Should have stuck to fawning coverage of rock and roll

Leslie Loftis writes at the Federalist website that Rolling Stone‘s fake rape exposé could end the magazine.

In another possibly lucky break for Rolling Stone, the judge insisted on the damages award on Monday in the defamation case Eramo v. Rolling Stone. The jury heard damages evidence until Monday evening, then were told to decide on an award before leaving for dinner. They awarded $3 million to Nicole Eramo, the University of Virginia dean of students featured in Rolling Stone’s infamous November 2014 story, “A Rape on Campus.” …

… The publisher and co-founder, Jann Wenner, reinforced the error in his testimony. He stated that he regretted the article retraction when the magazine finally took the article down the next April.

Wenner wanted the jury to believe that while the underlying story was false and the characterization of Eramo as uncaring and indifferent to rape victims was false, the general description of campus rape culture was true. [Author Sabrina Rubin] Erdely’s testimony hit this theme as well. They ask the public to believe the overarching assertions are true even though the evidence for those assertions crumbled. It’s an unwelcome revival of the “fake but accurate” defense that failed Dan Rather a decade ago.

While Erdely and Rolling Stone’s article had suggested Eramo was callous, to the jury it was probably Wenner who came off as callous. Even after the fact-checking by other journalists, the police investigation, and the Columbia report, the publisher regretted the retraction?

Wenner also sought pity. He claimed he had suffered as much as Eramo had from this affair. None of that suggests remorse or new wisdom, things that might mitigate a jury’s damages assessments. How credible is the magazine’s claim to a lesson learned when the publisher does not seem to appreciate the difference between stabbing yourself and stabbing your neighbor?

In closing, Eramo’s attorney told the jury she was “collateral damage in a quest for sensational journalism.” The special verdict form and damages suggest the jury agrees.

The Eramo decision will also affect the remaining cases. The fraternity named in the article, Pi Kappa Psi, has sued Erdely and Rolling Stone in a separate case, and is asking for $25 million. Three of the individual fraternity brothers implicated in the story sued in yet another case. Their federal case was dismissed this past summer because Judge Kevin Castel in the Southern District of New York found that since they were not named in the article and the alleged attack never occurred, the men were not sufficiently identifiable to be defamed. They might appeal or refile in state court after the Eramo decision.

I doubt Rolling Stone has the assets to pay all the damages awards, and the brand is likely too damaged to attract buyers.