I never planned to earn a degree in journalism. I went to college fully expecting to be a veterinarian. I abruptly switched majors my sophomore year when, on the first day of class, I entered the lecture hall and found a dead cat on my desk and a scalpel next to it. I knew right then veterinary medicine wasn’t the career for me.
Looking back, my original major was not a very well thought out decision. But regardless, I had no Plan B. I had only ever wanted to be a veterinarian. As I fretted about what I was going to do with my life, the guidance counselor was sympathetic. But since the semester had already started, classes were full. The only opening was a journalism class. So I looked at her and said, “OK, I guess I’ll be a journalist.”
After college I went on to work in TV news for a number of years until I eventually jumped ship and started a new career. But during those years as a young reporter, desperate to prove myself, I would often think about one of my college professors whose name I still can’t recall because he was only known on campus as Dr. Check Your Source.
Dr. Check Your Source drilled it into his students that no story was ever a story unless it had been fact-checked and had multiple sources. He would spend hours lecturing us on how there was no such thing as “a story too good to check.” And he would end almost every class with this dire warning: “If you’re doing a story about how much your mom loves you, don’t believe what she says. You still need evidence and multiple sources to verify it before going to print.”
If Dr. Check Your Source is still teaching journalism, he now has an excellent “I told you so” case study to share with his students.
By now, most people have heard Rolling Stone magazine retracted an article about a horrifying gang rape at a fraternity at the University of Virginia. The full retraction came on the heels of a report by Columbia Graduate School of Journalism that concluded the magazine failed to engage in “basic, even routine journalistic practice.”
In short, the review by Columbia found that the article’s author, Sabrina Rubin Erdely, didn’t verify her source’s story, relied heavily on hearsay from her source (the alleged rape victim) and ultimately accommodated requests from her source that shouldn’t have been accommodated.
Since the retraction, there have been apologies, finger pointing, and talk of lawsuits. But what there hasn’t been is what seems most called for — termination of the article’s writer and editor. Instead of issuing pink slips, Rolling Stone’s publisher, Jann Wenner, said this article was an isolated incident, the people involved will continue to work there, and he seemed to blame the article’s source by describing her as “a really expert fabulist storyteller” who managed to manipulate the journalistic process. Mr Wenner also said of the source, “obviously there is something here that is untruthful, and something sits at her doorstep.”
I disagree. Blaming the source is a reckless attempt to skirt responsibility. Yes, the story’s source may be dishonest, but a lot of people lie. That’s why you fact check and talk to multiple sources before printing a story. It’s Journalism 101. Rolling Stone is at fault for this fiasco and the story’s writer and editor should be held accountable.
While it seems their jobs are safe, the reputation of the magazine certainly isn’t. But even worse, how many rape victims will hesitate to come forward now, wondering if this article will cast a cloud of doubt on their story? How many victims will feel the skepticism of “yeah, but remember when Rolling Stone ” when they report a rape?
Bottom line — If you want to work in news and be able to get something drastically wrong and still keep your job, you should be a meteorologist, not a reporter.
Amy Roberts is a longtime Park City resident, freelance writer and the proud owner of two ill-behaved rescue dogs, Boston and Stanley.