Investigative reporting is about discovery of a story, not confirmation of your notions.
That is the key mistake Rolling Stone made in its false, and now retracted, story “A Rape on Campus,” as I read the Columbia School of Journalism report on the fiasco.
“Rolling Stone’s repudiation of the main narrative in ‘A Rape on Campus’ is a story of journalistic failure that was avoidable. The failure encompassed reporting, editing, editorial supervision and fact-checking,” wrote the Columbia authors, Sheila Coronel, J-School Dean Steve Coll and Derek Kravitz.
The failure started, though, with a preconceived notion of what the story should be. Reporter Sabrina Rubin Erdely; Sean Woods, the primary editor of the story; and Will Dana, managing editor; had too strong a vision of what the story should be and not a strong enough commitment to learn what it really was.
I worked on a series on rape in 1993 for the Omaha World-Herald. We started out pursuing a notion about rape, focusing on rape by strangers, prompted by a series of rapes in an Omaha neighborhood.
We did report on that series of rapes and about stranger rape, but our series focused more heavily on two surprising factors that we found in our wider study of the issues: the startlingly low number of rapes that actually result in rape convictions and the startlingly high percentage of rape victims who were younger than 18.
The series we produced ended up being significantly different from the series we planned. That should be the case in most investigative stories: You make a plan to investigate a topic, not to support a premise. A good story investigated well takes you directions you didn’t anticipate.
If Rolling Stone had been trying to discover the story, the reporter and the editors would have insisted on talking to the friends of their primary source, whom they identified as “Jackie.” They would have insisted on talking to her date on the night in question, and to other men and women who attended the supposed “date night” at Phi Kappa Psi, the University of Virginia fraternity smeared by Rolling Stone‘s story.
Unlike Rolling Stone, we didn’t focus in our 1993 series on a single “emblematic” rape situation to tell in detail. We told stories of multiple rape survivors. Some profiles told more about circumstances of the rape. Others focused on the trauma the person experienced or the treatment she received. They told the story together, rather than burdening a single story with representing everything that we found in our investigation.
It is difficult to prove details of a rape, because accounts of what happened invariably conflict and witnesses to the actual crime are rare, unless they were participants, as Jackie alleged in the Rolling Stone story.
However, you can find confirmation (or conflict) in the circumstances surrounding a rape. In my various stories about rape, I have confirmed details about circumstances by obtaining police and medical reports and by interviewing friends, family members and attorneys of suspects and accusers.
Erdely did seek details, the Columbia report said:
In the end, the reporter relied heavily on Jackie for help in getting access to corroborating evidence and interviews. Erdely asked Jackie for introductions to friends and family. She asked for text messages to confirm parts of Jackie’s account, for records from Jackie’s employment at the aquatic center and for health records. She even asked to examine the bloodstained red dress Jackie said she had worn on the night she said she was attacked.
For all that, though, the report concluded, Rolling Stone failed to pursue multiple opportunities to confirm details of Jackie’s story (or learn of the weaknesses in the story):
There were a number of ways that Erdely might have reported further, on her own, to verify what Jackie had told her. Jackie told the writer that one of her rapists had been part of a small discussion group in her anthropology class. Erdely might have tried to verify independently that there was such a group and to identify the young man Jackie described. She might have examined Phi Kappa Psi’s social media for members she could interview and for evidence of a party on the night Jackie described. Erdely might have looked for students who worked at the aquatic center and sought out clues about the lifeguard Jackie had described. Any one of these and other similar reporting paths might have led to discoveries that would have caused Rolling Stone to reconsider its plans. But three failures of reporting effort stand out. They involve basic, even routine journalistic practice – not special investigative effort. And if these reporting pathways had been followed, Rolling Stone very likely would have avoided trouble.
Those three critical failures were:
- Erdely did not contact the friends Jackie said she talked with shortly after the assault that she described. Jackie never asked the reporter not to contact her friends independently.
- Erdely asked the fraternity for a comment late in the reporting process, but never provided details of the story for them to address.
- Erdely’s efforts to track down the alleged assailant were not diligent enough even to determine that no member of the fraternity worked at the aquatic center where Jackie was a lifeguard.
The one lifeguard at the pool who had the name Jackie used for her assailant was “not a member of Phi Kappa Psi, however,” the Columbia report said. “The police interviewed him and examined his personal records. They found no evidence to link him to Jackie’s assault. If Rolling Stone had located him and heard his response to Jackie’s allegations, including the verifiable fact that he did not belong to Phi Kappa Psi, this might have led Erdely to reconsider her focus on that case. In any event, Rolling Stone stopped looking for him.”
One of the most disappointing aspects of the report is Rolling Stone‘s response. Woods continues to point the finger at Jackie: “Ultimately, we were too deferential to our rape victim; we honored too many of her requests in our reporting,” he told the Columbia investigators.
That’s bullshit. As I’ve noted before, journalists, not sources, are responsible for the accuracy of our stories. To me, one of the most disturbing aspects of the report is that Rolling Stone doesn’t recognize that this was a systemic failure, identifying problems the magazine must address. The reporter and editors just see the story as a result of mistakes they need to avoid repeating.
The Columbia report says:
Erdely’s reporting records and interviews with participants make clear that the magazine did not pursue important reporting paths even when Jackie had made no request that they refrain. The editors made judgments about attribution, fact-checking and verification that greatly increased their risks of error but had little or nothing to do with protecting Jackie’s position.
Nothing in this Rolling Stone fiasco was the fault of Jackie. Whether she was a victim of some kind of sexual assault that she exaggerated, or was just a liar, she didn’t give the magazine enough to go on. Beyond confirming that the university had received a report of her allegation, Rolling Stone didn’t take any of the steps it could have taken to investigate her story.
You investigate a rape survivor’s story not just out of suspicion (but journalists should always be suspicious), but to bolster her story and yours. Rape accusers will be viciously attacked (I saw that happen in a case where the defendant eventually plead guilty). Even if you believe a story, you need to investigate it to confirm your belief and to strengthen the story.
Other responses to the Columbia report:
Jay Rosen‘s analysis of the report is far more detailed than mine.
So is Erik Wemple’s.
Ben Mullin of Poynter rounded up journalists’ reactions to the report.
My earlier post with advice on interviewing rape survivors and verifying their stories.
It wasn’t a systematic failure. Rolling Stone consciously, proudly ignored its own systems.
LikeLiked by 2 people
And yet what will happen?
FNC and the NBC networks (the worst offenders, though there are plenty more) regularly get caught in lies, lazy research, and doctored tapes, and what happens to them? Their ratings go through the roof as sponsors throw money at them.
I don’t see Rolling Stone changing their ways, they feed off of controversy and faux anti-establishment attitudes and their story doesn’t challenge either of those.
LikeLiked by 2 people
From The Daily Beast:
Where is Waldo? Who is missing here?
Maybe The Daily Beast and a number of other sites failed to include the full apology but I don’t see an apology to the fraternity or the men whose identities were underhandedly “revealed”.
The fraternity was violently attacked, property was damaged and several people had to go into hiding.
There is more than just journalistic failure here, there is an atmosphere of entitlement that allow people like Erdley to viciously attack others for who they are rather than what they might have done.
LikeLiked by 2 people
She did not apologize to the fraternity.
LikeLiked by 1 person
When I first observed that there was no apology to the victims, I thought that maybe it was for legal reasons – and I can understand that. However, simply decency would demand an apology to anyone hurt by the failure but none was offered.
You have to suspect that Erdley and Rolling Stone are standing by their narrative in the face of the facts.
LikeLike
Reblogged this on PAYUKA.
LikeLiked by 2 people
“You make a plan to investigate a topic, not to support a premise. A good story investigated well takes you directions you didn’t anticipate.”
This is probably why journalism is so bad these days. Even the stories that aren’t clickbait are usually designed to find a certain narrative and promote it.
All of that results in cherrypicked stats, stories, ect that appeal to whatever echo-chamber the “journalist” is writing for.
It’s both frightening and sad because the “Facts” don’t matter if you already set out with a narrative in mind to prove. It’s almost as if journalism is like a persuasive paper where you try to make an argument for a position – except its not news – it’s opinion.
Great post.
LikeLiked by 3 people
This is amazing. I particularly loved that you called Rolling Stones out on their bullshit–“journalists, not sources, are responsible for the accuracy of our stories.”
LikeLiked by 2 people
🙂
LikeLiked by 2 people
[…] Steve Buttry focused his reaction to this week’s report in part on how key people in the chain “had too strong a vision of what the story should be and not a strong enough commitment to learn what it really was.” He’s right, of course, but I see a broader problem. There is a great temptation for journalists to adopt a Manichean worldview, in which stories must have heroes who are all good and villains who are all bad. It makes for a tidy narrative. […]
LikeLiked by 1 person
Simple rules to follow, verifying the facts makes for accuracy, not verifying ruins a good story and causes grief.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Reblogged this on Link The INK and commented:
gr8 article
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes because the crime was overlooked due to a misdirection of fact. Too sad!!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Reblogged this on Grand Canyon Art.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Reblogged this on tinaness202.
LikeLiked by 1 person
[…] « Rolling Stone forgot: Investigative reporting is about discovery, not preconceived notions […]
LikeLiked by 1 person
Reblogged this on Jhorel's Blog.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Those who participate in gang rapes are the most protected members of American society
LikeLiked by 1 person
Reblogged this on matangala.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Reblogged this on diyakhmifah14.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Reblogged this on trywriteenglish.
LikeLiked by 1 person
You pointed out a big problem journalists face today: Pursuing a pre-conceived notion to write a story rather than being open minded to new discoveries.
But another thing to keep in mind is that this wasn’t a rookie mistake. Erdely had plenty of experience reporting on emotionally-charged and complicated stories.
“She specialized in true-crime stories like ‘The Gangster Princess of Beverly Hills,’ about a high-living Korean model and self-styled Samsung heiress accused of transporting 7,000 pounds of marijuana,” the Columbia report stated. “She had written about pedophile priests and sexual assault in the military. Will Dana, the magazine’s managing editor, considered her ‘a very thorough and persnickety reporter who’s able to navigate extremely difficult stories with a lot of different points of view.'”
So yes, when she set out to write ‘A Rape on Campus’ Erdely should have known better. She should have devoted more effort into true investigation instead of the picture-perfect narrative in her head. And as you mentioned, there were many key points in the process that she and her editors overlooked. But based on her experience, this was more than just carelessness. Some of these mistakes were a result of conscious choices. She set out looking for activist journalism, hoping to (rightfully so) highlight an immensely flawed system. By focusing on a single story of assault, instead of multiple points of view, she might have wanted to make the story more gripping. Stories that are more compelling, after all, get the most readers, and thus the public would be more likely to answer the call to action and demand change. In essence, Erdely took a risk that didn’t pay off.
The report acknowledges,”Investigative reporters working on difficult, emotive or contentious stories often have blind spots.” I can sympathize with Erdely’s blind spot when talking to Jackie, but not with the decisions to disregard other possible sources and ignore red flags.
This serves as a lesson for Rolling Stone and other journalists. I don’t think what Rolling Stone did in handing the issue off to Columbia is “accountability laundering.” They recognized the gravity of the situation and made the right decision in getting an external investigation. Because of it’s objectivity and distance, Columbia was able to better investigate and explain what went wrong.
Read more on my take here: http://wp.me/p3zG7Y-m9
LikeLiked by 2 people
This is the one of the biggest problems I have with “news” whether print or TV (which I no longer own). There is always an agenda, a slant, that resembles the truth but it has part of the truth only. I don’t believe anything unless I cross check it numerous ways, view the source and also look at veracity of where it’s coming from. People get sucked into the sensationalism. people also initially want to believe a story reported about rape and think the menhave to be at fault.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Reblogged this on azmiherdiyanti's Blog.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Very true. Great journalism.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Reblogged this on The Typewriter.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Reblogged this on chengkerengkate.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Reblogged this on Lessons from a cub reporter and commented:
A much-appreciated take on the Rolling Stone’s “A Rape on Campus”.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Reblogged this on usuyenyazar and commented:
Bardağa yeni koyulmuş bir bardak çay bile ısıtamıyorsa ellerini yalnızsın demektir.
LikeLike
Reblogged this on ShoutYourHeadOff.
LikeLike
True! Thank you!
LikeLike
Reblogged this on subedarsingh640's Blog.
LikeLike
I loved this post!
LikeLike
“Even if you believe a story, you need to investigate it to confirm your belief and to strengthen the story” sums it all.
LikeLike
Reblogged this on A World Noticed and commented:
Great post by the Buttry Diary. Breaks apart the specific failures Rolling Stone made in writing their article about the campus rape.
LikeLike
[…] It’s interesting that Miller’s book came out the same week as the Columbia School of Journalism report on the Rolling Stone‘s botched coverage of a rape allegat…. […]
LikeLike
Reblogged this on lizziezhang.
LikeLike
Reblogged this on Laughter Wow.
LikeLike
Reblogged this on Human Relationships and commented:
Rolling Stone Forgot: Investigative Reporting is About Discovery
LikeLike
Well said…
LikeLike
Example of extreme confirmation bias.
LikeLike
Reblogged this on vancitydowntown.
LikeLike
Reblogged this on mariacarolinacastillo.
LikeLike
[…] commentary. And the Times has plenty of company in my criticism on accuracy and corrections: Rolling Stone, Toronto Star and Washington Post, among […]
LikeLike