Support NeoGAF

[SliceSabre]

The 10 member jury concluded that the Rolling Stone reporter, Sabrina Rubin Erdely, was responsible for defamation, with actual malice, in the case brought by Nicole Eramo, a U-Va. administrator who oversaw sexual violence cases at the time of the article’s publication. The jury also found the magazine and its publisher responsible for defaming Eramo.

“In our desire to present this complicated issue from the perspective of a survivor, we overlooked reporting paths and made journalistic mistakes that we are committed to never making again,” Rolling Stone said in the statement. “We deeply regret these missteps and sincerely apologize to anyone hurt by them, including Ms. Eramo. It is our deep hope that our failings do not deflect from the pervasive issues discussed in the piece, and that reporting on sexual assault cases ultimately results in campus policies that better protect our students.”

The trial began on Oct. 17, and in the following 16 days jurors heard testimony from 12 witnesses along with 11 hours of video statements and more than 180 exhibits of evidence.

Both Eramo and Erdely took the stand in the case. The jurors also saw video testimony from Jackie, the U-Va. student whose allegations of a 2012 gang rape at Phi Kappa Psi were later cast into doubt.

Eramo’s lawyers wrote in their complaint that the magazine defamed her by casting the former associate dean as a villain in the article, portraying her as the public face of an administration indifferent to rape victims.

-Source

 

[Goodstyle]

That article has done so much damage and probably set back discussion on Campus sexual assault significantly. Every time you criticize people for saying "a lot of rape reports are fake", they always bring up this case (and Lena Dunham for some reason).

 

[GhaleonEB]

This was one of those stories I was reflexively critical of until I read the details. RS really screwed up, and the ruling makes sense. As Goodstyle said, this really sets back, or at least muddies, public discourse of rape on campus.

 

[The Llama]

This was one of those stories I was reflexively critical of until I read the details. RS really screwed up, and the ruling makes sense. As Goodstyle said, this really sets back, or at least muddies, public discourse of rape on campus.

Yep. There are no real winners here.

 

[Sarcastic Poster]

It was an absolutely disgraceful piece of journalism to release that without verifying the most basic information.

 

[leakey]

Quality first post. For real, this should be an example to every journalist to always check your sources. What a disaster this piece was.

 

[Vanillalite]

ABC News

A jury has found Rolling Stone journalist Sabrina Rubin Erdely, as well as the magazine and its publisher, responsible for defaming a former University of Virginia associate dean in a 2014 article about sexual assault on the campus.

The jury concluded that the journalist, the magazine and its publisher, Wenner Media, were responsible for libel, with actual malice, against UVA administrator Nicole Eramo, who oversaw cases of sexual assault at the school when the Rolling Stone article, titled "A Rape on Campus," was published.

A 10-person jury began deliberating Wednesday and after 19 hours of consideration they unanimously agree that statements in the article, which was later retracted, were made with "actual malice," defined by U.S. District Judge Glen Conrad as statements that were knowingly false or made with reckless disregard for truth. Conrad added that "failure to investigate" is not actual malice.

 

[Zeeman]

ABC News

"Actual malice" seems like a pretty high bar, I'd be very surprised if Rolling Stone doesn't appeal

 

[DasPenguin]

"Actual malice" seems like a pretty high bar, I'd be very surprised if Rolling Stone doesn't appeal

Well, if you read the story she wrote and what it did to the people that were accused, and how easily it all could've been avoided, I think that verdict sounds about right.

 

[FStop7]

If the verdict is upheld does it mean Rolling Stone is gonna get Gawkered?

 

[levious]

It's a civil suit so I think it should be "liable" rather than "guilty".

 

[superdeluxe]

ABC News

GOOD.

Rolling Stone brought this upon themselves. They didn't even fire the reporter. Glad Rolling Stone got hammered for this.

 

[DogDude]

If the verdict is upheld does it mean Rolling Stone is gonna get Gawkered?

This is only the first lawsuit so probably.

 

[Zeeman]

Well, if you read the story she wrote and what it did to the people that were accused, and how easily it all could've been avoided, I think that verdict sounds about right.

Oh for sure, I'm just saying this story is nowhere near its conclusion yet

 

[Vanillalite]

It's a civil suit so I think it should be "liable" rather than "guilty".

True my bad on the thread title.

 

[Common Knowledge]

Well deserved. In a world where rape/sexual assault victims have a hard enough time being taken seriously to begin with, pulling off the shit Rolling Stone did in this case is just harming them even more.

 

[Hasphat'sAnts]

It's weird to me that the false accuser will skate by unscathed. Obviously Rolling Stone and the writer made a huge error in judgment by not verifying the story, but man.

 

[kirblar]

Good. Completely irresponsible journalism.

 

[MC Safety]

It's weird to me that the false accuser will skate by unscathed. Obviously Rolling Stone and the writer made a huge error in judgment by not verifying the story, but man.

The accuser doesn't have deep pockets.

The police investigated her claim and found it without merit. It was Rolling Stone and its writer who pushed the issue, and they did the real damage.

 

[Patryn]

"Actual malice" seems like a pretty high bar, I'd be very surprised if Rolling Stone doesn't appeal

The reporter's notes made it clear that she came into the story prepared to paint the Dean as uncaring about students, and continued that stance even when she learned that students who had suffered actual sexual assault were very positive about the Dean, and the Dean even offered counseling and police aid to "Jackie," the student whose lies formed the basis of the story:

Eramo’s lawyers presented evidence that Erdely had a predetermined notion of what her story would be, discussing the concept of the story that became “A Rape on Campus” well ahead of her reporting, including a note describing how college administrations can be “indifferent” to rape survivors.

Eramo’s lawyers said that Erdely had “a preconceived story line,” and acted with “reckless disregard,” by ignoring conflicting information in her reporting.

“Once they decided what the story was going to be about, it didn’t matter what the facts were,” Clare said.

Clare noted that despite Rolling Stone’s reporting, Eramo had indeed cared for Jackie in the aftermath of her alleged assault, counseling her and organizing a meeting with police detectives to help bring her attackers to justice. But Jackie refused to participate in any police investigation.

...

The jury ruled that Erdely acted with actual malice when she published two statements about Eramo, the first being that Eramo discouraged Jackie from reporting her allegations and a reference to Eramo’s “nonreaction” when Jackie first told her about the alleged assault. The jury’s finding means that they concluded Erdely knew the statements about Eramo were false — or had reason to doubt them and failed to investigate further--- but published them anyway.

The jury also found that Erdely acted with actual malice in four statements she made in interviews after the article published. One of those statements came in an email to a Post reporter in response to questions about the identities of Jackie’s alleged attackers, in which Erdely wrote that Jackie came forward with her account “only to be met with indifference.”

 

[ColdPizza]

OP would be bolstered by providing some choice quotes of the offending article in my opinion.

 

[Fuchsdh]

If the verdict is upheld does it mean Rolling Stone is gonna get Gawkered?

No. It would be very hard for a Hogan-like story to actually shutter Rolling Stone in the same way as Gawker.

It certainly wasn't deliberate lying, and the review of the story made it pretty clear they failed at following basic journalistic tenets, but I'm still on the fence whether their actions personally reach the malice threshold for me. I would think the frat would have a pretty open-and-shut case coming up, though, considering UVA didn't make Eramo available for comment whereas RS flat out didn't even attempt to try and find any of the accusers and get their story. But apparently the decision was based on more than just the published story.

The jury found that assertions made within the article, as well as post-publication comments and news releases by Rolling Stone, were defamatory.

 

[superdeluxe]

Others are weighing in:

http://reason.com/blog/2016/11/04/nicole-eramo-wins-rolling-stone-committe

Earlier, a judge had ruled that Eramo—who was wrongly portrayed as indifferent to sexual assault victims in the article—should be considered a public person, which meant she had to prove actual malice on the part of Rolling Stone, not just recklessness. Many thought this higher standard was too difficult to meet, but as I noted in my preview of the case, Eramo's argument was much more compelling than people understood—in large part because the magazine failed to retract the article for months even though it knew Jackie's account was false.

As I wrote then, "essentially, Eramo has claimed that Rolling Stone continued to expose new readers to false information about the dean, long after its editors admitted to realizing the story was false."

 

[undrtakr900]

That article has done so much damage and probably set back discussion on Campus sexual assault significantly. Every time you criticize people for saying "a lot of rape reports are fake", they always bring up this case (and Lena Dunham for some reason).

Why is Lena Dunham brought up?

 

[lightskintwin]

That article has done so much damage and probably set back discussion on Campus sexual assault significantly. Every time you criticize people for saying "a lot of rape reports are fake", they always bring up this case (and Lena Dunham for some reason).

This is why you have to be careful with Rape, and other crimes like Racism, Hate Crimes, etc. and let the evidence guide you to your conclusions and not your agendas even if it's a good one.

 

[MC Safety]

It was an absolutely disgraceful piece of journalism to release that without verifying the most basic information.

Quality first post. For real, this should be an example to every journalist to always check your sources. What a disaster this piece was.

It's not that the sources weren't checked. It's that they were checked and Rolling Stone continued on with the story in defiance of the facts.

 

[Nyoro SF]

Pretty textbook case-study for those entering investigative journalism.

 

[Mark L]

Agree that the verdict is deserved, and sad that this ended up having such a potentially damaging effect on the discussion of such an important issue.

edit- just wanted to add that I am really angry with them. I have a daughter who will be going to college someday and any setback in discussing campus rape puts her in greater danger. I feel like anyone who identifies as a feminist should be frustrated with them. Just my 2 cents.

 

[jurgen]

Via Washington Post

CHARLOTTESVILLE — A federal court jury decided Friday that a Rolling Stone journalist defamed a former University of Virginia associate dean in a 2014 magazine article about sexual assault on campus that included a debunked account of a fraternity gang rape.

The 10-member jury concluded that the Rolling Stone reporter, Sabrina Rubin Erdely, was responsible for defamation, with actual malice, in the case brought by Nicole Eramo, a U-Va. administrator who oversaw sexual violence cases at the time of the article’s publication. The jury also found the magazine and its parent company, Wenner Media, responsible for defaming Eramo, who has said her life’s work helping sexual assault victims was devastated as a result of Rolling Stone’s article and its aftermath.

This mess of a story only gets messier.

 

[Team Alucard]

Fuck they lied about the dean too?

Person's career should be over. It's one thing to defame an organization, but to do it to an individual is unacceptable.

 

[Cerium]

It's amazing to me that the reporter kept her job and still works for Rolling Stone.

 

[Goodstyle]

Why is Lena Dunham brought up?

Basically, she met some dude at College, was drunk and high, and he took her home. Her friend told her not to go with him, but she went anyways. They had some mediocre sex where he initially forget to put a condom on and he had to be reminded to. The guy couldn't even get it up, and eventually she threw him out. Later, she tells her friend what happened, and that friend says it was rape. She doesn't believe it at first, but eventually as she starts working on her show "Girls" she realizes it was rape and that she is a survivor of sexual assault. She wanted to reference that guy in her book by name, but was legally threatened by him, so she used a fake one.

People often cite that as an example of how women can twist just about anything into rape, but honestly, this just feels like a Lena Dunham thing.

 

[Fuchsdh]

I don't really see how this issue "sets back" discussions of campus assault, really. It's the perfect illustration of how fucked up the discussion actually is, because it's filled with garbage statistics and confirmation bias.

Saying "well most women don't lie about being raped" is a deflection and no consolation to the people who are on the receiving end, often because they fit the biases of the crowd; whether it's appealing to the image of the "bestial" black man as the conservative boogeyman, or the inability for supposedly open-minded liberals to accept that rich preppy kids aren't actually all serial rapists with elaborate gang rape rituals.

The people who always believe women are lying about being raped aren't going to have been swayed by the UVA story.

The more lawsuits, the better at this point. The press in general has completely jumped to publish first above all else in pursuit of impressions and clicks, and if it takes financial ruin to make them think twice, that's better than the alternative.

 

[NurseRedHeart]

It's weird to me that the false accuser will skate by unscathed. Obviously Rolling Stone and the writer made a huge error in judgment by not verifying the story, but man.

It does suck but at least we're closer to justice now.