Jann Wenner Denies Reports of Rolling Stone Staff Resignations

The gay tycoon whose name is synonymous with Rolling Stone magazine, Jann Wenner, is denying a newspaper report that the editor of a sensational story about sexual violence on a college campus has offered to resign, following questions about the story's veracity.

The New York Observer reported Tuesday that deputy managing editor Sean Woods presented a letter of resignation to Wenner. The paper cited a source at Rolling Stone who it did not identify, and said a second source corroborated the account.

Wenner denied that report in an email to The Advocate from a spokeswoman, Melissa Bruno. Asked if he would confirm and/or comment on the report, the famed magazine maven offered only the same two words he initially gave to the Observer: "not true." Wenner also denied a report in the Observer that managing editor Will Dana had likewise offered to resign.

Why not fire them? Is Wenner turning soft, after 40 years running Rolling Stone? That source told the Observer, it's true Wenner was never reluctant to fire someone before: "Jann at this point has fired more people than most owners will ever hire. Will has lasted longer than any editor in the history of Rolling Stone and Jann puts a lot of currency in the people who are there and doesn't want to go through the hassle of finding great people."

The Observer quoted the original source as saying Wenner had commissioned a "re-reporting project" similar to the one conducted by The New York Times in the wake of a scandal involving a Times reporter, Jayson Blair, who concealed that his interviews were with fictitious characters, not real people.

This special Rolling Stone team is assigned to sort through the errors of the story, according to the Observer, as well as to reveal "what actually happened."

In brief, what is known is that writer Sabrina Rubin Erdely's article in the December 4 Rolling Stone, about a woman claiming to be the victim of a gang rape in 2012 at the Phi Kappa Psi fraternity house at the University of Virginia, was at first seen as a huge scoop that touched off local protests and a national firestorm about the threat of rape on campus. Amid to the story's accusations that UVA tolerated a culture that ignored sexual violence against women, the university suspended all fraternities until January.

Erdely had previously drawn attention for her groundbreaking reporting on the bullying of LGBT teens. And there was no reason to doubt the magazine's fact checkers; veteran Rolling Stone contributor Matt Taibbi told media blogger Jim Romenesko, "It usually takes longer to fact-check a Rolling Stone feature than it does to write it. Each review is like an IRS audit."

But in the weeks that followed, doubts about the account of a woman named "Jackie" in Erdely's article emerged; the fraternity poked holes in her story, and then came the revelation in The Washington Post that the magazine had intentionally not corroborated the claim of rape with any of those accused.
Her father and suitemate stand by "Jackie" and insist she told the truth about the attack. Then this week, a conservative blogger named Charles Johnson of Got News opted to expose her real name and reveal more details about her identity if she did not come forward to confess she made it all up. Twitter followers are calling on the social media network to crack down on Johnson for harassment.

On Wednesday, Virginia TV station WVIR reported that "Jackie" issued a statement through an attorney, Palma Pustilnik of Central Virginia Legal Aid Society in Charlottesville. The statement was a warning to those making threats and extortion attempts against "Jackie." The lawyer wrote that all such threats have been -- and will continue to be -- reported to authorities.

Rolling Stone put out two statements, revising one that originally said "Our trust in her was misplaced" on Friday. The revision now tells readers the mistakes were the magazine's fault, not the alleged victim's. Sean Woods also tweeted, "In trying to do the right thing we ended up doing the wrong thing. That's on us, not Jackie."

But as much as the editors may hope that their mea culpas and new investigation will put this controversy behind them, MarketWatch reports even if the magazine is ready to move on, its readers clearly are not.

"Attached to just about every one of its top stories in recent days are countless wisecracks using the debacle to discredit whatever the author is trying to say in the piece," the site reports. "Like this one in response to a story about police becoming illegitimate: 'A Rolling Stone gathers no facts.' -- Rob H."