ArcaMax

During my decades of journalism I have been alternatively amused and appalled by the sarcastic newsroom slogan: "A story too good to check out."

I've been amused by the battlefield sarcasm that comes from having a hot story lead fall apart under the bright lights of closer scrutiny. I've been appalled by journalists -- real or alleged -- who don't let the possibility of contrary facts get in the way of their narrative.

That's why I was bitterly disappointed by the failure of Rolling Stone, a magazine that I usually respect, to do what I have been told to do since my own student newspaper days: Get the other side of the story.

The magazine dug itself into a scandalous credibility gap by reporting only the alleged victim's side of a rape that allegedly occurred in a fraternity house at the University of Virginia.

The story kicked up enough of an uproar to compel the university to suspend all of its fraternities until the end of the year -- before the magazine retracted the story with a public apology.

The magazine needed to apologize for its obvious and astonishing failure to send the story's author back for comments from, for example, the accused frat brothers, the fraternity's leaders, and friends of the alleged victim.

The accuser reportedly set those limits on the story, including withholding her name, and astonishingly the magazine's editors agreed. If they were trying to avoid being inappropriately skeptical of an alleged rape victim's claims, they instead committed the error of failing to be skeptical enough.

Yet in the parade of horribles that has dominated national news recently -- including allegations of rape, torture, racism and police brutality -- journalists are not alone in their conspicuous reluctance to get the whole story.

Yale Law Professor Stephen L. Carter, an inveterate free thinker in his socio-political views, offers the Rolling Stone goof and the detainee torture report by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence as examples of what he calls "a malady that has become all too common: a reluctance to disturb the narrative."

Although he's a strong critic of "enhanced interrogations," also known as torture of detainees, he notes that the Democrat-led committee conspicuously decided not to interview the CIA officials who oversaw the interrogation programs.

...continued

(c) 2014 CLARENCE PAGE DISTRIBUTED BY TRIBUNE MEDIA SERVICES, INC.