Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Add Reply
UVA Rape Story Collapses; Duke Lacrosse Redux
Topic Started: Dec 5 2014, 01:45 PM (60,402 Views)
abb
Member Avatar

Jacob Gershman Verified account
‏@jacobgershman

Rolling Stone would have been off the hook had it just taken the article down instead of initially standing by @SabrinaRErdely's reporting
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
cks
Member Avatar

Justice served! This is good news. Whether Eramo will ever see any money is another question but this should be a warning to all journalists who believe that they can play fast and loose with what they report. There are certain reporters who should be very thankful that no case was ever brought against those who so maliciously defamed RCD and the taxi driver (I am having a senior moment so cannot remember how to spell his name) who provided corroboration for R.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
abb
Member Avatar

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/441807/jury-finds-rolling-stone-and-sabrina-erdeley-liable-university-virginia-defamation

Jury Finds Rolling Stone and Sabrina Erdeley Liable in University of Virgina Defamation Case
By David French — November 4, 2016

This is big:

Rolling Stone’s explosive campus rape story — a story that featured what appears to be an entirely fictional tale of a gang rape at a fraternity — will go down in history as one of the worst cases of journalistic malpractice in modern times. A reporter in search of an explosive story found a fabulist with an agenda, and then quite literally wrote a story that was too good to check. This is what happens when ideological narrative gets ahead of the truth.

But even now, narrative triumphs. On CNN analysts are fretting that this story “gives people reason to doubt” the next sexual assault accuser. But when it comes to accusations of criminal misconduct, there is no such thing as a presumption of guilt. In other words, every charge carries with it a mandatory obligation to doubt before you impose penalties on a suspect. No one has a “right to be believed.” They have a right to file a charge, and they have the right to make their case. Neither accuser nor accused has a right to be believed.

No one doubts that campus rapes happen. But the case for rape panic continues to unravel. Given the alleged epidemic, activists often have real trouble finding actual, credible cases where college administrators were indifferent to credible claims. So they fill the gap with exaggerations and distortions. The jury’s verdict today sends a clear signal — reckless and mendacious journalistic activism has its costs.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
abb
Member Avatar

http://www.wsj.com/articles/rolling-stone-found-liable-in-defamation-trial-over-rape-on-campus-article-1478284464

Rolling Stone Found Liable in Defamation Trial Over ‘Rape on Campus’ Article
Jury sides with university administrator who was in charge of handling student complaints of sexual misconduct

By Jacob Gershman
Nov. 4, 2016 2:34 p.m. ET

A federal jury on Friday ruled against Rolling Stone and a reporter in a defamation trial over the magazine’s discredited 2014 story about an alleged fraternity party gang rape at the University of Virginia.

A 10-person jury found that Rolling Stone defamed a university administrator who was in charge of handling student complaints of sexual misconduct. The two-week trial was only considering liability, leaving the question of damages for another phase.

The trial centered on the magazine’s November 2014 article, “A Rape on Campus,” which described a brutal alleged sexual assault of a female college student at a University of Virginia fraternity house and depicted school officials as indifferent to her plight.

Calls to lawyers for Rolling Stone and the plaintiffs weren’t immediately returned.

The article by journalist Sabrina Rubin Erdely attracted national attention first as a shocking example of campus sexual violence and then as a journalism scandal when its central claims crumbled under scrutiny. Police found no evidence that any of the allegations against the fraternity were true. Rolling Stone later apologized to readers and retracted the article in April 2015.

In a lawsuit filed last year, then-UVA associate dean of students Nicole Eramo alleged that the article and interviews Ms. Erdely gave about her reporting cast the administrator as the callous villain of its tale and falsely asserted that she discouraged a student identified only as “Jackie” from taking her rape allegations to the police.

Ms. Eramo is seeking $7.5 million, but jurors could potentially award a higher amount of damages.

Lawyers for Rolling Stone disputed the lawsuit’s characterization of its reporting about Ms. Eramo, saying editors and Ms. Erdely thought Jackie’s allegations were credible.

Rolling Stone also faces a pending defamation suit in Virginia state court brought by the fraternity, the University of Virginia chapter of Phi Kappa Psi, that was the focus of the article.

Write to Jacob Gershman at jacob.gershman@wsj.com
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
abb
Member Avatar

http://www.dailyprogress.com/news/local/rolling-stone-defendants-liable-for-defamation/article_89a5c93e-a2b6-11e6-84b2-2f2e7789ea55.html


Rolling Stone defendants liable for defamation

BY LAUREN BERG 15 sec ago (0)

Following more than 20 hours of deliberations, a Charlottesville jury on Friday returned a verdict in favor of University of Virginia administrator Nicole Eramo in the $7.5 million defamation trial against Rolling Stone magazine and the author of "A Rape on Campus."

At 1:15 p.m. Friday, the jury found the magazine, its publisher and Sabrina Rubin Erdely, the author of the now-retracted November 2014 article liable for damages against Eramo. The jury also found all three defendants to have committed actual malice.

Eramo claimed the article’s centerpiece story of a brutal gang rape at a UVa fraternity house, which was debunked soon after publishing, defamed her and caused her personal injury.

The jury will return on Monday at 8 a.m. to determine how to assess damages.

Earlier this week, Judge Glen Conrad dismissed part of the lawsuit, saying the article did not defame her by its implications. In his ruling, Conrad said the article did not personally damage Eramo, who claims her health, reputation and career suffered as a result of Erdely’s piece.

In its deliberations, the jury was required to examine and determine if statements made in the Rolling Stone article, statements made by Erdely on the “Brian Lehrer Show,” statements made by Erdely on the “Slate DoubleX” podcast and statements made by Erdely to The Washington Post were false and defamatory of Eramo, according to the jury instructions and verdict forms.

[The Daily Progress news app keeps you up-to-date. Click here to get the free iOS or Android app.]

"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," a statement released by Rolling Stone after the verdict states.

"We deeply regret these missteps and sincerely apologize to anyone hurt by them, including Ms. Eramo," magazine officials said in the statement. "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."
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Quasimodo

:smilfacak: :smilfacak:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
abb
Member Avatar

FLASHBACK!!!
Quote:
 

http://www.wsj.com/articles/rolling-stone-magazine-sells-49-stake-to-singapores-bandlab-technologies-1474812182

Rolling Stone Magazine Sells 49% Stake to Singapore’s BandLab Technologies
Investment doesn’t include ownership in Wenner Media

By Jeffrey A. Trachtenberg
Sept. 25, 2016 10:03 a.m. ET

Rolling Stone has struck a chord with a new investor.

BandLab Technologies Ltd., a closely held Singapore-based social music company, has purchased a 49% stake in the storied music brand, including the magazine and its digital assets.

Terms weren’t disclosed. However, the investment doesn’t include ownership in closely held Wenner Media LLC, Rolling Stone’s corporate parent.

The move comes as many publishers are seeking to broaden their portfolios to become less dependent on print advertising revenue. Time Inc., the country’s largest magazine publisher, has made a string of deals aimed at growing its digital advertising business.

Ad pages declined 14% at Rolling Stone between January and August compared to the same period a year ago, according to data provided by a spokeswoman for Rolling Stone.

BandLab’s investment provides Rolling Stone with the opportunity to expand into the live event, hospitality and merchandising businesses in Asia—areas where BandLab has experience. Its flagship product is a digital platform for creating and sharing music.

“Everyone is trying to figure out the new business model,” said Gus Wenner, who heads up digital at Wenner Media and also oversees ad sales, marketing, and digital editorial across the company.

“We have the quality that most matters, a brand that means something to people and elicits an emotional response,” he said. Mr. Wenner, 26 years old, is the son of Jann Wenner, Rolling Stone’s co-founder, editor and publisher.

Plans call for Rolling Stone and BandLab to form a new Singapore subsidiary called Rolling Stone International. The business, which will include Rolling Stone’s 12 international licensees, will be led by Meng Ru Kuok, BandLab’s 28-year-old CEO and co-founder. Mr. Kuok is the son of Singapore businessman Kuok Khoon Hong.

“Our strength is local knowledge,” Meng Ru Kuok said in an interview. “Rolling Stone is pushing digital, and we’re excited to push the physical experiences around the brand.”

Mr. Kuok said he views the partnership as a venture that will extend for many years. “We aren’t coming in as a traditional investor with a short-term plan,” he said.

Rolling Stone’s website in August attracted 17.7 million unique U.S. visitors, up 59% over a two-year period, according to media measurement firm comScore Inc.

Mr. Wenner said he and Mr. Kuok had dinner a year ago at the Il Cantinori restaurant in Greenwich Village to discuss the possibility of a joint venture. By the time the meal was over, Mr. Wenner said, the two had made a strong personal connection. When Mr. Wenner and his father later decided to look for a strategic investor in Rolling Stone’s digital business, Mr. Kuok expressed interest in investing in the entire brand.

“They are a group that understands what it means to be part of a family business,” Mr. Wenner said. Wenner Media, whose other titles include Us Weekly and Men’s Journal, has no intentions of putting itself up for sale, he said.

“Rolling Stone is approaching its 50th anniversary,” Mr. Wenner said. “I want to see it flourish for another 50 years. This is where I want to be.”

Mr. Kuok declined to comment on whether BandLab is indemnified against potential financial liabilities that may result from a trio of defamation lawsuits filed against Rolling Stone related to an article written by Sabrina Rubin Erdely. The story, “A Rape on Campus,” was published in 2014. Rolling Stone later retracted the piece, which centered on an alleged rape at a University of Virginia fraternity.

One lawsuit, filed by three University of Virginia fraternity members in July 2015, has been dismissed. Alan Frank, an attorney for the plaintiffs, said that he has filed a notice of appeal. A lawsuit filed in May 2015 on behalf of University of Virginia associate dean of students Nicole Eramo is expected to get under way in a district court in Virginia in mid-October, according to an attorney for Ms. Eramo

A third lawsuit, filed by the Virginia Alpha chapter of Phi Kappa Psi fraternity in November 2015, is proceeding through the discovery phase and is on track go to trial in October 2017, according to Rodney Smolla, an attorney for the fraternity. A spokeswoman for Rolling Stone declined to comment on the lawsuits.

Write to Jeffrey A. Trachtenberg at jeffrey.trachtenberg@wsj.com

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Quasimodo

cks
Nov 4 2016, 01:45 PM
Justice served! This is good news. Whether Eramo will ever see any money is another question but this should be a warning to all journalists who believe that they can play fast and loose with what they report. There are certain reporters who should be very thankful that no case was ever brought against those who so maliciously defamed RCD and the taxi driver (I am having a senior moment so cannot remember how to spell his name) who provided corroboration for R.


How I wish we could have seen a jury hear testimony from Brodhead, all the N&O and HS reporters,
Burness, et al, and then returned a verdict...

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
MikeKell
Member Avatar
Still a Newbie
abb
Nov 4 2016, 01:38 PM
Jacob Gershman Verified account
‏@jacobgershman

Key factor in Rolling Stone verdict was magazine's delayed retraction and decision to keep article online with an editor's note about Jackie
What about the unretraction by the magazine during the deposition? I have to think hearing the editor/publisher say "except for the Jackie parts" he did not retract the rest of the story which is the part that was defaming the dean.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
abb
Member Avatar

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

Nicole Eramo Wins: Rolling Stone Committed Defamation in UVA Rape Article
Sabrina Rubin Erdely's actions meet 'actual malice' test

Robby Soave|Nov. 4, 2016 2:48 pm

University of Virginia Dean of Students Nicole Eramo put Rolling Stone on trial for libeling her in its infamous, demonstrably false article about a gang rape on campus. And she won.

On Friday afternoon, a jury determined that Rolling Stone, publisher Jann Wenner, and author Sabrina Rubin Erdely were responsible for defamation, with actual malice, according to The Washington Post.

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."

Rolling Stone and its publisher tried to argue that they made an innocent mistake: they trusted Jackie, a woman wholly committed to deceiving them. During the trial, Wenner went as far as to suggest that the article was accurate, aside from Jackie's account—as if the two were capable of being separated. He even said that he disagreed with the editor's decision to retract it, which was done only after the Columbia University School of Journalism released a scathing report about Rolling Stone's failings.

Erdely took the stand as well, emphasizing the elaborate pains Jackie took to prop up her lies. Jackie even brought Erdely to the fraternity in question and faked an episode of PTSD in front of her.

Of course, Jackie's lie would have been exposed had Erdely or Rolling Stone's editors done one of two things: press her for the real name of her attacker, or verify that friends Ryan Duffin, Alex Stone, and Kathryn Hendley had actually said the things attributed to them by Jackie. Indeed, Ryan and Alex could have clued Erdely in to Jackie's weird catfishing scheme, and Kathryn could have related an illustrative anecdote: Jackie faking a terminal illness and spread a false rumor that Kathryn had contracted syphilis.

Eramo's suit asked for $7.5 million in damages, though she can ask for more now that the verdict has been reached. It's not a large enough sum of money to destroy Rolling Stone, though the magazine's pride is no doubt wounded. Rolling Stone sent me this statement:

For almost 50 years, Rolling Stone has aimed to produce journalism with the highest reporting and ethical standards, and with a strong humanistic point of view. When we published 'A Rape on Campus' in 2014, we were attempting to tackle the very serious and complex topic of sexual assault on college campuses, a subject that is more relevant today than ever. 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. 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. We will continue to publish stories that shine a light on the defining social, political and cultural issues of our times, and we will continue to seek the truth in every story we publish.

You might recall that I was among the first journalists to scrutinize the article, days after it first appeared online. (My post on the subject cited Richard Bradley, whose criticisms had appeared even earlier.) It's been quite a journey from then to now—remember this? I didn't—but my point-of-view has always remained the same: the campus sexual assault issue is a complicated problem made more incomprehensible by bad statistics, junk science, and activist reporting coming from all sorts of ideological directions.

If we're going to make college a safer environment—for both victims of sexual assault, and the wrongfully accused and maligned—the truth has got to matter more than the story.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Acc Esq

MikeKell
Nov 4 2016, 02:54 PM
abb
Nov 4 2016, 01:38 PM
Jacob Gershman Verified account
‏@jacobgershman

Key factor in Rolling Stone verdict was magazine's delayed retraction and decision to keep article online with an editor's note about Jackie
What about the unretraction by the magazine during the deposition? I have to think hearing the editor/publisher say "except for the Jackie parts" he did not retract the rest of the story which is the part that was defaming the dean.
The trial lawyer in me agrees that Wenner's defiant attitude and tone deafness about being a victim himself (not to mention the contrived apology) were the most important evidence that emotionally bound the jury to Dean Eramo. No wonder Eramo's lawyers closed the case on this high note. Seldom have I ever been able to rest a case following such emotionally powerful (but totally proper) testimony. There were also subtle tactical implications. While the lawyers may not be able to argue that the jury should send RS a message (punitive damages claim was withdrawn), Wenner's testimony and demeanor had the same effect.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
MikeZPU

Acc Esq
Nov 4 2016, 04:24 PM
MikeKell
Nov 4 2016, 02:54 PM
abb
Nov 4 2016, 01:38 PM
Jacob Gershman Verified account
‏@jacobgershman

Key factor in Rolling Stone verdict was magazine's delayed retraction and decision to keep article online with an editor's note about Jackie
What about the unretraction by the magazine during the deposition? I have to think hearing the editor/publisher say "except for the Jackie parts" he did not retract the rest of the story which is the part that was defaming the dean.
The trial lawyer in me agrees that Wenner's defiant attitude and tone deafness about being a victim himself (not to mention the contrived apology) were the most important evidence that emotionally bound the jury to Dean Eramo. No wonder Eramo's lawyers closed the case on this high note. Seldom have I ever been able to rest a case following such emotionally powerful (but totally proper) testimony. There were also subtle tactical implications. While the lawyers may not be able to argue that the jury should send RS a message (punitive damages claim was withdrawn), Wenner's testimony and demeanor had the same effect.
Yes! I could not believe this line when it read it in
the Washington Examiner story that abb posted:

Quote:
 
When Wenner testified, he said he wished the magazine hadn't issued a full retraction to the article, apologized to Eramo, but said that he had "suffered as much as" she had.
[/big]
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Quasimodo

Quote:
 
If we're going to make college a safer environment—for both victims of sexual assault, and the wrongfully accused and maligned—the truth has got to matter more than the story.


Applicable to the Duke story, also...


Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Quasimodo

The big lie...


Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Payback
Member Avatar

Quasimodo
Nov 4 2016, 02:03 PM
:smilfacak: :smilfacak:
:bd: :bd: :bd: :bd: :bd: :bd: :bd: :bd: :bd:

:
Edited by Payback, Nov 4 2016, 07:46 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Free Forums. Reliable service with over 8 years of experience.
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · DUKE LACROSSE - Liestoppers · Next Topic »
Add Reply