These tweets show why you shouldn't blame rape victims for Rolling Stone's screw-up

Following Rolling Stone's revelation that its University of Virginia rape story was likely inaccurate, several reporters expressed their outrage on Twitter — only they made it clear that the anger was directed at shoddy journalism, not Jackie or any other potential rape victims.

Because one reporter didn't do her job adequately rape survivors on campuses across the country will be met with even more skepticism.

— Olivia Nuzzi (@Olivianuzzi) December 5, 2014

Don't become a fucking reporter if you're not willing to let the facts get in the way of a great story.

— Olivia Nuzzi (@Olivianuzzi) December 5, 2014

This is why reporting on rape is so hard. Sometimes interviewing the other party would put the victim in danger. Esp in a college setting...

— Erin Gloria Ryan (@morninggloria) December 5, 2014

None of this changes the fact that the way that unis handle sexual assault complaints ignores the needs of both the victims and the accused.

— Erin Gloria Ryan (@morninggloria) December 5, 2014

None of this changes the fact that fraternity members are 3X more likely to commit rape than non-frat members.

— Erin Gloria Ryan (@morninggloria) December 5, 2014

Interesting how rape apologists think that if they can "discredit" one rape story, that means no other rape stories can be true, either.

— Amanda Marcotte (@AmandaMarcotte) December 5, 2014

Recommend everyone who expects victims to have perfect memory sit down and construct, word for word, the last dinner conversation they had.

— Amanda Marcotte (@AmandaMarcotte) December 5, 2014

My rapist denied it. Does that mean there are "discrepancies" in my story too? #UVA

— Zerlina Maxwell (@ZerlinaMaxwell) December 5, 2014

Rape apology arguments will now predictably include "UVA" right after "duke lacrosse" so we never have to confront the actual problem

— Zerlina Maxwell (@ZerlinaMaxwell) December 5, 2014

Old journalism truth: An error in an anecdote will completely obscure the reality of a trend.

— Binyamin Appelbaum (@BCAppelbaum) December 5, 2014

Will you support Vox’s explanatory journalism?

Most news outlets make their money through advertising or subscriptions. But when it comes to what we’re trying to do at Vox, there are a couple of big issues with relying on ads and subscriptions to keep the lights on:

First, advertising dollars go up and down with the economy. We often only know a few months out what our advertising revenue will be, which makes it hard to plan ahead.

Second, we’re not in the subscriptions business. Vox is here to help everyone understand the complex issues shaping the world — not just the people who can afford to pay for a subscription. We believe that’s an important part of building a more equal society. And we can’t do that if we have a paywall.

So even though advertising is still our biggest source of revenue, we also seek grants and reader support. (And no matter how our work is funded, we have strict guidelines on editorial independence.)

If you also believe that everyone deserves access to trusted high-quality information, will you make a gift to Vox today? Any amount helps.

One-Time Monthly Annual

$5/month

$10/month

$25/month

$50/month

Other

$

Yes, I'll give $5/month

Yes, I'll give $5/month

We accept credit card, Apple Pay, and Google Pay. You can also contribute via