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…

He actually was talking about facts...like the fact that this girl claimed to be gang raped on top of a broken glass table, and the fact that no one saw her drunkenly stumble, bleeding profusely, from the house where a party was raging. Merlan fucked it up big time — though not as big as Erdley — and her apology for…

It wasn’t just feelings. Him and others were pointing out it didn’t seem like the journalist interviewed the accused or the accuser’s friends, among other issues. He was blown off by Anna and others, people too committed to their narrative to judge things fairly (or even have a civil debate on the issues). Sounds like…

It may not automatically bias you (although it’s clear from your initial assumption that this was a woman, you do have some deep-seated biases), but that should be for the jury selection attorneys to decide. From personal experience, I went to jury selection for a capital murder trial, and was dismissed because I’m…

He pointed out that Erdley didn’t try and contact the rapists or Jackie’s friends. He didn’t just bring up “feelings.” Anna did by calling journalists who raised issues with the story “rape truthers.”

Why does that seem bizarre to you? Do you not agree that someone who has been raped may have an implicit bias against someone accused of rape?I for one know I would.  

She apologized after she was a 100% wrong, belittling little asshat. She doesn’t get props for apologizing, just like my ten year old doesn’t get praised for apologizing after hitting his sister. It’s absurd what we are praising here.

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

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.