First, some background. Years ago, a girl claimed she was gang-raped by a fraternity at UVA, blown off by the Dean of the school, and got an article published in Rolling Stone about it. Then the alleged rape was proven to have never occurred, and the evidence suggests the accuser made up the whole thing to make a guy jealous. The reporter who wrote the story, and her publisher, were sued for demation by the fraternity and the Dean. In a story about the publication settling with the Dean, the reporter is quoted as saying:
There's a lot wrong with this story, but the thing I want to comment on here is that the reporter thinks her job is not reporting accurately about true events but rather helping spur change on college campuses.
There's evidence that some of the people involved in the story had political connections and were planning to push legislation related to the story. And the reporter quoted above appears to have had issues with the truth in at least two other articles involving rape.
It appears that the reporter's job title should be propagandist instead. And that's the role that many in the media play, wittingly or unwittingly, due to their personal biases and their desire to "spur change" regardless of the truth.
This entry was published Sat Apr 15 11:47:48 CDT 2017 by TriggerFinger
and last updated 2017-04-15 11:47:48.0.