Libel verdict against Rolling Stone comes amid deep public distrust of the media

Days after Rolling Stone magazine published a shocking 9,000-word story about a brutal gang rape at the University of Virginia in November 2014, the magazine’s editors received an email just before 2 a.m. with “Our worst nightmare” in the subject line. They needed to run a retraction, the reporter said.

Instead, Rolling Stone kept the article on its website for four months before finally pulling it down that April and officially retracting the story.

That decision was enough to convince a federal jury in Charlottesville on Friday that the magazine defamed a university administrator, who claimed she was cast as the “chief villain” in the now-discredited story “A Rape on Campus.”

The 10-person jury found also found that journalist Sabrina Rubin Erdely and the magazine’s publisher were responsible for libel, with actual malice.

Nicole Eramo claimed the article falsely said she discouraged the woman identified only as “Jackie” from reporting the incident to police. A police investigation found no evidence to back up Jackie’s claims about being raped.

Eramo was seeking $7.5 million from her lawsuit. Jurors are expected to return to court next week to decide how much to award her.

The decision comes at a time when the public’s distrust of the press runs deep and is the latest in a year that brought large judgments against other media outlets.

In March, former pro wrestler Hulk Hogan won a $140-million invasion-of-privacy verdict against Gawker for posting a sex tape of him. Gawker settled with Hogan for $31 million this month.

Last month, the News & Observer of Raleigh was ordered to pay about $6 million in a State Bureau of Investigation agent’s libel lawsuit.

Samantha Barbas, a law professor at the University of Buffalo, said it appears that media outlets are being threatened with and hit with more lawsuits than ever, and juries seem more willing to side with people who claim they’ve been injured by the press.

“The climate seems to be one where people, especially public figures, don’t fear taking on the press as they might have in the past,” said Barbas, who studies the intersection of the 1st Amendment, culture, media and privacy.

The magazine also faces a $25-million defamation lawsuit from the University of Virginia’s Phi Kappa Psi fraternity, where Jackie claimed her sexual assault took place.

Because the judge determined that Eramo was a public figure, she had to prove Rolling Stone made statements with “actual malice,” meaning it knew that what it was writing about her was false or entertained serious doubts about whether it might be true.

Jurors found that the magazine and its publisher, Wenner Media, acted with actual malice because they republished the article on Dec. 5 after they knew about the problems with Jackie’s story. The magazine put an editor’s note on top of the story that day acknowledging its reporting mistakes, but did not use the word retraction and kept the story online.

Rolling Stone’s attorneys argued that the editor’s note was effectively a retraction, but jurors rejected that idea. The magazine did not say it was officially retracting the article until the following April.

ALSO

Trump says African Americans are living in hell. That depends on what you mean by hell

Supreme Court says Arizona may punish some who deliver mail-in ballots to polling places

Harvard cancels men’s soccer season for long-running practice of sexually ranking the women’s team