There is a lot to learn from the foibles of "A Rape on Campus." The first is that I need to strengthen my internal antenna. I swallowed the article whole and never stopped to question its veracity. I never stopped to think that it is a single-source story. Of course, verification could have occurred in the background without being explicitly stated, but transparency is always better. I was surprised to read that Erdely never got the name of the lifeguard. I was shocked actually. Moving forward with such a story seems like it should require full cooperation from the source. Anything less than that does that person a disservice. If she were really that fearful of retribution, why was she willing to go on the record will a name-brand national magazine? It's probably easy for me to be critical since I'm looking in the rearview..but still.
Personally, I believe too many exceptions were made. I kept wondering where the tough-ass editor was. Why was Erdely never pushed harder? Why didn't she push herself harder? She was working full-time on this story for months. I think a lesson here is to never get so distracted by the other reporting as to neglect the verification process. That's the most important part, and the reporter needed to keep her eye on the ball. I'll never forget what Liz Brixey told me on one of my first days ACEing. It doesn't matter if the story is beautifully written and organized. If there is a factual error, it destroys the rest of the story. Priority number one is getting it right. Liz is right. Erdely lost sight of this vital truth. It is a beautifully crafted story. It's stunning. But it's wrong. It's fiction.
The other part of the report that I found surprising is that Jackie never asked Erdely not to talk with her three friends. Erdely absolutely should have talked with them. She should have been less concerned with losing her source and more concerned with the reporting. If she lost the source, fine, that wasn't even the point of the story, according to the editor. She had plenty of other rape stories, which are all shocking.
Again, it's probably easy for me to critique since I have 20/20 vision on this. I wonder how I would have reacted in this situation. I would like to think I'd have a more critical view. But the subject matter is so taboo. I do commend the Rolling Stone for taking on such a tough topic. But with great power comes great responsibility. The Stone took on this story, so in my opinion, they took on that responsibility of being one of the first to tackle this. I hope the next outlet to take on sexual assault does a better job.
Also, I wonder what's so wrong with highlighting the "normal" rape story? Everyone loved Jackie's story because it was dramatic. But rape is horrifying in its many forms. It's also complicated and messy and not often so clearly good vs. evil, though those elements certainly exist. The next story should tackle the less dramatic, more common rape story. That would be a more effective way to educate people about what is actually happening on college campuses.
Personally, I believe too many exceptions were made. I kept wondering where the tough-ass editor was. Why was Erdely never pushed harder? Why didn't she push herself harder? She was working full-time on this story for months. I think a lesson here is to never get so distracted by the other reporting as to neglect the verification process. That's the most important part, and the reporter needed to keep her eye on the ball. I'll never forget what Liz Brixey told me on one of my first days ACEing. It doesn't matter if the story is beautifully written and organized. If there is a factual error, it destroys the rest of the story. Priority number one is getting it right. Liz is right. Erdely lost sight of this vital truth. It is a beautifully crafted story. It's stunning. But it's wrong. It's fiction.
The other part of the report that I found surprising is that Jackie never asked Erdely not to talk with her three friends. Erdely absolutely should have talked with them. She should have been less concerned with losing her source and more concerned with the reporting. If she lost the source, fine, that wasn't even the point of the story, according to the editor. She had plenty of other rape stories, which are all shocking.
Again, it's probably easy for me to critique since I have 20/20 vision on this. I wonder how I would have reacted in this situation. I would like to think I'd have a more critical view. But the subject matter is so taboo. I do commend the Rolling Stone for taking on such a tough topic. But with great power comes great responsibility. The Stone took on this story, so in my opinion, they took on that responsibility of being one of the first to tackle this. I hope the next outlet to take on sexual assault does a better job.
Also, I wonder what's so wrong with highlighting the "normal" rape story? Everyone loved Jackie's story because it was dramatic. But rape is horrifying in its many forms. It's also complicated and messy and not often so clearly good vs. evil, though those elements certainly exist. The next story should tackle the less dramatic, more common rape story. That would be a more effective way to educate people about what is actually happening on college campuses.
No comments:
Post a Comment