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!".