The author of the discredited piece about Virgina University rape issued an apology statement, after a journalism report on it came out. Sabrina Rubin Erdely said:
“The past few months, since my Rolling Stone article “A Rape on Campus” was first called into question, have been among the most painful of my life. Reading the Columbia account of the mistakes and misjudgments in my reporting was a brutal and humbling experience.
I want to offer my deepest apologies: to Rolling Stone’s readers, to my Rolling Stone editors and colleagues, to the U.V.A. community, and to any victims of sexual assault who may feel fearful as a result of my article.”
It is important to remember she is a writer, however else one characterizes her. What does she mean by “victims of sexual assault who may feel fearful as a result”? That would be one of the most backhanded apologies I’ve heard in the Left media. Victims may “feel fearful” as a result of her article or because it was discredited? Is she sympathizing with any “victims” in an attempt to shield her embarrassment for having done the article in the first place? An article which was poor by any standards, but which was nonetheless promoted as a blockbuster revelation, the reaction of which caused the fallout it did?
Not a good enough diversion? Keep in mind that she also has 20 years experience as an “investigative journalist”. Then she goes on to state that her own “concern” for Jackie’s(?) welfare caused her to do what she did. So weigh her apology against that.
She also said “I did not go far enough to verify her story.” Call that the understatement of the decade. So even if she did not verify the events, she did it all out of emotion or compassion for the victim. Right, forget the whole liable thing where she did manage to practically destroy a fraternity and a University’s reputation. But her motives were good and noble. Getting all that? This could be a good indictment against current culture. As long as those motives were good, yea, forget that she intentionally did not verify or check the account she was telling. She reasons that these are reasons not to verify the story.
What she doesn’t quite admit is that her own bias got in the way, or dictated, the telling of this “story “. Not unlike some of what the left has done and put out in the media in recent years. Once the story is out there it takes on a life of its own regardless whether it was even true. Hello, Harry Reid. No one will go back to rectify it partly because they can’t.
So she apologizes to victims — implying victims will be more fearful now as a result… of the questions raised. But she wasn’t thinking about the results when she did the article, or anyone she victimized. Score one for the drive-by crowd.
I detect an insincere or bad seed in her apology.