And still, all of it could have been avoided if USA Today respected the experts they interview. They could have been one of the only publications to get it right *from the beginning* by platforming the concerns that sexual violence researchers had as soon as we saw the DA's statement.

Show Post

After I posted this thread, I got an email from an editor indicating the story had been updated. They removed my quote and added new text about the developments in the case. I don't know if they ever would have done that without pressure, but it's something.

Show Post

Once I found out about it, I contacted the reporter and asked him to retract the piece--or at minimum add an editor's note acknowledging the NYT reporting about how Jane Doe did NOT tell police that she consented to her rape. Thus far, the publication has refused to do so.

Show Post

Ironically, my original interview with the journalist I spoke with was primarily about how "inconsistencies" can come from gender bias in investigatory processes and then be blamed on survivors. It was the inspiration for this thread--but none of these points made it into any USA Today article:

Show Post

I'm the token expert voice saying that inconsistencies in victim's narratives are common in an otherwise brutally bad piece of journalism full of tropes about how not to report on sexual assault.

Show Post