Youre reporting a lot of inconsistencies, but overall did this rape even occur . She could be grossly wrong about the facts or making it up or something in between. Have you been able to ascertain from your reporting whether she was assaulted . Thats difficult to tell, of course. Her friends believe something happened to her and they believe something awful and traumatic and horrific. And those based on the evidence that they have seen, thats what they believe. Ive spoken to two people who saw her in the immediate aftermath of the incident and both of them say they absolutely believe something happened, just maybe not exactly what was reported in Rolling Stone. Looking at the facts, one of the things is whether an assault occurred of some sort and the whole idea of putting it in the Public Domain and how well you do your fact checking. The Rolling Stone is getting barbecued by everybody about its reporting. Tell me, what did you determine to be when doing your reporting, what did you learn differently from what Rolling Stone reported . First it was the fact that the fraternity did not host a
party on the night in question . Could they just be mistaken . Or could it be a nonofficial party . Weve obviously looked into everything we can. Were looking to confirm with Fraternity Members who were there at that time and weve spoken to several off the record and on the record. Were looking to do as best as we can to confirm that. But so far no proof that there was a party there, official or unofficial that night . They said there was not a party. One of her stories well, one of the things she says according to Rolling Stone is one of her assaulters worked as a lifeguard, is that correct . Thats what she said. She worked as a lifeguard as well . Thats what she said. Thats what she said. Now and thats what the Rolling Stone reported, right . Correct. What did your real reporting show . We reported that no member of the fraternity was a lifeguard or worked at the Aquatic Fitness Center that entire time of the night in question. Did you have you had a chance to talk to the Rolling Stone and ask why they didnt go back and check these facts
sorry or we tried or anything like that . Not that im aware of. Whats been the reaction of your reporting . I think the news of this particular case is intriguing a lot of people. Everybody just wants to know the truth of what happened that night and of course were looking to find out what it is. And how many witnesses alleged witnesses or people who talked to her shortly after the alleged event did you talk to . Ive spoken to three people. And were the three people, in talking to them, were the events that they relayed similar to each other . Ive spoken to three people who saw her immediately after that particular event of the alleged attack. They told me a similar story of what they believe happened that night or what they were told happened that night. It is different from what was reported in Rolling Stone. Different in what way . The number of people involved, for instance. So i think that five versus seven . Sure. But it could be an easy miss tab, right . Absolutely. They all believe something happened to her that night. Something traumatic and something awful. And the three people, was there differences in what they
told you material or just incidenstanccidental difference . I think any fact should be double checked and confirmed. Having spoken with these people, were learning Something Different than what was already reported. Taylor, thank you very much, and good reporting. Thank you. So first Rolling Stone changes its story and then changing its apology. A stunning admission from Rolling Stone magazine which could have implications on Rape Investigations and journalism. Rolling stone admits it never contacted any of the accused. The fraternity has contradicted some of the reporting. Shabby journalism and its going viral. It was but fair and balanced in its exposeabout gang rape. Its an impairment embarrassment to Rolling Stone. It appears to all be falling apart. The most successful woman in radio, laura ingraham, joins us. First of all, whoever did that montage did great. How has uva handled this . Look, i think the charges were so explosive and in a University Setting where theres such heightened concern now in most cases about date rape, the way women are treated, title ix, i think initially everybody freaked out. Fraternity brothers were trembling a little bit on camera and the university pledged to get to the bottom of things. But i think in the end, and you know this from all your experience in the court, truth matters, right . We dont know really what the truth was. Its always hard in these cases where theres a lot of booze. Theres a lot of people hopped up after exams or before exams and theyre all out having fun. I think some bad stuff does happen at these fraternities. But what happened that night and this type of reporting, i just think you cant not identify anyone, not have yourself identified and then go to Rolling Stone who im sorry has an agenda here. Rolling stone wanted this story to be true. I think they wanted the outcome of this is fraternity culture. Theyre subjecting women to violence. Its an allmale frat house mentality. Its animal house all over again, shut it down. If i had to say it, i would imagine they would prefer that all fraternities be shut down in the United States. Now, did that affect the way they reported this story . It seems like a really lot of bad decisions were made in the reporting of this story. Its such a serious problem of rape that when you have someone do a really rotten job on reporting, it diminishes the real efforts to prevent these problems. Look at the cosby issue all these years later. Its a horrific crime. Its also horrific to be accused
of a crime falsely without any ability to defend yourself. The jury is out on cosby, though. Right. Im just saying im trying to look at it objectively. Literally if anyone did this to my daughter, the Fraternity Membership would be the least of the problems they had. So im not trying to make this big case for the fraternity. But Objective Truth should matter. And these socalled journalists at Rolling Stone, i mean i know a lot of people are writing this writer is a great writer. How do you publish something without having spoken to any of the Fraternity Brothers in question . It would have been so it would have been so easy. Its ajend genda driven. If conservatives had gone down the road that they had gone down on an issue that was important to them, demonizing an entire organization falsely, i think they would be all over them. I think its one of the worst things you can do to serious matters is make a spectacle of
it because now people are likely to think any allegations i dont think so. See, ive heard that. I dont think so. I think people take this seriously, but i think we have to give women a sense that we are going to protect you. If youre victimized, we want you to speak up as contemporaneously as possible. Its one thing about uva shutting down the entire greek system ridiculous. Total overreach. If someone commits an Armed Robbery five blocks from here the people who want to ban football and the people who want to ban fraternities, i bet that circle goes like this. As we said, emily clark insisting that jackies story is not a hoax, a lie or a scheme but will that help Rolling Stone fight any potential lawsuits . Joining us our legal panel, katie fang and ted williams. Ted, uva or Rolling Stone face trouble here . Greta, they could be but its
highly unlikely theyre going to face a lawsuit in this case, may mainly as we know in defamation cases truth is a defense. However, even though we can show they acted negligently, meaning Rolling Stone here possibly, the question is was it reckless and that is the threshold that they may not be able to meet. Plus we still havent this is shoddy journalism, but we dont know if its wrong journalism. Thats the other problem is theres a difference between shoddy, not checking your facts, and having it right but doing it in such a poor way. Jackie may very well have been telling the truth in the material situation here. Katie, theres a big difference between journalism and the law, isnt there . To be a journalist, you just say im a journalist. In law, we go to school, we take courses and evidence, we even take tests about this stuff. Rolling stone and journalists just say were journalists and can just put it out. Yeah, its really unfortunate because even if youre, quote unquote, a journalist, dont you have to have some integrity when you write something . At the end of the day jackie is telling the truth or not is left to be seen. But does jackie herself have a cause of action against Rolling Stone for the printed Retraction Insin Waiting that she wasnt telling the truth . She may be able to go after Rolling Stone for their negligence. Katie, i mean i dont want to do to Rolling Stone like uva did to the entire greek system. When were talking about Rolling Stone were really talking about the writer and her editors. Anybody who is on the chain of command. There are probably a lot of really good reporters that are contributing reporters who arent this but thats another problem too, ted, is they have now poisoned they have poisoned the well a little bit. They have. And the sad commentary is, as you said earlier in your series, rape is something that is
taken should be taken, especially on college campus, very seriously. But when you have the inconsistencies here and greta, the big problem we have with this whole story is that Rolling Stone is putting out bits and pieces and we really dont know what are the real actual inconsistencies if any. And now we have the stigma, katie, where this woman comes forward apparently quite a time afterwards and now youve got the problem some women will fear sort of the Rolling Stone stigma, the noise, the publicity and its a very private moment of a very public crime. Yeah, its two years after the fact. Theres a reason behind why she didnt come forward. Again, we are not sure if her story is true or false. At the end of the day you cannot discount the fact that she waited to come forward. She may have a rationale behind doing so but theres a stigma associated with affiliating yourself with a journal or a magazine with Rolling Stone and putting your story out there. She put her story out there and
everyone in the world knows what happened to her. Rape is a horrible crime and being falsely accused of rape is a horrible crime too. It certainly doesnt help if the media isnt trying to at least track down the facts and compare and contrast and try to figure out whats right and whats not. Anyway, katie and ted, thank you both. Well, its no secret. People in the media have bias. Sure, they claim to be pure and free of bias but we all know better. It can poison work and thats bad. Really bad. Our next guest is warning about the dangers of narrative journalism. What does he mean by that . Jim gar gerity joins us. This is a media drum beat constantly talking about a very simple Black And White story line. Theres a hero, theres a villain, theres a victim. And you get this beat into your head story after story and theres not much consideration consideration of any alternate
interpretation of events. I think the events of Rolling Stone and in ferguson. People on our air say its wrong Michael Brown had his arms up. 16 people apparently testified in the grand jury that he did. So it goes both ways. People are so loose with the facts. It goes both ways. At least its incumbent for journalists to try to get it right. Try to investigate. Challenge whats out there. To those reporters who are constantly in this drum beat, a very simple story of a mean bad white cop and this gentle giant at the wrong place at the wrong time. No, he wasnt a gentle giant. That is so true. They downplayed that part. But he didnt deserve to die for that crime. See, juries cant tune out part of the story. They cant stop paying attention when it gets boring or if they do they get in trouble. They get all the facts. They get all the facts that the prosecutor presents. In this case it was enough to get them to decide we dont think a crime was committed here. You can agree with that or not agree with that. Clearly that came to the community as a stunning shock. It was unthinkable the grand jury would not indict and thats how you furious, angry reaction. You know, i support the grand jury decision because ive been around the block long enough. Even when they were decided against me. I will say the eric garner is different. Thats the one case where the whole event is caught on videotape. Michael brown, we dont have all the pieces that the grand jury did. The eric garner is a unique case because we actually saw it. I think thats precisely the point. People feel very differently when they see it themselves. Both these cases go back to trayvon martin. Unfortunately the media takes sides and doesnt look at the facts. And i think it creates this expectation that will never be met. George zimmerman is this terrible guy. If the jury didnt get him, eventually the Department Of Justice will. Nice talking to you, jim. Right now a large group of protesters outside the Barclay Center in brooklyn, new york. They are protesting against last weeks grand jury decision not to indict a Police Officer in the eric garner choke hold case and are taking their protest to brooklyn. Thats because thats where Prince William and kate are heading tonight. Theyre going to attend a game between the Brooklyn Nets and the cleveland cavaliers. Lets turn the corner. Right now u. S. Embassies and Military Bases overseas are on high alert. Well tell you why. Thats next. Plus Breaking News tonight. A fiery inferno as a private jet crashes into a house on the outskirts of washington, d. C. Six people confirmed dead. The ntsb is combing through the debris. A report from the scene coming up. And an update on the marine just weeks after he was released from a mexican prison. Thats ahead. You owned your car for four years. You named it brad. You loved brad. And then you totaled him. You two had been through everything together. Two boyfriends. Three jobs. Youre like nothing can replace brad then Liberty Mutual calls. And you break into your happy dance. If you sign up for better car replacement, well pay for a car thats a model year newer with 15,000 fewer miles than your old one. See Car Insurance in a whole new light. Liberty mutual insurance. Were comcast. The only isp legally bound by full Net Neutrality rules. A fight in washington tonight over tomorrows release of the Senate Intelligence report on the alleged torture of cia prisoners. Tonight some insist the release of the report will lead to violence against u. S. Embassies and western personnel in the middle east. Katherine joins us tonight. What is this report . This report is about 6,000 pages long, though all the public will be able to see is a declassified Executive Summary thats about 500 pages and it was finished in the summer but theres a lengthy negotiation between the cia and the Senate Committee over the redakzs. And what we expect is this will finally be released tomorrow. So whos objecting . Does president obama want it out or not out . The administration wants it out but theyre sending mixed messages. On friday the Secretary Of State, john kerry, appealed to Dianne Feinstein to consider the timing of the release because what he sees as the backlash against u. S. Interest overseas. I would add that the State Department and the Defense Department have issued warnings to personnel overseas that there could be violence as a result. Whats the authority to keep when you say redacted, the things of National Security has been marked out. So whats the justification by anyone in the cia to keep it under wraps . The issue of the redactions has the Senate Proposed using pseudonyms for the different officers but the cia argued if you looked at the names and could see some patterns you
could work out who these individuals were. This became such a contentious issue that the current cia director, i understand, threatened to resign unless it was resolved to his satisfaction. I think for the listeners, the bottom line is that this is said to be by democrats the definitive report on the cia program. A program they say never produced useful information and a program they say the cia misled the administration, which is roundly refuted by those who were in the agency. Well, they could do better redactions maybe. Catherine, thank you.