[cdolan]

Perhaps this is why the Rolling Stone is for sale then?

Author and Editor fail to validate highly sensitive claims in an incredibly amateur fashion. * they did not even ask the accused for comment*.

Rather than separate from the author and Editor, and help them find a career elsewhere, the publication gives a pretty weak apology and doubles down on two individuals who obviously failed to follow basic journalism standards.

They don't need to be "parriahs", but I do think it rubbed readers the wrong way when RS continued to defend their work and ultimately gave a sour retraction ('we were hoodwinked!') and weak "sorry!".

[coldtea]

>Perhaps this is why the Rolling Stone is for sale then?

Obviously not. Else countless others shit-rags would also be.

In the era of fake news this is a misdemeanor.

[cdolan]

Justifying poor journalism by referencing more poor journalism is not a recipe for success.

[coldtea]

I'm not justifying anything, just applying logic.

Saying that bad journalism "is why the Rolling Stone is for sale" makes no sense when bad (and far worse) journalism does just fine everywhere.