Hacker News Reader

Comment by return0 | Hacker News Reader

> I'm sure there is hundreds of real rape on campus stories out there (unfortunately).

Why do you think they did not go with a real one? What lies they wanted to hear?

Real world examples tend not to fit narratives perfectly.

Perhaps in many cases they involve non-students, or are off-campus, or don't sound as horrific (even if they are), or they are investigated seriously already (without help from a journalist), or the perpetrator or victim might reinforce a stereotype that the journalist doesn't want to contribute to.

It doesn't mean the stories are less bad, or that there isn't a problem, just that the journalist has nothing to gain by writing about them. And some might actually contradict the politically-correct solutions being proposed.

Can you give some examples for these non-fitting cases? It would be interesting to hear as a non-US citizen since this debate seems so cryptic to me.

The ideal narrative for this sort of thing is that it be committed against some respectable person who wasn't involved in any risky behavior, and that it be perpetrated by some wealthy or privileged person who then sees no consequences. Because if that happens (and that's pretty much what the story laid forth as its narrative), then it's an issue we all need to be terrified by and indignant about. If, on the other hand, the person was drunk out of their mind and targeted while walking alone: well that's something I can avoid by not engaging in risky behavior, so I can more easily move on with my life.

There's a similar line of thinking in public vs. private schools, where some proponents of public schools want all private schools banned because, without those escape routes, those with means would put their resources toward fixing the public schools rather than running from the problem.

For what it's worth, UVA isn't exactly great at this stuff (I grew up in the area and my wife is a grad), but the article was more than a bit unfair (even before it was revealed that the entire thing was a fabrication.)

There is nothing in the world we all need to be terrified about. You might need to stop reading huffpo

Do you think I didn't answer parent's question? I thought I had, but if you disagree, you should address that more directly. As to the agenda you think I'm pushing: I'm sorry I didn't adequately allude to my sarcasm. I guess I just thought it was too hyperbolic to be taken any other way.

Sarcasm is an ambiguous tool in text. I admit to an extreme current sensitivity to being told to be terrified by normal occurrences. My apologies.

It's a shame you're being downvoted, because this is totally a legitimate question (why do the least credible stories gain the most attention).

This is a great analysis of the incentives which lead to that being the case (and it's a bit more complex than made-up stories simply being more interesting than real ones): http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/12/17/the-toxoplasma-of-rage/

why do the least credible stories gain the most attention

Is this so obviously true that it can be stated as a bare fact like that?

I would think the very least credible stories get essentially zero attention, but then I always trip over it when people use a straightforward categorical statement as a way of emphasizing a weaker point.

To summarize SSC: If Republicans agree with you, it doesn't do anything to prove your SJW bonafides. Your dad probably thought the killing of Eric Garner was awful, yawn. But defending Trayvon, now that's a "fuck you".

Thanks for posting that link, it's one of the more thought out musings on controversy, divisiveness, and stubbornness I have read for a while. A good thoughtful read.

Reality is rarely as lurid as the Rolling Stone short story was.

I dunno -- look at eg Penn State football, where other coaches were aware as early as the late 80s that Sandusky was raping kids. Horrific. Sometimes people really are that craven.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/colleges/new-court-doc...

It's harder to spin that into a story about all of your daughters in all of the fraternities.

If I had to guess? Laziness mostly, and picking the most interesting story with accuracy being an afterthought.

I don't think "laziness" is a very good explanation here. The story was so obviously fake that the "journalist" in question actually had to do quite a bit of work to compose this story.

Reporting a real, actual case, completely and honestly, wouldn't have been more work.

But it wouldn't have hit so perfectly the narrative that was the selling point.

I recall seeing somewhere that Erdely received credible reports of sexual harrassment at schools like Yale, and rejected the stories as not being juicy enough.

Calling her a journalist disgraces the entire profession (which hasn't exactly been covering itself in glory lately).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com