months Erdely spent reporting the story, Jackie neither said nor did anything that made Erdely, or Rolling Stone's editors and fact-checkers, question Jackie's credibility. Her friends and rape activists on campus strongly supported Jackie's account. She had spoken of the assault in campus forums. We reached out to both the local branch and the national leadership of the fraternity where Jackie said she was attacked. They responded that they couldn't confirm or deny her story but had concerns about the evidence.

In the face of new information, there now appear to be discrepancies in Jackie's account, and we have come to the conclusion that our trust in her was misplaced. We were trying to be sensitive to the unfair shame and humiliation many women feel after a sexual assault and now regret the decision to not contact the alleged assaulters to get their account. We are taking this seriously and apologize to anyone who was affected by the story.

Will Dana
Managing Editor