The Columbia Journalism School published its report on the breakdown of Rolling Stone’s story about an alleged rape at the University of Virginia. Its findings call into question decisions made by everyone at the organization and it details ways it could have prevented the story’s publication.
Rolling Stone published the report by Sheila Coronel, Steve Coll and Derek Kravitz, calling it “journalistic failure that was avoidable”:
Rolling Stone‘s repudiation of the main narrative in “A Rape on Campus” is a story of journalistic failure that was avoidable. The failure encompassed reporting, editing, editorial supervision and fact-checking. The magazine set aside or rationalized as unnecessary essential practices of reporting that, if pursued, would likely have led the magazine’s editors to reconsider publishing Jackie’s narrative so prominently, if at all. The published story glossed over the gaps in the magazine’s reporting by using pseudonyms and by failing to state where important information had come from.
In late March, after a four-month investigation, the Charlottesville, Va., police department said that it had “exhausted all investigative leads” and had concluded, “There is no substantive basis to support the account alleged in the Rolling Stone article.”3
The story’s blowup comes as another shock to journalism’s credibility amid head-swiveling change in the media industry. The particulars of Rolling Stone‘s failure make clear the need for a revitalized consensus in newsrooms old and new about what best journalistic practices entail, at an operating-manual-level of detail.
As at other once-robust print magazines and newspapers, Rolling Stone‘s editorial staff has shrunk in recent years as print advertising revenue has fallen and shifted online. The magazine’s full-time editorial ranks, not including art or photo staff, have contracted by about 25 percent since 2008. Yet Rolling Stone continues to invest in professional fact-checkers and to fund time-consuming investigations like Erdely’s. The magazine’s records and interviews with participants show that the failure of “A Rape on Campus” was not due to a lack of resources. The problem was methodology, compounded by an environment where several journalists with decades of collective experience failed to surface and debate problems about their reporting or to heed the questions they did receive from a fact-checking colleague.
Ravi Somaiya wrote for The New York Times that the reporter, Sabrina Rubin Erdely, apologized for her reporting mistakes:
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 it represented an isolated and unusual episode. The problems with the article started with its source, Mr. Wenner said. He described her as “a really expert fabulist storyteller” who managed to manipulate the magazine’s journalism process. When asked to clarify, he said that he was not trying to blame Jackie, “but obviously there is something here that is untruthful, and something sits at her doorstep.”
The Columbia report cataloged a series of errors at Rolling Stone, finding that the magazine could have avoided trouble with the article if certain basic “reporting pathways” had been followed. Written by Steve Coll, the Columbia journalism school’s dean; Sheila Coronel, the dean of academic affairs; and Derek Kravitz, a postgraduate research scholar at the university, the report, at nearly 13,000 words, is longer than the 9,000-word article, “A Rape on Campus.”
Jeffrey A. Trachtenberg and Valerie Bauerlein wrote for The Wall Street Journal that Columbia didn’t call for anyone to be dismissed after the failures:
Columbia’s examination, released Sunday evening, rendered a harsh verdict, saying the magazine had employed faulty “reporting, editing, editorial supervision and fact-checking.”
The report also found that if the magazine’s editors hadn’t “rationalized as unnecessary essential practices of reporting,” the editors would likely have reconsidered publishing the story as prominently as they did, if they published it at all.
The examination didn’t call for anyone to be dismissed from Rolling Stone. The magazine’s managing editor, Will Dana, is quoted in the report as saying, “It’s on me. I’m responsible.”
On Sunday evening Rolling Stone released an editor’s note signed by Mr. Dana, who described the Columbia report as “painful reading.” He also said that Rolling Stone is officially retracting “A Rape on Campus,” and he apologized to readers and “all of those who were damaged by our story and the ensuing fallout.”
Mr. Dana specifically apologized to members of the Phi Kappa Psi fraternity as well as UVA administrators and students. “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,” he wrote.
The Los Angeles Times story by Matt Pearce recapped the story and where the reporting fell short:
The original Rolling Stone narrative told the story of a freshman named “Jackie” who said she was gang raped during a social function at a fraternity.
The Columbia investigators concluded that “If Jackie was attacked and, if so, by whom, cannot be established definitively from the evidence available.”
Earlier, police and the media had raised questions about several significant discrepancies in Jackie’s story.
The original Rolling Stone story was published at a time of rising national concern over the prevalence of sexual assaults on college campuses, and the initial public reaction was one of revulsion and outrage, not skepticism.
The Rolling Stone report shook the University of Virginia, where officials swiftly suspended fraternity activities and asked local police to investigate the allegations.
The magazine’s dramatic narrative relied heavily on the account of “Jackie,” a freshman and “a chatty, straight-A achiever from a rural Virginia town,” who said she was invited to a fraternity party by a fellow lifeguard at the university pool named “Drew.”
Every reporter knows that you can’t rely on one person’s word. Because Erdely didn’t track down the accused, Jackie’s acquaintances or even give details to the fraternity to check, she violated the most basic tenants of reporting. And her editors failed by not pushing her to do so.
Having Columbia review and publish its findings should help restore some trust and integrity in Rolling Stone. But the real harm will likely be to college students looking for help after a sexual assault – damage that has far-reaching consequences beyond a discredited story.
