If you're lucky, you've never heard of Charles C. Johnson, a/k/a "Chuck C. Johnson," who blogs at GotNews.com (not to be confused with Charles Johnson of Little Green Footballs, who is an entirely different order of person). However, I'm sure you've heard about the Rolling Stone article on the University of Virginia gang rape, which caused quite a splash. Now it seems that there are some discrepancies in the story, and Rolling Stone has issued a statement detailing the background.
As is usual in a case like this, the victim was identified only as "Jackie" -- none of her personal details have been disclosed, neither by Rolling Stone, nor by the Washington Post, which published a follow-up that cast doubt on some parts of the story. (In fact, WaPo has published a host of articles on this in the past week or so, many of them seemingly more oriented toward taking a swipe at Rolling Stone than anything else.) Among the denials, the fraternity named says it held no date night or party on the evening in question, and the man named as the orchestrator of the rape belongs to a different fraternity and says he doesn't know "Jackie."
OK, so Rolling Stone screwed up, even though the screw-up was on the side of protecting the safety of their source.
Enter Charles C. Johnson, who published what he claims is the name of the victim (without any sort of outside confirmation, aside from claiming "multiple sources" -- yeah, I know, he found it on the Internet, so it must be true) and is now threatening to publish details about her and her family is she doesn't step forward.
As you might imagine, the reaction has been less than positive. The New Civil Rights Movement has an overview of some of the responses. Johnson is even getting a negative reaction from the right:
About the only response I can think of for Riehl is to say: He's yours. That's the side of your movement you try to sweep under the carpet, but it's the motivating force of the right: unrestrained id.
Does this all make Johnson a piece of shit? Actually, it seems that he'd already pretty well established that; it's just that the high-profile nature of this story takes Johnson's actions outside the realm of Twitchy or Red State and paints it in big strokes across the Internet for all to see.
I hope the woman he named, whether or not she actually is "Jackie" -- and that's not been confirmed at all -- sues his ass for everything he ever hopes to have.
(Sidebar: You know, looking at the news lately, I could make "Today in Disgusting People" a daily feature. No, that's just too damned depressing.)
Update: And once again, we have the reporting becoming the news.
As is usual in a case like this, the victim was identified only as "Jackie" -- none of her personal details have been disclosed, neither by Rolling Stone, nor by the Washington Post, which published a follow-up that cast doubt on some parts of the story. (In fact, WaPo has published a host of articles on this in the past week or so, many of them seemingly more oriented toward taking a swipe at Rolling Stone than anything else.) Among the denials, the fraternity named says it held no date night or party on the evening in question, and the man named as the orchestrator of the rape belongs to a different fraternity and says he doesn't know "Jackie."
OK, so Rolling Stone screwed up, even though the screw-up was on the side of protecting the safety of their source.
Enter Charles C. Johnson, who published what he claims is the name of the victim (without any sort of outside confirmation, aside from claiming "multiple sources" -- yeah, I know, he found it on the Internet, so it must be true) and is now threatening to publish details about her and her family is she doesn't step forward.
As you might imagine, the reaction has been less than positive. The New Civil Rights Movement has an overview of some of the responses. Johnson is even getting a negative reaction from the right:
DanRiehl @DanRiehl
Let me just say it plainly, this type of bullshit makes me sick and we don't need it on our side @ChuckCJohnson
12:16 PM - 7 Dec 2014
About the only response I can think of for Riehl is to say: He's yours. That's the side of your movement you try to sweep under the carpet, but it's the motivating force of the right: unrestrained id.
Does this all make Johnson a piece of shit? Actually, it seems that he'd already pretty well established that; it's just that the high-profile nature of this story takes Johnson's actions outside the realm of Twitchy or Red State and paints it in big strokes across the Internet for all to see.
I hope the woman he named, whether or not she actually is "Jackie" -- and that's not been confirmed at all -- sues his ass for everything he ever hopes to have.
(Sidebar: You know, looking at the news lately, I could make "Today in Disgusting People" a daily feature. No, that's just too damned depressing.)
Update: And once again, we have the reporting becoming the news.
No comments:
Post a Comment