That's the address of a July 4, 2016 article written by Paul Farhi, the Washington Post's "media reporter." The article is called "Gay Talese and Rolling Stone trusted their sources. Then we lost trust in them."
This is a picture of the beginning of the text of Mr. Farhi's article:
___________________________________
I have never heard of Mr. Talese or Mr. Foos before, and was never voyeuristically targeted at a hotel, to my knowledge. However, the conglomerate has voyeuristically targeted me for years; the conglomerate media viciously gloats about it every day. Also, Mr. Talese and his book seem to be about as creepy as writers and writing get; was there someone who trusted Mr. Talese for having written the book?
Those are pictures of the first part of the April 11, 2016 article by Mr. Talese that the New Yorker published.
These are also pictures of the article:
___________________________________
Mr. Talese then says:
Mr. Talese seems to have resolved, at least to his satisfaction, whatever ethical apprehension that he had about the consent which Mr. Foos never got and never wanted from his thousands of victims; that apprehension doesn't get its own sentence or even out of parentheses.
The New Yorker seems to have tried to portray Mr. Talese as a literary Norman Rockwell of the 21st century. Was the promotion of Mr. Talese's book, its publication and the attention that it has gotten, including Steven Spielberg's production of a movie version of the book, all an attempt to normalize voyeurism, to excuse and expand around the world the monolithic abuse to which the conglomerate has subjected me and the hundreds of people who have gotten victimized by voyeurism which had me as its main target, in homeless shelters, psychiatric units, gyms, and who knows where else?
That's the address for the pages of results for a Google search of the term "steven spielberg talese."
I'm not wrong that Mr. Spielberg and the film's director, Sam Mendes, are going to make a film featuring as many of the stories told by Mr. Foos to Mr Talese as possible, taking what Mr. Spielberg and Mr. Mendes fondly think of as artistic license to include scenes of a blonde woman masturbating in a shower, as soon as there's a decision about whether or not everyone should trust Mr. Talese and Mr. Foos, am I?
I hope that all of the people who were victimized at that motel file lawsuits against anyone and everyone who portray those victims' private behavior in the book, the article and whatever film is produced based on those criminal, horrific violations of their privacy.
The November 19, 2014 Rolling Stone article was attacked, almost as soon as it was published, by Mr. Shapiro, an "education reporter" for the Washington Post, who had graduated from a private high school in Virginia and also Virginia Tech. The article for which Mr. Farhi provides a link is for a December 10, 2014 article by Mr. Shapiro, called "U-Va. students challenge Rolling Stone account of alleged sexual assault," which starts with an error.
That's a picture of the beginning of the text of Mr. Shapiro's 12/10/14 article.
The transcripts of the September 28, 2012 texts between Jackie and "Randall," who later gave his real name, Ryan, for his many media interviews, show that "the call" from Jackie did not happen at 1 a.m. Before the transcripts of the texts were released to the public in 2016, nobody seems to have known at which time Jackie got assaulted, except for Phi Kappa Psi, Ryan, and possibly Mr. Shapiro.
This is the address of a page that I wrote last night about Phi Kappa Psi and the transcripts of the September 28, 2012 texts between Jackie and Ryan:
http://homelesspeoplearepeople.blogspot.com/2016/07/september-28-2012.html
The time error was reported, as if it were fact, by Mr. Shapiro on 12/10/14, based on his interviews with three of Jackie's former friends. He had nothing to substantiate what those former friends said, and it is probable that he spoke to them and then portrayed what they said according to his goal of discrediting the Rolling Stone article rather than investigating what happened. It is also probable that the three former friends realized from the way that Mr. Shapiro spoke to them during their interviews and the way that he wrote about them that a powerful newspaper, The Washington Post, would support them if they denounced Jackie. At least two of those former friends were subsequently interviewed by other media; one of them, Ryan, had several televised interviews. They were treated by the media as if they were victims and heroes.
Ryan had texted Jackie after the Rolling Stone article was published in 2014; he was apologetic and conciliatory toward her, and he stopped being those things when he realized that Jackie was being called a liar by people who were attacking the Rolling Stone article and that he, Ryan, didn't have to worry about most of the media telling the world to think badly of him because of Rolling Stone.
Mr. Shapiro has reported extensively about the Rolling Stone article, from a biased and frequently misleading way, and he has never taken responsibility for it, although the Washington Post significantly and negatively influenced Ms. Erdely, Jackie, several of Ms. Erdely's other sources, and Rolling Stone. The Washington Post terrified Ms. Erdely and Rolling Stone into doubting Ms. Erdely's reporting, Jackie, and Rolling Stone, even though the Rolling Stone article was at a much higher ethical and journalistic standard than what most of the conglomerate media publishes every day.
At that time that Mr. Shapiro interviewed Ryan for the 12/10/14 article, either Ryan didn't tell Mr. Shapiro, or Mr. Shapiro decided not to write about, the concert and bus tickets that Jackie had bought Ryan for a birthday present in 2012, which Ryan had accepted.
That's the address of a January 8, 2016 article that Mr. Shapiro wrote about Ryan, portraying Ryan as the befuddled object of Jackie's unwanted attentions. The article is called "Catfishing over love interest might have spurred U-Va. gang-rape debacle."
Is what happened between December 10, 2014 and January 8, 2016 that transcripts of 2012 texts between Jackie and Ryan showed that Jackie, before she was assaulted at Phi Kappa Psi, had bought concert and bus tickets for Ryan's birthday and that Ryan had accepted them? Did Mr. Shapiro then write the January 8, 2016 article to try to explain why Ryan, whom Mr. Shapiro had previously described as having no romantic feelings for Jackie, had accepted a birthday present for which Jackie had paid hundreds of dollars and which would have had Jackie and Ryan together for several hours without their other friends? The text transcripts also show that Ryan was planning to go to the concert with Jackie even in the midst of Ryan's texting with "Haven Monahan," and that Ryan did not break his concert date with Jackie until after September 28, 2012, when she was assaulted at Phi Kappa Psi.
The text messages between Jackie and Ryan before and after she was assaulted show that Ryan didn't mind being wooed by Jackie through the fictitious persona of "Haven Monahan" until after Jackie was sexually assaulted at Phi Kappa Psi in a rape facilitated and/or participated in by "Drew."
This is a picture of part of Mr. Shapiro's 12/10/14 article, called "U-Va. students challenge Rolling Stone's account of alleged sexual assault." "His phone number" refers to Haven Monahan:
If the texts "which were provided to The Post" in 2014 were provided by Ryan to Mr. Shapiro, it seems as if either Ryan didn't provide texts from the night of the assault, September 28, 2012, or texts from after September 28, 2012, when Jackie tells Ryan how important he is to her while he breaks their date for his birthday.
That's another picture of Mr. Shapiro's 12/10/14 article.
If Ryan had texts from before the September 28, 2012 assault, and an email from "Haven Monahan" that was sent to Ryan after September 28, 2012, did Ryan also have texts from the night of September 28, 2012 which either he never gave to Mr. Shapiro or that Mr. Shapiro got from Ryan and didn't report or even deliberately misreported?
The transcripts of the texts which were released to the public in 2016 clearly show that the phone contact between Ryan and Jackie on the night of September 28, 2012 was not at 1:00 a.m.
Did Mr. Shapiro talk to "Drew"?
That's a picture of part of the 12/10/14 article.
Is that all the investigation that Mr. Shapiro did of that person?
This is another picture of part of Mr. Farhi's 07/04/16 article:
There's no mention of the outrageously misleading things that Mr. Shapiro wrote in his articles about Ms. Erdely's court filing.
Certainly, nobody could accuse Mr. Farhi of being unobjective because of empathy, which is what he's accusing Ms. Erdely of being toward Jackie.
That's another picture of part of Mr. Farhi's article.
I think that Mr. Farhi, Mr. Shapiro, and the rest of the conglomerate media should not "bend, ignore, or fail to check facts to serve (their) goals." Nobody should do those things; the conglomerate media has done them every day since 2010.
This is another picture of part of Mr. Farhi's article:
The Rolling Stone article had a lot of sources. Ms. Erdely also tried several times to interview Dean Eramo before the Rolling Stone article was published; Ms. Erdely was told that she couldn't interview Dean Eramo.
This is another picture of part of Mr. Farhi's article:
While individually interviewing Ms. McDonnell and Ms. Hall, did Mr. Farhi tell to each of them his, Mr. Farhi's, hypothetical interpretation of whether the Rolling Stone article or Mr. Talese's book were more damaging? Did Mr. Farhi then report Ms. McDonnell's and Ms. Hall's mostly noncommittal responses to that comparison as if they were Ms. McDonnell's and Ms. Hall's spontaneously spoken opinions?
Mr. Farhi also wrote a January 11, 2016 article called "Jackie's rape story was false. So why hasn't the media named her by now?"
This is a picture from that article:
As he did in his July 4, 2016 article, Mr. Farhi concludes his January 11, 2016 article by trying to portray his vicious misogyny as concern for rape victims and fairness to everyone.
Speaking of Jackie's full name, which is already on the Internet; the conglomerate has never seemed to care about the possibility that her name was part of what caused her to be targeted for rape, because of the conglomerate's having targeted me for voyeurism and involuntary pornography for years before 2012.
Has the Washington Post ever had a crime reporter investigate or report about the Rolling Stone article? Why were an "education reporter" and a "media reporter" able to misinform the public, discredit Rolling Stone, jeopardize Ms. Erdely's career, and threaten to ruin Jackie's life?
Cooyright, with noted exceptions, L. Kochman, July 7, 2016 @ 11:45 p.m.
