Hanna Rosin, one of the great defenders of journalistic ethics, just published a very short story that seems to have as profound or more profound ethical difficulties than the original Sabrina Erderly story. First, the story starts with the headline "Key Player in UVA rape story: Rolling Stone never talked to me." However this key player, I am assuming Andy, Rosin either mentions or talks with two. It seems Rosin may be getting her information from the Washington Post's unpublished notes, because I went and read the linked story and little of what is in Rosin's story is in there. Perhaps Rosin talked to the two she is not clear. What is clear is there is not direct evidence either in her story or the WAPO story that either of the students said this (I am not saying they didn't, just there is no evidence they did). Rosin portrays it as an assumption in the body of the article.
Perhaps more important she did not seem to talk to Jackie - or Sabrina Ederly - to find out if "Andy" was actually telling the truth or if Erderly tried to talk to him. Not even a no comment - that so, so, soooooo important line without which not article is viable.
Third, Ederly states in her article that one of the friends was planning to rush for a fraternity. Was Andy in a fraternity now? Wouldn't this have been important information to know.
Fourth, Alexandria Pinkleton claims she got somebody who assaulted her thrown out of UVA. This is a pretty damn big thing. Guys rarely get thrown out of university because of sexual assault, the article made that pretty clear about UVA, but its true in general. Did Rosin verify this?
Now will Rosin get raked over the coals in the same way. Does this cast all attempts to claim the UVA rape article was poorly done in doubt?
We'll see. My guess is no. This isn't about journalistic ethics. It's about protecting a culture.