Rolling Stone Magazine Retracts Campus Fraternity Gang Rape Story: FRAT To Sue

Many of you may remember the big Rolling Stone article accusing a fraternity at University of Virginia of a brutal gang rape incident.
Turns out...well., it was all a fabricated story and RS went ahead with it without fact checking.

Now, if you think that heads will roll at Rolling Stone Magazine after having been caught in a case of such extremely flawed and false journalism....ESPECIALLY after Rolling Stone has now had to retract the story...
Well, you'd be wrong.
Did I mention that anyone who had been Libeled and defamed (The University, the fraternity, the students in the fraternity?) had not received an apology from Rolling Stone?

Well, actually there was one apology made by the article's author:

On Sunday, Ms. Erdely, in her first extensive comments since the article was cast into doubt, apologized to Rolling Stone’s readers, her colleagues and “any victims of sexual assault who may feel fearful as a result of my article.”

www.nytimes.com...

See, progressive liberal media doesn't generally work that way. Like the current Federal Government....when caught breaking the law and shaming it's office...a simple confession of "mistakes were made" is occasionally admitted to...with NO disciplinary action taken..and NOBODY ever gets fired (Hello, Lois Lerner).

Rolling Stone Magazine should have just lost ANY credibility it still had. But will it? Maybe...but only until it's next case of 'Yellow Journalism' arrives...at which time, it will be heralded by progressives as an authoritative and (literally) unimpeachable source.

Rolling Stones' new motto should be: Never let the facts get in the way of a good story.

Rolling Stone Article on Rape at University of Virginia Failed All Basics, Report Says

Rolling Stone magazine retracted its article about a brutal gang rape at a University of Virginia fraternity after the release of a report on Sunday that concluded the widely discredited piece was the result of failures at every stage of the process.

The report, published by the Columbia Graduate School of Journalism and commissioned by Rolling Stone, said the magazine failed to engage in “basic, even routine journalistic practice” to verify details of the ordeal that the magazine’s source, identified only as Jackie, described to the article’s author, Sabrina Rubin Erdely.

On Sunday, Ms. Erdely, in her first extensive comments since the article was cast into doubt, apologized to Rolling Stone’s readers, her colleagues and “any victims of sexual assault who may feel fearful as a result of my article.”

In an interview discussing Columbia’s findings, Jann S. Wenner, the publisher of Rolling Stone, acknowledged the piece’s flaws but said that it represented an isolated and unusual episode and that Ms. Erdely would continue to write for the magazine.

FULL Article:
www.nytimes.com...




BREAKING UPDATE:

Phi Kappa Psi to 'pursue all available legal action' against Rolling Stone

The Phi Kappa Psi fraternity at the University of Virginia said Monday that it is moving forward with a possible lawsuit against Rolling Stone magazine in the wake of the now-retracted "Rape on Campus" article.
"After 130 days of living under a cloud of suspicion as a result of reckless reporting by Rolling Stone magazine, today the Virginia Alpha Chapter of Phi Kappa Psi announced plans to pursue all available legal action against the magazine," the fraternity said in a statement.

money.cnn.com...

a reply to: IAMTAT

That's not part of "the conversation".

So, you think only liberal media makes mistakes?

Unfortunately, news entities like conservative leaning Breitbart News, elicited an investigation of this said Barry. The outcome: an innocent bystander ended up being accused of the crime by conservative media. Turns out, there was a student name Barry that attended Oberlin the same time as Dunham. Imagine being called a perpetrator by mismanaged media reporting? No apology has been offered by such conservative news outlet, (a hem) Breitbart News, as of this post.

Journalistic mishaps is not a representation of liberalism

FOX News, anyone?

The Rolling Stone was WRONG. The Frat has every right to sue. But to try to say that these journalistic issues have something to do with "liberal media" is just silly.

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

Your opinion...and thanks for it.
Rolling Stone is not 'liberal media''?

Well this certainly puts a big damper on Progressive/Left Wing/Liberal credibility.

Now it's not so easy to just blame the other guys !!

Complete

Fumble-Flop !!

originally posted by: IAMTAT

See, progressive liberal media doesn't generally work that way. Like the current Federal Government....when caught breaking the law and shaming it's office...a simple confession of "mistakes were made" is occasionally admitted to...with NO disciplinary action taken..and NOBODY ever gets fired (Hello, Lois Lerner).

It's not just liberals and "liberal" media that operate this way.

Rolling Stone is going to take a HUGE financial hit from this lawsuit. No way they won't lose in the courts.

Yet, the writer will and editor stay on...at least until RS has to turn all it's lights off and lock it's doors after getting financially pounded in the courts.
Even with RS shooting itself in BOTH feet...the real losers will be women afraid to come forward when REAL crime is inflicted upon them.
The Guardian sums it up well, I think:

Senior staff at the magazine are so sure that the errors made in the piece were a fluke related to the topic that there will be no disciplinary action in the wake of the investigation, nor will Rolling Stone editors amend their editorial process. “I don’t think we need to necessarily institute a lot of new ways of doing things,” Dana said.

Yet over and over again, the report makes clear that it wasn’t deference to Jackie at the center of the magazine’s missteps, but numerous bad decisions in the writing and editing process: they didn’t follow up on key details, they didn’t verify quotes, they used a single source, they employed inadequate fact-checking and more.

Rolling Stone’s claim that their mistakes all came out of concern for a young rape victim are irresponsible: in the midst of an all-out backlash against so-called PC culture and anti-rape activism, they shirked their real responsibility both to Jackie and to all the victims of sexual assault, and it will have a resounding impact on those working to end sexual violence.

Rolling Stone created a mess for the men and women trying to end sexual violence on campus and off, and it should be the magazine’s job to clean it up. They’ve chosen instead to wash their hands of any wrongdoing – all because of their deep respect for rape victims.

www.theguardian.com...

Besides disparaging the fraternity and its members (who have every right to sue for compensation) another piece of negative fallout is it makes it harder for legitimate victims to come forward due to this magazine's shoddy journalism.

Oh I get it. I seem to remember a RS article that was go8ng against the status quo and a bunch of Russophobic members making a big stink that RS was not "real journalism". Now we have a Russophobic poster trying to set a stage where RS is unreliable and libel.

Totally unpredictable. I am shocked.... NOT.

How the hell is this a partisan thing? Seriously?

They got it wrong, and sounds like they may pay for it.

I would assume MORE lawsuits will be coming from the students and possibly the University as well.
Rolling Stone is rubble.

originally posted by: Sremmos80
How the hell is this a partisan thing? Seriously?

They got it wrong, and sounds like they may pay for it.

And RS should pay for it...as should any publication who wrote and published this.

Again: Rolling Stone magazine is not "Liberal media"?

originally posted by: IAMTAT
Many of you may remember the big Rolling Stone article accusing a fraternity at University of Virginia of a brutal gang rape incident.
Turns out...well., it was all a fabricated story and RS went ahead with it without fact checking.

Now, if you think that heads will roll at Rolling Stone Magazine after having been caught in a case of such extremely flawed and false journalism....ESPECIALLY after Rolling Stone has now had to retract the story...
Well, you'd be wrong.
Did I mention that anyone who had been Libeled and defamed (The University, the fraternity, the students in the fraternity?) had not received an apology from Rolling Stone?

Well, actually there was one apology made by the article's author:

On Sunday, Ms. Erdely, in her first extensive comments since the article was cast into doubt, apologized to Rolling Stone’s readers, her colleagues and “any victims of sexual assault who may feel fearful as a result of my article.”

www.nytimes.com...

See, progressive liberal media doesn't generally work that way. Like the current Federal Government....when caught breaking the law and shaming it's office...a simple confession of "mistakes were made" is occasionally admitted to...with NO disciplinary action taken..and NOBODY ever gets fired (Hello, Lois Lerner).

Rolling Stone Magazine should have just lost ANY credibility it still had. But will it? Maybe...but only until it's next case of 'Yellow Journalism' arrives...at which time, it will be heralded by progressives as an authoritative and (literally) unimpeachable source.

Rolling Stones' new motto should be: Never let the facts get in the way of a good story.

Rolling Stone Article on Rape at University of Virginia Failed All Basics, Report Says

Rolling Stone magazine retracted its article about a brutal gang rape at a University of Virginia fraternity after the release of a report on Sunday that concluded the widely discredited piece was the result of failures at every stage of the process.

The report, published by the Columbia Graduate School of Journalism and commissioned by Rolling Stone, said the magazine failed to engage in “basic, even routine journalistic practice” to verify details of the ordeal that the magazine’s source, identified only as Jackie, described to the article’s author, Sabrina Rubin Erdely.

On Sunday, Ms. Erdely, in her first extensive comments since the article was cast into doubt, apologized to Rolling Stone’s readers, her colleagues and “any victims of sexual assault who may feel fearful as a result of my article.”

In an interview discussing Columbia’s findings, Jann S. Wenner, the publisher of Rolling Stone, acknowledged the piece’s flaws but said that it represented an isolated and unusual episode and that Ms. Erdely would continue to write for the magazine.

FULL Article:
www.nytimes.com...


BREAKING UPDATE:

Phi Kappa Psi to 'pursue all available legal action' against Rolling Stone

The Phi Kappa Psi fraternity at the University of Virginia said Monday that it is moving forward with a possible lawsuit against Rolling Stone magazine in the wake of the now-retracted "Rape on Campus" article.
"After 130 days of living under a cloud of suspicion as a result of reckless reporting by Rolling Stone magazine, today the Virginia Alpha Chapter of Phi Kappa Psi announced plans to pursue all available legal action against the magazine," the fraternity said in a statement.

money.cnn.com...

"See, progressive liberal media doesn't generally work that way."

Where are the apologies from Bush, Cheney, Rumsfield, Fox News et. al for their lies about the Iraq War....

Plenty of examples of retractions from conservative media:

Daniel Pipes’ [Washington Times] retraction and apology to Yassin Abdullah Kadi

In my article dated 18 June 2014 headed “Turkish Support for ISIS“, I alleged that Saudi businessman Yassin Abdullah Kadi has close ties to ISIS, the militant Sunni Islam group, and that Mr Kadi has funded ISIS. I also stated that Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan had met three times with Mr Kadi, and I implied these meetings took place in order to further Ankara’s alleged support for the ISIS group.
“I have since been informed by Mr Kadi’s legal advisers that he has never supported ISIS financially (or otherwise) nor has he ever supported any other terrorist group or activity.
“I unreservedly retract these allegations of Mr Kadi which I accept are totally untrue. I sincerely apologize to Mr Kadi for having published them.

They absolutely and totally should sue the pants off Rolling Stone.

This is journalistic malpractice of the worst sort. If anyone reads the Columbia report, they basically took the woman's account at face value and made no attempt at all to follow up on any parts of her story. So they more or less reported on her story as though she were telling the Gospel truth. They made no attempts to see if the guy who invited her to frat party and later oversaw her attack even existed for example or if they went to that party.

Rolling Stone claims they did this out of respect for the woman who made the claims, but they could have followed up to try to corroborate the elements of her story at least without even her knowledge to try to make sure it checked out even minimally. They didn't, and they left their journalistic butts hanging out in the wind.

originally posted by: IAMTAT
Your opinion...and thanks for it.

It's not my opinion, it's fact.

Rolling Stone is not 'liberal media''?

No one is claiming it's not. I'm saying that shoddy journalism is not something exclusively practiced by liberal media, as you assert in your OP. Breitbart and FOX are perfect examples.

The Conservative Media Need to Self-Police, for their Own Sake

Any reporter can get something wrong, any publication can hire a bad reporter, and anyone can mistakenly believe something, especially from a trusted new source, that turns out to be fraudulent.

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

Of course, if Dunham hasn't fabricated the story in the first place ...

The part of this whole thing that I find most annoying is that the author managed to apologize to everyone except the real victims of her shoddy journalism. She should have apologized to the University, the Fraternity and its members.

originally posted by: Metallicus

The part of this whole thing that I find most annoying is that the author managed to apologize to everyone except the real victims of her shoddy journalism. She should have apologized to the University, the Fraternity and its members.

The fact that she did not shows her personal integrity is even lower than her journalistic integrity.

a reply to: Metallicus

Why should she? She wanted the story to be true, and maybe on some level still believes it is.