Rolling Stone publisher Jann Wenner has decided not to take any disciplinary action against the editors or fact-checkers involved in the discredited story “A Rape on Campus.”
This means no one will be dismissed or suspended as a result of the error-filled story, according to people with direct knowledge of the decision.
Wenner believes the missteps by the magazine’s staff members — from managing editor Will Dana on down — were unintentional, not purposefully deceitful.
Columbia University will publish the results Sunday at 8pm ET of an extraordinary three-month review of Rolling Stone magazine’s editorial processes.
Columbia’s review finds “systemic failure” on the part of Rolling Stone, according to people with direct knowledge of the forthcoming report. The people spoke in recent days on the condition of anonymity.
The sources said Wenner concluded that the publication of Columbia’s report is essentially enough punishment.
A Rolling Stone spokeswoman declined to comment ahead of the 8 p.m. publication, which will take place simultaneously on the magazine’s web site and Columbia’s site.
The public accounting of what went wrong with the article is, among other things, a bid by Rolling Stone to restore its reputation.
The review may also provide some closure for the University of Virginia community harmed by the article’s widely-challenged allegations of a violent gang rape at a frat party. Local police officials recently said they could find no evidence that a rape occurred.
The writer of the original story, Sabrina Rubin Erdely, who has remained silent since her reporting was challenged in early December, is expected to issue an apologetic statement in conjunction with the report’s release, the sources said.
Additionally, Rolling Stone will remove the story from its website, the sources said. It will republish Columbia’s findings on the web and in its print edition.
Rolling Stone asked Columbia University’s graduate school of journalism in December to conduct the external review. The magazine had concluded that an internal review — no matter how thorough — would not be taken as seriously by the public.
The Columbia report is said to be about 12,000 words; the original story was 9,000 words.
Among the lingering questions the report may address:
— What evidence did Erdely have that the accuser, Jackie, was telling the truth? What conversations did they have about verifying what was universally agreed to be a horrific account of rape?
— Do the contradictions and holes in Jackie’s account stem from innocent misstatements on her part, possibly resulting from trauma, or did something more deliberate happen?
— Does Jackie still stand by her story? She has not commented publicly since “A Rape on Campus” initially came under scrutiny.
— Why did Rolling Stone’s editors agree to Jackie’s request that Erdely abstain from contacting any of the alleged attackers?
— What degree of involvement and supervision did the magazine’s top editors have in the production of the story?
CNNMoney will publish a complete summary of the report’s findings on Sunday evening.
