My must read of the day is "Author of Rolling Stone article on alleged U-Va. rape didn’t talk to accused perpetrators," in the Washington Post:
The writer of a blockbuster Rolling Stone magazine story about an alleged gang rape at a University of Virginia fraternity has said that she was unable to contact or interview the men who supposedly perpetrated the crime.
In interviews with the Washington Post and Slate.com last week, writer Sabrina Rubin Erdely declined to answer repeated questions about the men’s response to an allegation by a female student named Jackie that they had sexually assaulted her at a U-Va. fraternity party in 2012.
However, in a podcast interview with Slate, Erdely indicated that she was unable to locate the fraternity brothers in the course of her reporting to get their side of the story. […]
Sean Woods, who edited the Rolling Stone story, said in an interview that Erdely did not talk to the alleged assailants. "We did not talk to them. We could not reach them," he said in an interview.
However, he said, "we verified their existence," in part by talking to Jackie’s friends. "I’m satisfied that these guys exist and are real. We knew who they were."
It’s basic reporting to seek comment from individuals and groups involved in a story, and it’s largely common sense—it’s clearly written in the Reuters Handbook under the section titled "fairness," it’s also a practice that’s explained in the AP Stylebook.
There are some instances where it’s not necessary to have a response—even if a direct attack is being made. That’s where the use of judgment comes in. The argument here is that the author wanted to solely tell Jackie’s story. That’s fine and I think it’s understandable in this situation, but it’s negligent reporting and poor fact checking to not identify and make sure—that without a doubt—all of the people in the story actually do exist.
There is not a logical reason for why the author, or the editors, did not personally verify even one of the alleged rapists. Time was certainly not a constraint in this piece—it’s long and obviously well researched, with various interviews and tours around the campus.
After all of that work, actually finding the assailants and seeing them firsthand is one additional step that’s worth waiting to complete—and "her friends also told us they were real" isn’t good enough.
Jackie’s story is not a generic account of rape. She offers identifying factors of her rapists—from the fraternity they’re members of to the lifeguarding job "Drew" had to the "small" anthropology class she was taking with another.
The accusations in this piece are appalling and they warranted confirmation that the men exist. That’s not veering from the stated mission of telling "Jackie’s story" nor is it violating the agreement the author had with her. It’s simply ensuring Jackie’s tale is properly told and that every aspect is fully researched. At the very least, failing to independently confirm their identities does a disservice to Jackie and her story because it leaves the door open to questions of authenticity, instead of keeping the focus on the rape and possible cover up.