Such is the case with Jackie, the woman who came forth as the University of Virginia gang rape victim and became the primary source for a controversial Rolling Stone piece published last November.

While the story aimed to highlight the prevalence of college rape culture, its blatant reporting errors have since prompted an extensive police investigation of the alleged UVA gang rape case. The investigation found there was not substantial evidence that any rape took place, further complicating Jackie’s story.

Between Rolling Stone’s faulty reporting methods and the police investigation at UVA, publications like MRC News Busters are calling Jackie a liar, suggesting that she made up her rape accusation. 

Instead of tackling a major magazine for slacking on its job, the media criticized the testimony of a traumatized victim who is trying to live with the effects of her trauma. An absence of evidence and journalistic integrity does not discredit Jackie’s experience, though.

Shortly after Rolling Stone posted the article, Slate became a prominent critic and published a column questioning Rolling Stone for not pushing sensitive issues or interviewing sources that Jackie had reservations about. 

In the column, Allison Benedikt and Hanna Rosin argue that Rolling Stone should have reached out to the alleged perpetrators for comment on their side of the story. Although sources often decline to comment, “it’s absolutely necessary, because it tells readers you tried your best to get the other side of the story,” according to Benedikt and Rosin.

Slate is right — it’s valid to suggest that a publication should contact all parties involved in a case. It is important to acknowledge that Rolling Stone’s primary focus was not to be sensitive to the victim, but rather to approach campus assault in an objective, informative manner.

The Washington Post also questioned Jackie’s accusation. In the article, the Post introduced student claims that contradicted Jackie’s story. The Post reported that the fraternity in question denied even hosting an event on the night Jackie claimed. 

After facing criticism from major media outlets like Slate and WAPO, Rolling Stone retracted the story on December 5. Instead of standing with Jackie to defend her voice, Rolling Stone reacted to this criticism by shifting the blame off itself. The retraction stated that Rolling Stone realized their error in not contacting Jackie’s alleged perpetrators.

Rolling Stone is avoiding taking personal responsibility for its journalistic mistakes by blaming Jackie’s wishes. 

Unfortunately, most criticism from other publications focused on Jackie’s personal story and integrity ­— an obvious example of victim-blaming — rather than the problems with Rolling Stone’s journalism or the possibility that  there’s more to the story. 

The results from the formal UVA gang rape investigation, released Monday, brought victim-blaming discourse back into the conversation. The police department in Charlottesville reported that it found no substantive basis that the rape occurred. Legally, a rape case doesn’t require physical evidence, just a witness testimony that rings true. What do you do when no one believes you, though?

There is serious potential for this to turn into just another article people point to when they want to discredit rape allegations. Society can now use Rolling Stone’s sloppy work to silence victims everywhere. 

This is problematic, though, given that campus assault is disgustingly common and false rape allegations are rare. Just under 6 percent of rape allegations are actually false, according to a 2010 study by clinical psychologist David Lisak. 

Police can deem a rape case unfounded simply through retraction of a witness statement or questioning the rape’s validity. Since legalese lumps false rape accusations with unfounded rape claims, the actual number of false rape allegations is probably less than the 6 percent that Lisak reported. 

Rape culture is a fundamental part of this investigation. Just because the police report could not find evidence does not discredit Jackie’s experience, and we need to use this case to spark discourse rather than use it as an example of a false rape claim. 

Jackie did not want to share her story at all. But now there’s a risk that society will use her story to silence any victims who want to speak out. 

If we are blinded by Rolling Stone’s error and a fruitless police investigation, we are victim-blaming. It’s essential to realize that an absence of rape evidence is not the same thing as the absence of rape.

Adrianne Glenn primarily writes about social and cultural issues for The Pitt News. 

Write to Adrianne at [email protected].