Almost a year after Rolling Stone magazine published an article entitled “A Rape on Campus” that claimed several members of a fraternity at the University of Virginia gang raped an anonymous woman, the fallout over the “flawed story that purported to expose a culture of rape” at the school continued on Monday, when the publication was hit by a third lawsuit over the supposed incident.
The new claim, which was filed in the nearby Charlottesville Circuit Court by the Phi Kappa Psi fraternity chapter at the university, seeks $25 million from the “magazine of pop culture and current events” for “presumed damages, compensatory damages and actual damages for harm and injury to its reputation,” as well as becoming “the object of an avalanche of condemnation worldwide.”
The article regarding the event that was said to have taken place on Sept. 28, 2012, was written by Sabrina Erdely and published in the Nov. 19, 2014, issue of the publication. It claimed to portray the students' house as the scene of a horrific gang rape of a woman identified only as “Jackie” and a former student at the university.
However, “A Rape on Campus” came under fire almost immediately since events described in the article as taking place in could not be corroborated.
The new lawsuit is the third one leveled at Rolling Stone regarding the article. Nicole Eramo, an associate dean at the university who charges she was portrayed as the “chief villain” in the situation, filed a suit against the magazine for $7.5 million in May for making defamatory statements “in order to present a preconceived storyline.”
In July, three individual members of the Phi Kappa Psi fraternity -- who are now graduates of the school -- sued Rolling Stone seeking at least $225,000 each for defamation.
Those amounts bring the total cost of damages sought from the magazine to more than $35 million.
The fraternity's collective lawsuit, which is more than 90 pages long, lists episodes of alleged harassment that fraternity members faced after the story was published. They include death threats made against the students and their families in addition to profanity-laden abuse directed at them online.
In the days before it unraveled, Rolling Stone’s article was used as a touchstone for discussing the prevalence of sexual assault on college campuses throughout the United States. However, it soon deteriorated into a cautionary tale for reporters and editors tackling controversial narrative-driven stories.
After the story imploded, Rolling Stone spokeswoman Kathryn Brenner said the magazine had no comment on the situation. Also, Rolling Stone publisher Jann Wenner announced that no one at the magazine would be fired over the incident.
Rolling Stone managing editor Will Dana later issued a statement that "there now appear to be discrepancies in Jackie's account" and added that "we have come to the conclusion that our trust in her was misplaced. … We are taking this seriously and apologize to anyone who was affected by the story."
Dana also noted:
Within days, commentators started to question the veracity of our narrative. Then, when the Washington Post uncovered details suggesting that the assault could not have taken place the way we described it, the truth of the story became a subject of national controversy.
Sexual assault is a serious problem on college campuses, and it is important that rape victims feel comfortable stepping forward. It saddens us to think that their willingness to do so might be diminished by our failings.
The editor explained that his magazine was "trying to be sensitive to the unfair shame and humiliation many women feel after a sexual assault and now regret the decision to not contact the alleged assaulters to get their account."
Interestingly, Dana left Rolling Stone in July after working on the publication for nearly 20 years because "it is time to move on."
However, in April, the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism issued a scathing report on the editorial breakdown at Rolling Stone that “allowed publication of the searing and thoroughly discredited story.”
The three-month review “was meant to shed a light on and calm the storm surrounding a saga that had triggered a police probe and institutional soul-searching at the university.”
The report also pointed out that after the article was published, the staff had initially been unwilling to recognize any deficiencies and had denied there was a need for policy changes.
As if that wasn't bad enough, the story was included in a Columbia Journalism Review feature, "The Worst Journalism of 2014," where it was described as winning "this year's media-fail sweepstakes."
After the consequences of printing such a "flawed story," here's hoping the folks at Rolling Stone adopt a new motto: “Better safe than sorry."
