Um, how does a die in or other peaceful protests endanger anyone's safety? What a bunch of horseshit.

"Children as young as 9 have been charged as adults."

It's happened at least since the 80s - I went to junior high with this kid:

they are 12....they need more of mental help.

I am so ashamed to live in a country where a 12 year old could ever be tried as an adult.

Mental state aside, they're twelve. Why are they being charged as adults?

Diplomat? Did you read the article?

My god, JUST PUT ALL OF YOUR NOTES TOGETHER AND RELEASE A GODDAMN ENCYCLOPEDIA ALREADY.* THAT IS LITERALLY ALL I WANT. TOLKIEN DID IT AND SO CAN YOU.

What is most depressing to me, after reading the article in Slate about this, is that RS purposefully choose UVA because of Jackie's sensational story. The reporter needed a "stand out" story from all of the dozens that sounded exactly the same.
But by choosing that sensational and (even if true) over the top story…

I think a journo trying desperately to prove this true, or make it so, is what started this mess. If Erdely had stuck to the other incidents in the piece (and there are plenty, remember) we wouldn't be cringing over the latest WaPo scoops that show Jackie's experience is probably fictitious.

Part of proving any crime is fully investigating all possible scenarios, including scenarios where the crime didn't happen. Fully and rationally dealing with skepticism is what we should want if the goal is justice for rape victims. Its the same reason why we should want the best possible lawyers to provide an…

so this is what appears to have happened:

not really, considering that in other parts of the book, where the name was changed, it said so in the text as well. speaking as a defamation defense lawyer, it was a mistake to not be more explicit about it. maybe not actionable, but just sloppy. you know, you can be critical of LD once in while. it won't kill…

maybe. still, purely as a fact checker, we advocate "better safe than sorry" in these areas. I'm not saying the brouhaha isn't overkill, but it's really the smart thing to do when printing an accusation of a crime.

From the WaPo:

Look, I dislike Brietbart as much as the next person, but an investigation into an allegation of an extremely serious crime that implicates an apparently innocent person that has the same name, political affiliation and attended the same small liberal arts school at the same time as the person that Dunham named in her…

So, just to be clear, Breitbart's story turned out to be right, and Dunham's publisher agreed.

"Some names" were changed indicates some, most likely most, were not. And because Dunham in some instances in the text indicated names that had indeed been changed, a reasonable reader could infer "Barry" was not changed.

If it just says "some names" that's not enough to really clarify things and leaves open the possibility that any particular name and person could be completely real and accurate. Putting a note in that particular section that "Barry" is not the mans real name is the safest choice to make sure there is no confusion.

I'll just copy and paste what I wrote on Gawker: