I'm using this particular story as a jumping off point, so my point doesn't necessarily have anything to do with rape. However, I'm quoting this piece b/c it's one of my least favorite phrases in the last several years in that contains a very clear logical fallacy. It immediately assumes that there is a victim, therefore rendering the necessity of "belief" invalid. In the case I noted, unless something else comes out of it, we can reasonably assume that there is no victim - except for maybe the "friend" whom she seemed more than ready to screw over when her story began to fall apart.
As for what stories need to be covered or not, I can't really dictate that, but as with the story with the alleged racist attack on the bus (I'll try to find it later to further my point), the silence after the fact is deafening.
Clearly, many of us think that the revelation of the massive extent of the NSA's spying activities was important enough that it sort of neutralized any negative impact it might have had on other operations, and I think that should go for all stories that cover things that might be quite uncomfortable to talk about.
For example, you don't have to spin the Michigan story on a left-leaning site, simply make it part of a bigger discussion about reasonable expectations of evidence and the damage these incidents can do to real victims should they get a lot of attention. You don't solve anything by ignoring the bits you don't like. That's not how this should work.
Breitbart will cover it because they want to shutdown discussion and deny it ever needed to be had in the first place, any reputable left-leaning publication should, I believe, take it head on as part of said discussion.