Thursday, March 28, 2024
Miles from the Mainstream
D. R. ZUKERMAN, proprietor

Agit-Prop at Rolling Stone

August 5, 2015 --

Rolling Stone magazine, last November, published an article about a gang-rape at a University of Virginia fraternity.

The rape allegedly occurred in September 2012. A report by Columbia Journalism Review called the article a "journalistic failure." LPR has a different take, seeing the article a successful demonstration of agit-prop (agitation and propaganda) at Rolling Stone.

The writer, Sabrina Rubin Erdely, commented in the article, "[L]ike most colleges across America, genteel University of Virginia has no radical feminist culture seeking to upend the patriarchy."

Shortly after the article appeared, according to a Washington Post report, last November 22, University of Virginia president Teresa Sullivan suspended campus fraternities until January 9, 2015.

LPR understands that the magazine subsequently removed the article from its website.

LPR has difficulty with the CJR report, which ignored glaring assaults on the truth by Ms. Erdely and the magazine. For example, ignored by CJR was Ms. Erdely's suggestion that a former friend of "Jackie" -- the main victim cited by the article-- "declined to be interviewed." Apparently this is not true; certainly this individual did not tell Ms. Erdely that he would not speak with her. CJR also ignored a Washington Post report that a Rolling Stone editor assured the Post that Jackie's attackers exist and "'We knew who they were.'" This also is apparently not true.

A University of Virginia assistant dean, Nicole P. Eramo has brought a defamation lawsuit against Rolling Stone, Ms. Erdely and Wenner Media. The magazine has submitted an answer, denying Dean Eramo's allegations. In agit-prop, of course, the aim is to get action, immediate and severe action, as soon as the allegation is hurled. By President Sullivan's quick response to the article, this use of agit-prop at Rolling Stone, should, LPR believes, be deemed a success -- pending, of course, correction provided by the due process tradition in a court of law, a tradition quite unlike agit-prop.