Rolling Stone ethically absent

This past Tuesday, University of Virginia associate dean of students Nicole Eramo filed a $7.5 million lawsuit against Rolling Stone magazine regarding her portrayal in the since retracted article, “A Rape on Campus.” Given the exceedingly vitriolic and false nature of the report, Eramo’s lawsuit seems justified. However, outside of a few multimillion-dollar lawsuits, Rolling Stone seems to be continually evading justice.

The penning and publication of “A Rape on Campus” was best described by the Columbia University journalism school as a failure that “encompassed reporting, editing, editorial supervision and fact-checking,” which better translates to a “failure of everything.” The subsequent steps the magazine has taken are similarly troubling.

In wake of perhaps the biggest journalistic gaffe since Jayson Blair’s rampant plagiarism at the New York Times, Rolling Stone went only so far as to retract and apologize for the article. They insisted that Chief of Fact Checking Coco McPherson and Managing Editor Will Dana, both of whom oversaw the publication of the story, retain their jobs. It almost seems inconceivable that the writer and perpetrator of the entire incident, Sabrina Rubin Erdely, was also permitted to continue to write for the magazine. To add insult to injury, Rolling Stone also maintained that it would not be overhauling any of its policies or procedures, largely placing blame on the featured victim in the story, Jackie.

Outside the obligatory retraction and apology, Rolling Stone’s attempts to rectify the colossal damage Erdely’s story caused ring hollow. On both an institutional and individual level, the magazine, writers and editors cling heavily to the notion that this was an uncharacteristic lapse. Whether the multitude of mistakes stemmed from negligence or accident, and evidence seems to point towards the former, a failure to take ownership over this fiasco undermines their journalistic credibility nearly as much as the article itself.

As an industry, journalism prides itself as standing high on a moral pedestal. Many who practice and teach the profession would argue that ethics are as integral to news as the reporting, writing and editing. Hypothetically, this should be the case. Yet, even the cacophony of mishaps that culminated in the publication of “A Rape on Campus” hasn’t been enough for the decision makers at Rolling Stone to recognize that members of their staff failed to live up to their ethical and professional expectations.

Sabrina Erdely’s decision to forgo key interviews, manipulate facts and even fabricate information to fit her article’s narrative is an ethical failure. It directly incriminated swathes of students and administrators of having been complicit in a culture of sexual violence. Moreover, it undermines the credibility of sexual assault survivors and their stories, a demographic that perhaps depends on reliability and trust more than any other on college campuses. If being an investigative reporter means upholding standards of truthfulness, accuracy and impartiality, then Erdely failed in every aspect.

Journalists are not the only professionals who claim to abide by ethical governance, but they do seem like the ones most unwilling to be held accountable. Doctors who break their Hippocratic oath are held responsible by malpractice. Lawyers who engage in unethical behavior face disbarment. These professionals face very real legal and career ramifications if they violate the ethical code they swear to uphold. Journalists, more consistently, seem content with a stern talking to.

Like any other group, the actions of the few should not color the whole. The majority of journalists remain true to their craft, and their efforts to foster trust as a communicative channel are laudable. Duke itself is fortunate enough to employ professors like Bill Adair whose Pulitzer Prize winning work with PolitiFact.com and the more recently launched PunditFact.com aim to fact check claims made by politicians, journalists and other commentators.