Questions arise on Rolling Stone alleged gang rape at UVA story.
There is a technical term for the bolded part of this excerpt from The New Republic‘s otherwise laudable (no, really) look at the suddenly-problematical Rolling Stone article about an alleged gang rape at the University of Virginia*:
[clip]
PS: For the benefit of any lurkers reading this: this is the problem with the not-uncommon Leftist habit of distinguishing between regular-truth and revolutionary-truth. The more often people get burned by fake stories, the more skittish they get about possibly new-fake ones. Why did Richard Bradley write the first post that really questioned the Rolling Stone story? Because he was one of the guys who got burned by Stephen Glass. Why did The New Republic write the above article? …Hey, maybe because they got burned once, too (yeah, also Stephen Glass). And if this Rolling Stone article turns out to be faked, then it’s going to get added to the pile that will come out the next time a story like it comes out. Whether or not that story turns out to be true – and that’s why people who aren’t conservatives should also care. Meditate on our culture’s hoary folk wisdom, and become wise in your turn…
There is a technical term for the bolded part of this excerpt from The New Republic‘s otherwise laudable (no, really) look at the suddenly-problematical Rolling Stone article about an alleged gang rape at the University of Virginia*:
“If I had to guess what happened at UVA—and at this point, we can only guess (which is why we should not be passing judgment),” Wendy Kaminer, a civil libertarian and feminist who has written extensively on both rape and free speech on campus, emailed me, “I’d guess that the story is neither entirely fabricated nor entirely true, and, in any case, compels a real investigation by investigators with no stake in their findings.”
[clip]
PS: For the benefit of any lurkers reading this: this is the problem with the not-uncommon Leftist habit of distinguishing between regular-truth and revolutionary-truth. The more often people get burned by fake stories, the more skittish they get about possibly new-fake ones. Why did Richard Bradley write the first post that really questioned the Rolling Stone story? Because he was one of the guys who got burned by Stephen Glass. Why did The New Republic write the above article? …Hey, maybe because they got burned once, too (yeah, also Stephen Glass). And if this Rolling Stone article turns out to be faked, then it’s going to get added to the pile that will come out the next time a story like it comes out. Whether or not that story turns out to be true – and that’s why people who aren’t conservatives should also care. Meditate on our culture’s hoary folk wisdom, and become wise in your turn…