Even before embarrassing themselves with the University of Virginia rape story, Rolling Stone was no one’s idea of riveting journalism. Still, one might have hoped that even this out-of-touch liberal rag would understand that this debacle demanded a firing or two. But even after releasing a report that concluded the UVA story suffered from failures at nearly every step in the process, the magazine has said there will be no punishments handed out. No firings. No suspensions. Life goes on.
Of course, a lie in service of the liberal agenda isn’t really a lie, is it? How many reporters and editors have been fired for their lies on the Michael Brown shooting? How many have been fired for propagating false information about global warming? Looking back on it, one can only wonder why NBC decided to suspend Brian Williams. If his lie had helped further the liberal agenda in some way, they would have doubtlessly swept it under the rug.
According to the Rolling Stone report, carried out by the Columbia Graduate School of Journalism, the magazine ignored “basic, even routine journalistic practice” when writing up the rape story. In her first real attempt to confront this public embarrassment, writer Sabrina Rubin Erdely apologized to the magazine, the readers, her colleagues, and victims of sexual assault. She did not, notably, apologize to the victims of her irresponsible journalism: the fraternity she wrongfully accused. Of course not. Why would a good liberal like her ever apologize to a fraternity, of all things? Doubtlessly, both Erdely and Rolling Stone feel as though the frat got exactly what they deserved simply for existing.
Rolling Stone’s publisher, Jann Wenner, said that managing editor Will Dana and the article’s editor, Sean Woods, would remain happily employed. Even more hilariously, Wenner said that Erdely would continue to write for the magazine. He laid the blame for the article at the feet of the anonymous “Jackie,” the supposed victim who has all but disappeared in the wake of the hoax. In other words, if you come up with a story that hits all the liberal action buttons, you too can fool everyone at this joke of a magazine.
The crew at Rolling Stone have excused themselves for their trespasses by saying they cut corners in an attempt to protect the victim. And in a way, this admission speaks to a growing problem in America that could have disastrous implications that go well beyond the pages of a magazine.
These liberals have decided that it’s no longer okay to question certain things. If an unarmed black man was shot by police, it’s not okay to ask what that man might have been doing in the run-up to the confrontation. If a woman says she was raped, it’s not okay to ask whether anyone else can verify her story. If a homosexual says that a bakery refused to serve him, it’s not okay to wonder whether it really makes sense to extend “discrimination” to cover something as intangible as sexual orientation. This leads to a uniformity of thought where we’re more interested in activism than facts. And if it turns out, after a few months, that there were no facts to support the story, we’ll just move on the next thing. The next batch of lies. The next agenda.
Oh look, President Obama is making Republicans mad again! Let’s cover that. No, not what he’s actually doing, silly. Let’s just cover what these loony Republicans are saying about it, and let’s make it obvious that they should be mocked. Put Erdely on it. We don’t want anyone asking any uncomfortable questions.