ROLLING STONE Loses Its Libel Case
November 04, 2016, 06:40 PM
A+
|
a-
Print Friendly and PDF
From BuzzFeed:
The 10-person jury found that Erdely acted with actual malice when the article was first published on Nov. 19, 2014, and Rolling Stone and Wenner Media acted with actual malice when the story was republished on Dec. 5, 2014.
The “actual malice” standard includes a reckless disregard for the truth. It’s clear from reading the Rolling Stone blood libel about gang rape on broken glass that Sabrina Rubin Erdely was motivated by malice –political, gender, ideological and ethnic — against Thomas Jefferson’s U. of Virginia, which she saw as dominated by Southern blond conservative men. That’s why she didn’t notice that Jackie Coakley’s tall tale was self-evidently absurd.

Here’s my Taki’s column from a couple of weeks ago on the trial.

Here’s Richard Bradley’s blog post on November 24, 2014 (with my comments) that kicked off the collapse of this house of cards.

Here’s my November 29, 2014 blog post, “Richard Bradley: Is the ‘Rolling Stone’ Story True?

Here’s my December 3, 2014 Taki’s column “A Rape Hoax for Book Lovers.”

Here’s my December 10, 2014 blog post “Going Going Gone Girl!” when T. Rees Shapiro of the Washington Post broke the story that Jackie Coakley had catfished rapist / dream date Haven Monahan (whose name hadn’t yet been revealed) into digital pseudo-existence to make a boy she liked jealous.

Here’s my December 17, 2014 Taki’s column “Clusterfake” putting it into the bigger perspective.

KC Johnson has a list of tweets from journalists to Sabrina Rubin Erdely praising her great work on her ludicrous article.

[Comments at Unz.com]