BY THE BEACON EDITORIAL STAFF
When you’re reading an intensely emotional story that seems to confirm all that you believe to be true, a story that seems to capture the essence of an issue almost too perfectly, alarm bells should start to go off. But too often, they don’t. Confirmation bias, the practice of believing information that validates our opinions, is a common tendency that even the most seasoned critical thinkers succumb to. And it can be dangerous, as illustrated by the recent debacle involving last month’s Rolling Stone article about sexual assault.
In the article, author Sabrina Rubin Erdely recounts the painful events that a University of Virginia student, known to the public only as “Jackie,” went through during and after her assault. The article is incredibly detailed, and includes a grisly description of the alleged gang-rape that for many was painful to read. After the assault, the article claims, Jackie reported the rape to her friends and university administrators, whose reactions sought to uphold personal and institutional reputations, rather than help the traumatized victim.
It is a terrifying and shocking story.
The article went viral almost immediately. It tugged at heart strings. It provoked tears and outrage. It caused the University of Virginia to almost immediately shut down its fraternities. It became so widely read that it sparked a nationwide discussion about rape on college campuses. And, at least at first, almost no one doubted it was true.
“Many of us on the Beacon staff who had followed the story felt duped.”
Then discrepancies in the story began to emerge. Certain details reported later, such as the date of the assault and the fraternity affiliation of assailants, didn’t align with what Rolling Stone had published. The Washington Post ran an article highlighting the fact that the writer, Erdely, didn’t get in touch with any of the witnesses or accused perpetrators, a fairly uncommon thing to do when reporting on alleged crimes.
Many of us on the Beacon staff who had followed the story felt duped. We struggled, along with readers around the country, to figure out why we had believed the story so blindly at first. In retrospect, perhaps it was because we were so caught up in the horrific details of the rape – the images of violence, blood, a broken girl – that we didn’t catch the fact that the perpetrators and Jackie’s friends had never made statements. We were happy to finally see a rape victim believed by the mainstream and sexual assault entering the national consciousness. And we were all too willing to believe the narrative because it seemed recognizable and real. But just because something fits in conveniently with our image of reality, doesn’t mean it’s the truth.
As readers, we should have read the story more carefully, and pushed ourselves to be emotionally detached enough to look at the facts as objectively as possible. We must be vigilant news consumers who think critically about where information came from, how it was obtained, and whether it has been corroborated or backed up by fact.
“Questioning the veracity of Jackie’s story objectively is not the same as accusing her of lying.”
The Beacon would like to point out what many other news sources already have: questioning the veracity of Jackie’s story objectively is not the same as accusing her of lying. It is simply doing what the reporter of the story failed to do: checking the account to make sure all the facts line up and all the pieces fit together. The goal is to uphold the responsibility that all journalists and news sources share: to deliver unbiased, fair, and accurate reporting, so that the public can understand the story fully, and draw conclusions of their own.
The party who made a mistake here is not Jackie, and while readers should have been more skeptical, the error isn’t theirs either. It’s Rolling Stone’s.
Journalism is a powerful thing. Like any power, it can be abused; and those involved in the reporting of this story did just that. The reckless publication of the UVA rape story fuels the dangerous and overwhelmingly incorrect notion that women who report sexual assault are often lying, setting back the movement against rape culture on college campuses.
All news publications have the responsibility to bring only well-reported stories to their readers, and when they do make mistakes, they must be held accountable. As the editorial staff of the Beacon, we take that responsibility very seriously, and we strive above all else to uphold journalistic integrity. We view the disaster Rolling Stone created by publishing the UVA article as a messy, painful, and unfortunate one, but also as a cautionary tale of how much can go wrong when news stories are not thoroughly reported.
We urge our readers to look at all stories, especially emotionally-charged ones, with a critical eye. Don’t take articles or pieces of information at face value. Look for hard evidence to back up claims. Look to see if all sides are represented, and that stories are corroborated. Stories about the issues you hold closest to your heart are the ones you should question the most, since misreported stories obscure greater truths and obstruct positive change.
“Stories about the issues you hold closest to your heart are the ones you should question the most.”
Journalists have a responsibility to tell the public the whole, thoroughly-reported, fact-checked truth, so that fiascos like the one the Rolling Stone story created don’t happen. Hold all journalists, including the Beacon staff, to that standard. Accept nothing less.