This is really bad, but a few things worth remembering

Anyone who thinks that Anna's apology is sincere really ought to go back and read what she wrote in the original article and the comments underneath, not just to random posters but to the editors and writers whose work she was questioning.

Correction: A previous version of this post incorrectly said Richard Bradley is retired. In fact, he is the current editor-in-chief of Worth. I regret the error. This is what a professional journalistic correction looks like, in the unlikely event that any editors at Worth or writers at Reason ever need to issue…

I love how your take away from this is, "Ohmigod, we were wrong and now people are going to bring it up all the time" rather than "Ohmigod, we were wrong, how can we avoid making the same mistake in the future?"

Really? Go back and read what she wrote about the people she just apologized to and tell me if you feel her apology carries the same weight as her original insults.

To be fair to MacKay, although not to excuse him, Stronach isn't exactly someone I'd go too far out of my way to defend. As gross as what what MacKay said is, Stronach is an opportunistic heiress who I'm sure gives as good as she gets.

So, you think she's a liar? And that you have a better handle on her situation than she does? Interesting.

What's to figure out? If you click through to the article and read what she has to say, she's pretty explicit about what she thinks. She says she's not in an abusive relationship, that she doesn't consider herself a victim and that this was a one time thing.

For anyone who doesn't know, watching a game in Percival Molson Memorial Stadium is great. It's a really nice stadium.

An not insignificant portion of people feel that whenever someone says they have been raped they should be believed unconditionally and that even asking questions to clarify the situation constitutes victim blaming.

some were victim blaming and saying, "why didn't he say no?"

You can question the victim's actions without assigning them responsibility for the rape or the rapist's actions because those are two separate things. It's not a complicated thought.

It is not victim blaming to ask questions. Victim blaming would be saying, "Shia deserved this because of who he is or what he was doing or what he was wearing." Or saying, "You didn't resist so it's not rape." Neither of which Mo does.

Wouldn't dream of it. In the end the difference will be that if someone asks me why the officer should have been indicted, I'll have an answer whereas you'll just have the same empty opinions you have now.

If you can't distinguish between the evidence creationists refuse to acknowledge and several thousand pages of testimony you can't possibly have read, there's not much hope for you. Sorry, I don't have much faith in the "coverage" which has been wrong numerous times.

Are you honestly this stupid? Who's standing up for anybody? Deigning to figure out what actually happened doesn't constitute defending anybody.

I'm not playing "devil's advocate." I'm suggesting that you look at the presented evidence because it's available. I'm sorry that you can't distinguish between someone saying "let's be angry and right" and someone saying "there's nothing wrong here."

If anyone wants to take 10 minutes from forecasting race war and the end of times, the evidence presented to the grand jury is all here.

Campus harassment/bullying, yes. And they ought to see that charges are pressed if the bullying raises to the level of assault (which it sometimes does.)

Because everyone on Jezebel was a member of the grand jury and is familiar with all the facts of the case, duh.