Steve Sailer on Rolling Stone‘s “A Rape On Campus”:
In other words, this is supposed to be some sort of fraternity initiation rite. (That fraternities at UVA hold their initiations in the spring, not in September, isn’t mentioned in the article.) (…)
My vague impression is that Jackie seems like a troubled soul who drew needed comfort from talking to listeners who were sympathetic. She doesn’t appear to have been in any hurry over the last couple of years to talk to people who might ask her tough questions about the validity of her allegations, such as police detectives or defense attorneys. That appears to have been prudent on her part.
Unfortunately, Rolling Stone was eager to use her for its own commercial and political purposes.
And so her story is now our latest national media crisis.
What’s actually MORE interesting is this:
We all know that more “respectable” writers secretly read Sailer, and use him as a “moped” — the term seems particularly apt in this instance — but jeepers:
By the 29th I was still the only commenter, but I finally felt confident enough that there were major problems with the Rolling Stone account to link to Bradley’s critique from my iSteve blog at the Unz Review.
That opened the floodgates. Comments finally poured in to Bradley’s blog.
And on the first two days of December, numerous well-known publications weighed in with skeptical assessments based on Bradley’s analysis: Robby Soave at Reason, Glenn Reynolds at Instapundit, Megan McArdle at Bloomberg, Ashe Schow at the Washington Examiner, Bret Stephens at the Wall Street Journal, Judith Shulevitz at The New Republic, Jonah Goldberg at the Los Angeles Times, and Erik Wemple at the Washington Post.
I know how it feels, Steve.
Being persona non grata at numerous Canadian media outlets hasn’t prevented their employees from stealing my stuff, and my husband’s.
Oh, and in that same issue of Rolling Stone?
