Blogger Who Posted Unconfirmed Name And Photo Of Alleged UVA Rape Victim Deserves To Rot In Hell
I’m giving Jackie until later tonight to tell the truth and then I’m going to start revealing everything about her past.
â€” Charles C. Johnson (@ChuckCJohnson) December 7, 2014
Conservative blogger Charles C. Johnson published this threat on Twitter yesterday. He runs the site Got News. It’s tagline is, Independent, Unbiased, & Unafraid. He’s a misogynist, racist little man masquerading as some sort of “beacon of truth.” Not surprising that he took the viral nature of the Rolling Stone retraction backlash to insert himself into a narrative where he totally does not belong. Nice marketing ploy. I’m sure he got a ton of Men’s Rights Advocates followers yesterday.
If you’ve somehow managed to miss the uproar over the Rolling Stone piece this weekend, here’s a little background: “Jackie” is the anonymous source for theÂ Rolling StoneÂ piece about a gang rape that was allegedly perpetrated against her in a University of Virginia fraternity house. On Friday, Rolling Stone issued a retraction to the story, claiming that their “trust in her was misplaced.” They’ve since changed the wording of the retraction to leave that little bit about not trusting the account of a rape victim out, but too late. The damage has already been done. They effectively issued a statement telling the world that a woman allegedly victimized in a gang rape wasn’t a solid source. They then pointed to a bunch of anonymous quotes in a terrible Washington Post article to point to “why.”
The Rolling Stone decided to tell the narrative of an alleged victim of a gang rape on a college campus. They decided not to contact any of the men she named in the attack or get any comment from the fraternity. Then, they acted like a form-letter statement of denial from the fraternity in question issued to the Washington Post was enough to make Jackie’s account crumble. Well that, and these other mind-blowing revelations, contained in the Post piece:
The U-Va. fraternity where the attack was alleged to have occurred has said it has been working with police and has concluded that the allegations are untrue.
Oh, really? The fraternity has “concluded the allegation are untrue?” Did they do that during a Sherlock Holmes drinking game where they all played renegade detectives? The only thing the fraternity has “concluded” is that there was no party the night she says there was. Is that enough for a retraction to the story to be issued?
A student who came to Jackieâ€™s aid the night of the alleged attack said in an interview late Friday night that she did not appear physically injured at the time but was visibly shaken …
So there was no blood on her dress as the Rolling Stone story claimed. The student couldn’t see evidence of abuse on what I’m assuming was a totally clothed body. It’s not enough that she was visibly shaken.
The friends said that details of the attack have changed over time and that they have not been able to verify key points in recent days.
So the victim of a horrific attack can not recount exactly what happened to her during it. What is shocking about that? It is completely normal to block out the specifics of something traumatic. Also, I challenge anyone reading this to relay with exact certainty an account of the lunch they ate last Tuesday. How were you sitting, who was there, what did you bite into first — remembering anything with precise accuracy is not an easy task.