As the UVA rape story falls apart, and Rolling Stone‘s disregard for journalistic ethics has become a topic of national conversation, some journalists are still desperately clinging to the idea that the reporter behind the hoax, Sabrina Erdely, did nothing wrong and was the hapless victim of a massive con job. One of these journalists is Geoff Mulvihill, an Associated Press writer for the New Jersey area.
This week, he wrote “Retracted Rolling Stone story is rare demerit for its writer.” The article, which borders on the hagiographic, is an attempt to rehabilitate Erdley in the eyes of the public after her disastrous journalistic failure. Mulvihill says, “Some of those who have worked with her see her as diligent and sensitive.” He quotes an additional source:
(The revelation of the hoax) was very painful for (Erdely), and I think more painful than all of the things written about her was the feeling that she had been betrayed by a source that she trusted and invested a lot of time and emotional energy on.
And another source:
As an editor, if I had to pick a reporter to nail a story based on their reporting chops, Sabrina would have been right up there. She’s just dogged.
The message of the article is perfectly clear: Erdely isn’t to be blamed for publishing a story she certainly knew was false, and that she knew would have tremendous consequences for the falsely accused. This was a temporary lapse by an otherwise shining star of a reporter. Mulvihill wants the reader to know that she was duped by her source, “Jackie,” whom the article describes as “a really expert fabulist storyteller” who “manipulated the magazine’s journalism process.”
Lying by omission?
Mulvihill’s piece is not an editorial, but rather an Associated Press news article, and as such it is seemingly carefully written to avoid giving the direct opinion of its author. Associated Press guidelines call for its articles to be strictly written to be as free of bias as possible, so that they can be used by any newspaper regardless of its position. It’s clear, however, that Mulvihill is being very picky as to what facts he decides to present to the public.
For example, while he quotes a former co-worker of hers as saying, “Except for this — and that’s a big exception — her work is solid,” he does not tell the reader that Erdely has previously been accused of falsifying stories and undisclosed conflicts of interest. These accusations were not made by a fringe, unreliable source either—they came from a former writer for the Los Angeles Times and Philidelphia Inquirer (the same paper Mr. Mulvihill used to work at), and appeared in major national magazine Newsweek.
There are additional charges from other reputable sources as well, none of which Mulvihill sees fit to share with the public. All these charges have been in the media since late last year, and were well-known to anyone who’s been following the case closely. It is unlikely, to say the least, that Mulvihill was not aware of them, which makes his decision not to include any reference to them in his story puzzling.
The most puzzling question, however, is why Mulvihill, a reporter for the New Jersey area, is writing about this story at all. Rolling Stone is headquartered in New York, not New Jersey. Nor, obviously, is the University of Virginia located in New Jersey. Mulvihill has not written on the UVA rape case before, nor does he have any special expertise on the matter.
A list of his columns can be found here, with titles like “Developer who didn’t repay loans gets New Jersey tax credits” and “Late winter snowstorm blankets South, Northeast.” So why is he suddenly writing about events that occurred far outside of his usual territory?
Mr. Mulvihill’s last several columns. Note that all but his most recent concern local New Jersey politics.
A look at his LinkedIn biography provides a possible answer: both Mulvihill and Erdely are long-time residents of Philadelphia, and his writing career began in that city more or less contemporaneously with hers. While they never worked for the same magazine or paper, they’ve traveled in the same journalistic social circles for almost 20 years.
The odds that after almost 20 years Mulvihill is not personally acquainted with Erdely are slim to none. He may very well be a friend of hers. If this is the case, it makes his motive in writing the article quite obvious—it’s an attempt to rehabilitate the image of a longtime friend, whose failures and biases are now the talk of the nation.
Sabrina Erdely’s Linked-In Profile at left. Geoff Mulvihill’s Linked-In at right. Both began writing in Philadelphia in the late 90s, and have lived there ever since.
He is, of course, free to say whatever he likes about his friend or close colleague. If he wants everyone to know he thinks she’s a good person, or a good reporter, he may tell whoever he likes. Problems arise, however, when he conceals his own relationship with the subject of the piece, and attempts to use the reputation of the Associated Press for unbiased reporting to help someone he knows. While it does not rise to the level of Erdely’s libel, if this is true, it is still a serious ethical breach.
Many of Erdely’s failures were lies by omission. For example, she didn’t tell the reader that she’d never verified that the rape took place with anyone but her source. It is ironic that, in defending her, Mulvihill may have lied by omission himself.
(I’ve reached out to Mulvihill by Twitter for his response to these accusations, and have heard nothing as of the time this article was filed.)
Read Next: Elisabeth Garber-Paul Is The Fact Checker Who Green-Lighted The Biggest Media Hoax Of The Decade
The journalistic equivalent of white knighting?
Sounds like it, and unquestionably actionable.
☭➨➨➨➨☭I RECEIVED FIRST DRAFT OF $13000!@ak2:
DIRECT LINK TO WORK
IS RIGHT HERE FOR YOU,
➨➨➨➨https://TradeWorkOnline.com/get/position….
✼✼✼✼✼✼✼✼✼✼✼✼✼✼✼✼✼✼✼✼✼✼✼✼✼✼✼✼✼✼✼✼✼✼✼
Hit the flag win a prize.
describes much of the american media, glomming onto sob stories and “heroic” victims
Yup
I think we all know by now that Sabrina Erdely has previously published two wildly inaccurate pieces, all involving rape and a certain narrative? She has rape on the brain. In fact, I wonder why so many of these feminists have sex and rape on their mind and are so obsessed by it.
Erdely should have passed on the story in the first place. You can clearly see that she is biased (against men on anything) so the UVA story was nothing but a ticking time bomb.
Mulvihill is pretty stupid because he is following down that same path. He’s clearly biased (relationship with Eldely) and he should not have reported on her at all.
That’s the problem with “reporters” now. They have no idea when they are being biased or if there is a conflict of interest.
I guess that is considered “old journalism” – you know, fact checking, etc, etc…
Not to mention the chief editor and owners who only have their eyes on selling print and website clicks.
Some of the sophomoric labeling sex obsessed posts prominently featured at first click on this don’t help. They are hardly intelligent.
We all know why.
50 Shades didn’t sell like it did for no reason. And the “rape fantasy” is not the number one fantasy with women for no reason.
You’re right, and I was being cheekily rhetorical. It is amazing though, how much the sexual component is constantly being brought up – it really is obsessive. Feminism seems to run on an obsession with sex – and I’m talking about the horizontal boogie type, not gender.
Absolutely correct. Janet Bloomfield wrote an article on rape fantasies, pretty good explanation. I don’t think I’ve met a woman who didn’t harbor a rape fantasy.
Hey Sam, this article is outstanding investigative work… did you do it?
Credit goes to RooshV for turning me on to this guy’s existence, and to Days Of Broken Arrows, a poster on the RooshV forum, for pointing out the original article as well as pointing to the link in newsweek about previous fabrications. I’d read the newsweek article when it came out (as well as the other article from the federalist that I linked), but I doubt I would’ve remembered it in this context without his forum post.
I was the one who looked at who he was, and why he was so interested in defending the character of this horrid woman. The results were more or less exactly what I expected to find.
Great job. This article needs to be circulated widely and linked.
Except for the sex. I am pretty sure there’s sex in there somewhere. There always is with that sort.
Yup. I smell shades of Zoe Quinn type bedroom antics behind the scenes.
Thank you for taking the time to put it together, it was informative and eye opening.
Actually the first to cover Erdeleys past transgressions was Hanna Rosin of Slate. Also one of the first to question her story.
Geoff pulled your tweet and his response from his feed, btw.
Lying about these sort of issues needs to be exposed… Enough said.
Ashkenazi feminazi …. she seems to have a dark aura.
Huh?
The noses. I can not unsee it
Oy vey!
Another great article in this long overdue series, but I have to ask: is there a single journalist alive who couldn’t be written up on this subject? I’m serious.
Erik Wemple at the Washington Post almost singlehandedly demolished this story. But even he has characterized Jackie Coakley – the lying cunt who created this shitstorm – as the “top victim” in this affair.
When the guy with arguably the best knowledge about what a load of horseshit this is still says that, I have to wonder if we shouln’t just draft an article that simply lists the name of every journalist alive.
Sure there is: Hanna Rosin. At Slate.
Of Jackie Coakley, Hanna Rosin has said “there’s a lot of pressure on Jackie to speak up, but it’s important to remember that she’s not the villain here.”
Slate – 12/23/14
Sorry, she’s on the list too.
Sorry, but journalists talk to a thousand “jackies” every day. She’s a mixed up kid, probably BPD, she was unreliable from the get-go, Renda told her so. It’s a professional journalist’s job to vet your sources. I spend whole days doing so. Going psycho in the other direction doesn’t solve anything. It’s childish.
I’m not sure I understand your point. I believe that you’re saying that Jackie should be left alone because she was unreliable and this whole thing is the journalists’ fault because they shouldn’t have trusted her in the first place.
I don’t doubt that she’s unreliable. When I first read this story, I hadn’t read more than a few paragraphs before my bullshit meter was pegged off the charts. But reliable or not, BPD or not, she still made up and publicly told a lie that has tangibly harmed dozens of people, tarnished the reputations of a fraternal organization, and one of the most prestigious universities in the country.
I don’t disagree that journalists should do a better job, but if Jackie Coakley had published this same story on her own personal blog, she would face consequences. She shouldn’t get off the hook now simply because she filtered her story though someone else. Bottom line, if Jackie never told her lie, this story wouldn’t exist (OK, I’ll concede that Erdely would have just found someone else to tell the story she wanted to write).
Society cannot function where there are no consequences to telling such horrible lies for such selfish purposes. I don’t care if she is BPD. I don’t care if she is literally so insane that she has no concept of reality. Those are not arguments to leave her alone. Those are arguments to discontinue her relationship with the university, and commit her to an asylum where she can’t harm innocent people.
No one is saying she should be “left alone”. That’s extrapolating. But it’s the JOUNALIST”S AND EDITORS JOB–JOB–TO VET ALL SOURCES BEFORE GOING TO PUBLICATION. Wackos left, right, and everywhere in between call and email me all day long with wild accusations about their relatives, their neighbors, their doctors, their spouses, their teachers, their religious leaders, their mayors, their television sets. It’s my job to vet and cross-check those stories. PERIOD. Remember free speech? We all love it so. None of us care to research the difference of free speech vs the first amendment, or the responsibilities associated with free speech. Jackie did not go to the police. She committed no crime. She told a national magazine reporter a lie, who wrote it up, and the publisher printed it, and that makes it libel. If the university wants to expel her, they could if they were private, but just as UVA can’t sue, not sure they can expel either. Ever seen how hard it is to get a kid expelled from a public school? Kid practically has to murder someone. From what I hear she’s not there anyway, no one has heard from her or knows where she is. If you wanna hunt her down and harass her (careful that’s illegal) go ahead. I am saying that any journalist knows this is pretty much all on RS and their people, at least as far as our courts are concerned. They knew better.
Society has functioned for thousands of years when there is no consequence for wrong-doing. That’s an awfully naive statement. Fact is, someone comes to me (journalist) and says “My neighbor is a wifebeater”, that’s what’s called a tip, and it’s my job to investigate it, vet my source, contact the accused, get the other side of the story, and its ultimately my editor’s job and then my publisher’s job to decide if it’s print-worthy, or in most cases, worth the risk of printing. (The WHOLE STORY) (BOTH SIDES). Same person goes to the cops and makes the same claim, cops ask them, what did you see that makes you say this? Guy tells the cops in what’s called a report, and if the guy lies in that report, he/she is guilty of a crime. If the guy tells the cops what he knows and it’s not enough to charge anyone, cops either drop it or investigate it. BUt if the guy is LYING? THAT is a crime.
First of all, CAPS do not convey emphasis. They make you sound emotionally unhinged. Try italics or underlining.
Second, society cannot function where you are able to tell lies with no consequences. I know that’s a foreign concept to many women, but society punishes liars, and always has.
Third, whackos may call you all day long with lies, but I seriously doubt that any significant number of them have ever called you all day with tales of brutal and drunken gang rape engaged in by the perpetrators on a casual basis. And if they have, your statement doesn’t put the last nail in the coffin of the rape culture narrative for me, it puts the last shovel-full of earth on the grave, because it simply confirms the moral of this sorry tale on a larger scale – the vast majority of these outrageous claims are complete bullshit.
Fourth, I don’t know where you get the idea that it is hard to expel someone from a public university. Quite the contrary. Young men are being expelled every day by the zero-due-process kangaroo courts that zealots like Erdely are eager to expand. UVA’s honor code allows expulsion for lying. Coakley told a lie that resulted in real harm to dozens of people. She should be expelled.
Fifth, whether Jackie committed a crime is not for you nor I to decide, but is irrelevant in any event. Whether or not she is a criminal (see, italics for emphasis), she is undoubtedly a liar, and I never claimed she should be in prison, I claimed she should face consequences for the real harm that her lie has caused.
But none of this is pertinent to my original comment. My original point was that I am unaware of any journalist who doesn’t take Jackie’s side as if she’s the real victim here. You pointed to Hanna Rosin, and I noted that Rosin defended Jackie and said she’s not the villain. Wrong. She is a villain.
Where you and I agree is that RS fucked up. I think every one of the clowns involved should be fired, never to see their ideas in print again. And, I’m not a zero-defects type of guy. But, this isn’t a case of “you got us, we didn’t contact the third guy, and it turns out the person we named wasn’t there, but we confirmed that it was someone else, and he verified the entire story.” This was a case where virtually nothing, not a single thing in the entire story was true. RS and Erdely decided she was going to write a story and she already knew what it was. She hunted for someone to tell the story she wanted. She got a story with glaring red flags all over it. Everyone decided to ignore everything, disregard every basic journalism principle you could learn by working on your middle school yearbook, and print a story that has harmed dozens of people and resulted in violence. They should all be cast into the dustbin of journalism history.
Perhaps RS is a bigger villain, but without Jackie’s story, this would not have happened. She is responsible for the things that come out of her mouth. She told a malicious lie for her own personal gain. Fuck her. And I have no use for people who try to defend her. Perhaps prior to the truth coming out folks get a pass (even though they should know better) for jumping on the bandwagon to presume that this ridiculous tale was true. But now that it is known that this was all a lie, and that Jackie Coakley told it, people get no sympathy from me for casting their lot with this mentally troubled psychopath who ruined people for attention. She is not a rape victim. She is not any kind of victim. She is one of the perpetrators.
I am stating , practically, what the rules are, what crimes were committed, who committed libel and how, who will be sued, who will likely be sued, who can and can’t sue and why. I’m not hashing over opinion with you or anyone else. Check it with a lawyer if you don’t believe me. I was a reporter and fact checker for decades and it’s my job to know libel law. This is not a matter of opinion. This is a matter of fact: Jackie may have told lies, but it’s the publisher and reporter who LIBELED those slandered, and they will likely be sued for it. Also libel is NOT a criminal offense. It’s a civil matter that’s punished with monetary fines, not prison time, as in criminal court. Sorry but thems the facts. And I use the caps BTW in lieu of script, for emphasis, and will continue to do so. I’m not “offended” by caps, and don’t understand why others are–to me? It’s like correcting people’s grammar or punctuation–just an attempt at shifting the topic and deflecting in some odd, petty way. I’m not saying Jackie wasn’t wrong, I’m not saying what she DID wasn’t WRONG, I am only saying it isn’t , wasn’t, and in all likelihood never will be a criminal crime UNLESS she files a report with the police. Then and only then does it become a criminal matter. Period. Please stop extrapolating what I’m saying. Metering out who is wronger or righter in the accusatory right/left wing political landscape is a waste of time, in my opinion. They BOTH do this shit. But in terms of criminal crimes Jackie didn’t commit one, and in all likelihood won’t be pulled into civil court either. It’s RS the slandered will go after because it’s RS magazine who has the deep pockets and can write the big check. But it’s also the fact that this was printed in a magazine giving it exposure, to millions, that MAKES it a libel case because that’s how it caused damage. Also, Slander is different from libel, and RS committed the libel. SRE will likely say the RS fact-checking and editorial departments failed her and as a result will probably also avoid a lawsuit. Read the Washington Post’s legal columnist on this issue, don’t take my word for it. Ask a lawyer. It’s just facts.
Also this rape narrative crap has got to stop. Women have been raped for years and women have been claiming they’ve been raped when they haven’t for years. Neither is going to stop happening. These terms are coined by OTHER journalists and “journalists” alike trying to push their own agendas. It’s juvenile, frankly, when one can simply state the facts and be far more effective rhetorically then throwing around fancy names, climbing on high horses, and labeling and naming people dicks and cunts and feminatzis and Rethuglicans and libtards and all the other oh-so-intelligent terms. Good God can’t we all grow up? There’s less name-calling on my kid’s middle school playground.
I am a lawyer. I have never suggested Jackie is a criminal. She may be. She may not be. Neither you nor I know. What is known is that she told a lie with terrible consequences, and she should be held accountable. Your straw man about defamation and criminal law does nothing to change that.
On another point, we agree.
It’s not a straw man it’s not anything but a fact. If you’re a lawyer you know that. I’m not interested in who is right or wrong as a journalist or a fact checker. I’m only interested in the facts of the story and telling the story as such. One way you get closest to the truth is getting both sides. RS and SRE didn’t do this–they are responsible for the libel. Period. I can call a reporter and tell that reporter my husband sells sex slaves. That’s reprehensible if it’s a lie but it’s not a crime. If the journalist reports it and the publisher publishes it they are responsible. If they did so based on what I said alone? They committed libel. I slandered but no ones going after me–compared to the publisher I have no money; this is a civil court judgement and it’s all about money. That’s just factual pure and simple. You are trying to take this “issue” to a different level–and you are free to I suppose. I don’t care about that. I am only interested in stating the facts.
If I were to tell that lie to the cops? That WOULD be a crime. I’m not interested in having a debate about wrong and right, should or shouldn’t it be. I heard stories of rape and anise regularly. Mentally ill people make these kinds of claims all the time. Go to a nursing home. Talk to the dementia ward–you’ll hear all KINDS of false accusations. They’re not prosecuted when claims turn out to be untrue because they are insane. It happens all the time, and if as a journalist I printed those claims based only on their account, I’d be guilty of libel. It’s my job to vet my sources and check my facts AND get the accused response. Period. It’s on me. Every journalist knows this and editors know it even moreso.
My husband is a labor lawyer. You should HEAR the accusations he hears. You should hear what these people accuse co workers and bosses of. It’s his job to weigh the case and decide whether or not it’s actionable, viable, and if it’s frivilous? That’s on the attorney, and he would be sued by his client for malicious prosecution (and probably settled via E&O) . Is the defendant going to come after me, the plaintiff? Hardly ever.
Anyone going after anybody in this case is going after Rolling Stone. Because they have the experience, the legal knowledge, the resources and the training to know better. Not to mention the deep pockets to pay out. Period.
Why are you obsessed with the idea that Coakley won’t be sued? I have never said she would be. However, I disagree that she couldn’t be. The frat is probably a small enough group that one of them could sue her for defamation. But, as you point out, she doesn’t have deep pockets, so she probably won’t be sued unless someone decides to sue on principle alone for vengeful reasons.
I have also practiced some employment law (though not my primary practice), so I’m keenly aware how bullshit most of these claims are, and I’ve made comments to that effect on this site a few times.
Look, you are talking about journalism, I am (reluctantly – because you are continuing with this straw man argument that I did not make) talking about law.
There is some overlap between your point and mine in the area of defamation, but you are wrong that Coakley can’t be sued for defamation. Defamation requires a false statement of fact, publication to a third party, and injury. Publication includes verbally telling something false (her rape story – which she passed off as fact) to one person (Erdely). And for Coakley, damages would not be required because her false statement falls within one of the per se categories of defamation – an immoral crime – so injury is presumed and no showing of damages is necessary. Moreover, the fraternity chapter is likely small enough that they can sue under the group exception (she accused at least 10% of them as having directly participated, implied that all of them did this as a ritual, and the public assumed this was factually true). Finally, insanity is almost never defense to intentional torts, but even if it was, Jackie isn’t insane so she couldn’t claim it anyway. The only reason she probably won’t be sued is that it is not worth paying tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars to sue her only to collect nothing because she has no money. It’s not because she is immune from suit, or because RS and Erdely are the only ones who are on the hook.
You are also wrong about your assessment that her actions cannot be criminal. Neither you nor I are in a position to know that. A crime requires an illegal act, and an intent. It is possible that an act can be criminal because of the mental state of the person committing it. For example, if Jackie told her story with the requisite intent, she could be charged with blackmail, extortion, incitement, solicitation, conspiracy, fraud, and probably several other crimes regardless of who she told the story to. It doesn’t matter who receives the information, it matters what Jackie intended for the information to do. To use your example, if you call the reporter and tell her your husband sells sex slaves, and you intend that the pending publication of this false story will allow you to blackmail your husband, you have committed a crime regardless of the fact that you only told it to a reporter and not the police.
You are simply not in a position to know whether Jackie acted with the requisite intent, and neither am I, because as of now, no one has bothered to investigate her, and instead we are treating her like the victim that she unquestionably isn’t. So you aren’t “stating the facts” so much as you are stating your own assumptions.
You are so out there that I don’t even know . If you are an attorney ? Which I doubt. Bar code number? Seriously? You can’t contend with legalities in simple English. Which are this: any person can contact a reporter and claim anything…alien abduction, rape from a senator, anything. That is is our first amendment right. I get that complaint. Do I publish it? If I am Erdeley perhaps. If I am 98 percent of journalists no fucking way. I go back to the accused and get a response. Say they say no comment. That’s a response I can print. Say they say the “victim” actually stole pens or a few grand. What do I do then? Well if I want the story at that point I present the “victim” with these accusations and get the response. This goes on and on. Eventually I as a journalist may or may not have a good story. Do you really think most of of us just “print whatever” with our FUCKING NAMES ON THE STORY??? Grow the fuck up.
Shut the fuck up with your straw man bullshit. I ain’t straw man anything bro. I will argue your freshman year pre law ass into the ground. You are the reason the right can’t win the presidency btw. Ignorance.
Awww. Are your poor little feelings hurt? Does it make you mad that
you can’t always be right just because you have a vagina?
Let me help you – a straw man is a logical fallacy where you attack an argument your opponent didn’t make. So yes, you are attacking a straw man. If you think otherwise, please go quote from my previous comments where I said that Jackie had committed a crime.
I’ve pretty adequately demonstrated who I am and what I know. I couldn’t give two shits whether you believe it. Everything I’ve said can be verified by reading any case you would pull on these subjects. If you think I’m wrong, point me to something other than your wild delusions that says so.
On the other hand, you have presented yourself as a fact checking journalist, but you’ve made a pretty piss poor showing at convincing
me. Let’s see, poor rhetoric, logical fallacies, poor grammar, nonsensical argument structure, knee-jerk emotional arguments, inability to engage your opponent’s point, speaking out of your
depth, inability to admit when you don’t know what the fuck you’re talking about, wild assumptions without any basis in reality, and almost no grasp of what a “fact” actually is. You know, on second thought, maybe you actually are a journalist!
Sweetheart, the reason Republicans don’t win elections is because we allow semi-illiterate morons like you to vote.
We have journalists now in the same sense that the former Soviet Union had journalists.
After WW2, the defeated were prosecuted for war crimes. Do you think people like these will be prosecuted for ‘society crimes’ IF feminism and SJWism ends up in the trash can?
It could happen. I really don’t know though. Folks in America have become way too nice and far too forgiving over the last century.
Only when the culprits are cunts or the manginas defending the honor of the cunts.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=217&v=h1m8AAQSRGo
Yeah but we can’t arrest or assassinate them.
Holy sock puppets, Batman!
I love how all these fucks are getting exposed here at ROK. Hopefully these posts will shoot to the top of Google.
Link them on every other board or forum you post on where this topic comes up, I guess, is the general rule to follow.
He knows her. Many people have seen them together at bars and functions in Center City. I’m sure if you troll their social media enough you can find pictures of them together.
This is story about a retraction that needs retraction. Contact his editor at AP. Cause this is all over the wire and popping up everywhere.
How would you go about doing this?
Find out who the managing editor is at AP and email him. Or phone him. Or send him an email and cc it to the executive editor and the managing editor of AP. You might also send it to the News editor of the NJ bureau.
Sally Hale
http://www.ap.org/states/nj/NewJerseyAPNews.html
Another liberal “journalist” using the left wing press to advance yet another “narrative” regardless of the facts.
Journalists are now a bit like priests were 30 years ago. People are starting to wonder why they were so respected and lionized when they are really sick twisted people underneath. Hopefully this sordid affair opens the eyes of more people to this ridiculous little club of liars and psychopaths.
Misandry is big business. Its an industry. It sells.
What else can you expect.from these presstitutes…#presstitutes
Nice.
What’s important is to remember that this incident represents a trend, both in terms of college girls lying for victim points, and media overempathizing with them
Weaponize the issue so that it can be used to sow the seeds of public distrust against feminist assertions
He wants a job at Hearst. Sabrina’s first editor is the one there who does all the hiring. He himself was fired for a hoax in Philly Magazine. He’s not quoted in this story (probably after a reprimand for being quoted in the first story defending her.) Dude called Geoff and asked for a little favor.
DePaulo and Platt also owe their careers to this Hearst guy. They all come from Penn. the Hearst guy tried to hire Glass, and was fired for a phillymagazine “mummers” hoax. He’s Erdeleys mentor and he’s also an ASME judge and the reason Erdeleys been nominated at all for ASMES. Check her tweets for the following: “got a cryptic email from EK, public service, congrats, see you May 2.
DePaulo also slammed Condit. remember?
Mulvihill says, “Some of those who have worked with her see her as diligent and sensitive.” I’m sure some say that.
While others say she’s a bloodthirsty feminazi with no regard for ethics who’s had an agenda since day 1.
You decide.
“the reputation of the Associated Press for unbiased reporting”
lol
My 1st thought too.
Geoff has removed your tweet from his twitter feed.