4 ms·

Rolling Stone magazine has been going down hill for a long time. There reporting of late has been pretty disappointing with slanted views/one sided reporting

• ffhhj 4y ago
  At least they keep the stones rolling, down the hill that is.
• fortran77 4y ago
  They aren't credible anymore. Not since this: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/13/business/media/rape-uva-rolling-stone-frat.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/13/business/media/rape-uva-r...
  • brookst 4y ago
    That's incredibly damning and everyone involved should be ashamed. That said, is there any organization in the world, let alone a media outlet, that has never had any catastrophic failures? Are we supposed to be one-strike to forever irredeemable for every org?
  • 93po 4y ago
    Should we also not call the NYT credible anymore after they supported the invasion of Iraq (and associated WMD BS) and admitted their reporting "had not been as rigorous as they should have been, and were insufficiently qualified, frequently overly dependent upon [biased] information"? That one of their reporters had to retire in shame, but only after a generous severance package deal, and all of the editors and people who allowed this were allowed to stay?
• drak0n1c 4y ago
  The only recent major Rolling Stone scoop that has held up after further scrutiny was Matt Taibbi's coverage of financial institutions. That was ages ago.