The Rolling Stone Redaction.

718 WordsSep 29, 20153 Pages
The Rolling Stone Redaction was the mistake waiting to happen as a result of journalistic desperation on the Rolling Stones part, as the once iron clad story 's eggshell are torn asunder by the increasing lack of verifiability. Only to reveal a viscous trail with no clear substance. As The Rolling Stone began on this path, they put aside safeguards that would normally have sent the story to the bin, ignoring conflicting information from the other sources and only focusing on the main. That is when they gathered from other sources, as the paper has a distinct lack of transparency when it deals with the testimony of other people, with most coming from the one source. Jackie, who as the facts stacked toward and against, had discrepancies in her story tipping the scales away from believability, and into fantastical dreams. A story can have one source that it draws heavily upon, however, there has to be evidence to go along with it. In the aftermath with multiple sources coming up and stating facts contrary to the story, there has to be the question of why Erdely did not contact them, which, while the answer has its credible reasoning of not disturbing Jackie, the Rolling Stone should have reached them for comment, as opposed to Jackie asking by proxy, adding a second hand account that could have and was, utterly false. Prioritization also was an issue in this, while Erdely focused more on exposing the University of Virginia for poor policy and rampant sexual crime, as opposed
Open Document