I can understand that we’re human and nobody can be right all the time. I’m spectacularly wrong about things sometimes too. My issue is how douchey she was about it. Anna calls the blogger an idiot, then when he shows up in the comments section (and very respectfully makes his case) she chastises him because he’s not…

The beast is one of our own making. I read my few complimentary articles from NYT each month and I don’t pay for quality journalism. And here you find me. From what I have seen, the other denizens of this site are much like you and me, we are all prone to dogpiling on issues without waiting for the facts. Contrary…

Eramo was accused of a serious Title IX offense, which is — yes — a crime, and one that she had — yes — been taken to task over before.

It aired 14 October. Surprisingly, no one from Jez reported on it.

Ah, the journalist from Columbia’s schooling has finally come to completion. Maybe next time she won’t call people idiots who are inquiring about the potential innocence of accused. Maybe next time she might even let the legal system decide guilt and innocence and not her own spidey sense based on accusations.

I mean she was pretty sassy and it’s pretty embarrassing to read, but in Anna’s defense, I think the frustration was that the guy was pretty much just bringing feelings to the table to question the validity of the story. He wasn’t taking about facts when he said he didn’t believe it. Someone ended up being right and…

She and the rest of the smug commenters will no doubt stubbornly refuse to learn anything from the episode.

The problem is that believing Jackie isn’t enough when you are going to go to print accusing people of serious crimes. Whats the phrase? “Trust but verify”? Ya that’s it. Even just a little bit of that would have prevented this whole debacle.

The part of article, I could not understand why people did not question. In story from Jackie, she says she is gang raped on glass coffee table so severe, they break her through it, and they continue to rape her.

At least Robby Soave managed to get the story straight, which is more than Anne managed to do.

This gets me every time. The smug, condescending tone is just too rich. Life’s funny like that sometimes

I found this really interesting take on the matter when it ws unfolding, so to speak. Here, let me share it with you:

This is my first thought whenever I see an update on this story from Jez. Does it count as irony that the editors allow Anna to continue covering a story about journalistic malpractice? Not only was she flat out wrong, but argument was breathtakingly elitist.

This reminds me of a story we learned about in J-School where someone won a PULITZER for a story about a little boy who was addicted to heroin. Turns out he didn’t even exist.