that is journalism 101. i think everybody on campus is angry with rolling stone because you re inclined to believe the story immediately because you believe they did their fact checking, which now we understand they didn t. they could not live where they were. some people say to burn the frat down when a lot of the allegations have turned out to be muddy water. we don t know what happened. shannon: and those who have come out to say they are uncomfortable about the ways in which they were questioned, some suggesting they wanted to distance themselves from it, but we still continue to hear people say there is some grain of truth. we don t know if it was at that fraternity house, of course the sparks conversations about those
the alleged occurred. have you been able to independently verify those two things occur? can you confirm there was no party and confirm their members were employed by that facility. the fraternity provided the first two accounts, the details of that. of course, we re looking to confirm all details. irin, therein lies the details. you could have a party at the frat and not written down to be independently verified. so this remains a story where every detail is subject my understanding is the washington post did reach out to another person who jackie named and that that person belonged to a different fraternity. i would love to hear from taylor on that. i think the broader question is, did rolling stone do its due diligence? what did they owe to their readers as well as their source? i think there are serious questions about the fact that they threw their victim, the source, under the bus and blames
piece? thanks for having me back. the students we set up entirely separately. what we can do, we are in the period where they are generating inside from the thousands of people engamed on this. we are trying to figure out what we can change. the college cannot sue, but the frat can. do you have a sense of whether they can do so? i haven t heard anything about that. what i am more concerned about, they are still laser focused on is the issue of sexual assault. people focus on the issues of reporting in rolling stone and what i am focused on is fixing the problem of sexual assault. we are going to try to stay
investigative reporters fall in love with the story and source, that you minimize any conflicting information or discrepancies of the account and the editors did not back her up. you have interesting information and you haven t done enough reporting and make sure you reach the men before making the serious accusations. it is not only damming to the men who are accused of carrying out the heinous acts but extremely damming by uva. the university is embarrassed by this. they don t know if it happen. and they have suspended the frat activities and ruining the time in the college and any responsibility taken by anyone? it is like a neutron bomb in the campus and resulted in the temporary shutering of
emily and didn t report what happened to them. you really start wondering well is it actually going to do me any good to report. for some people it s worth it. for some people it s not. reporter: she started the process of reporting her attack. i had panic attacks on campus. i was covering my face with a hood and running from class to class because i was fearful of running into the person that hurt me. reporter: eventually she dropped her case but told cnn she witnessed disturbing scenes like having to carry friend out of frat parties where she says they were drugged. people use words oh, that s the rapy frat. the majority of narratives i ve heard you re not hot enough to get into this party or try a different frat. reporter: members of the interfraternity council released a statement acknowledges there s a bigger issue asking our