The jury in the Rolling Stone defamation trial found that the magazine and their reporter Savrina Eerdely were guilt of actual malice and awarded $3 million to a University of Virginia dean. The article portrayed the dean as dismissive of a claim by an alleged rape victim. “Jackie” said she was raped in a fraternity house in 2012, but a police investigation found no supporting evidence for her claim. After some delay Rolling Stone retracted the article and apologized. (NBC29, November 7, 2016, by Henry Graff)
The jury ruled that Rolling Stone did not act with actual malice in originally publishing the story but since RS reposted the story online with an admission the story had holes, the jury concluded the magazine acted with actual malice. (The Hollywood Reporter, November 7, 2016, by Ashley Cullins)
A report by the Columbia Graduate School of Journalism in 2015 found that Rolling Stone had not followed “basic, routine journalistic practice” in checking the facts in the article. The magazine is expected to appeal with the expectation that an appellate court might take a different view of the actual malice issue. A Rolling Stone reporter said the magazine was trying to reveal problems at the university in dealing with sexual assault complaints. The U.S. Department of Education found fault with the school’s handling of two alleged assault cases including Jackie’s. (The New York Times, November 4, 2016, by Ben Sisario, Hawes Spencer and Sydney Ember)