Ideology in My Controversy

March 27, 2014 via Pexels
CC0 License / Public Domain

In my last few posts, my controversy has been about Rolling Stone’s failure of journalism through posting the UVA rape article without proper research. The article, or story, accused the fraternity of Phi Kappa Psi of committing a gang rape against “Jackie” a UVA student, in 2012. Jackie told her story (if-you-will), to Sabrina Erdley, who wrote and published the Rolling Stone article this past November. However, Jackie’s story contained several holes and most-likely, exaggerations. After the article was posted and further investigation was pursued, facts about that night in 2012 were discovered that caused Rolling Stone’s article to be publicly shamed for several months.  

In journalism, accuracy and ethics are two key components to create a credible article. The article means nothing without research, and the research means nothing without proper citation. It is too common that journalist’s articles get pulled due to lack of credibility in their work.  

1. Who is involved in the controversy?

The author and editors of the article who allowed it to be posted without proper research and sources.

2. Who are some of the major speakers/writers within these groups?

The managing editors, authors, and president of the organization in which they write for. In this specific case for Rolling Stone, the author, Sabrina Erdley, and managing editor, Will Dana, are responsible for the UVA gang rape controversy. However, the article’s consequences effected the credibility of Rolling Stone as a whole.

3. What kind of social/cultural/economic/political power does each group hold?

Organizations like Rolling Stone have a lot of power, but the power of journalism cannot be abused without the loss of it’s credibility. Although the Rolling Stone article was a hit for a week or so, once further investigation was pursued, the fan-girling of the article quickly transitioned to anger and shock that they published false information.

4. What resources are available to different positions?

Organizations such as Rolling Stone have access to unlimited information and research opportunities. They even have a team that helps organize the process of investigating information. Erdley made the mistake of only going to Jackie for information on the alleged rape, which obviously was a mistake considering much of the information in which Jackie gave was misleading or false.

6. What does each group value?

Journalists, and organizations that write articles like Rolling Stone, value good topics to write articles about and the process of writing a proper journal. Research, writing, editing, citing, and more are all pieces of the journalists writing process. Without the process, the work loses its credibility.

7. What counts as evidence for the different positions?

The journalist must site where he/she received their information and it should only be used if that information came from a credible source. Although it is the journalist’s responsibility to account for the credibility of his/her own work, it is the responsibility of the organization as a whole once the piece is ready to be published.

8. Is there a power differential between groups? Usually groups involved in a controversy will disagree over which side holds the power!

Yes, for example, in this case the article may have been written by Sabrina Erdley, it was passed for publication by the editors’ board. The editors, particularly the managing editor, Will Dana, have the power to pull an article from being published if the piece is not credible, and in this case, they didn’t.   

9. Is there any acknowledged common ground between the groups?

The different positions held in organizations work together, no matter the position. While some positions hold more power, for example, managing editor, before a piece is published it is reviewed by people of all levels of positions held within the organization. That is why when Erdley’s article for Rolling Stone was pulled because it was not credible work, she was not fired from Rolling Stone. The controversy was a result of the failure of journalism by Rolling Stone’s organization as a whole.