Press Clips by cynthia cotts

TOUGH LOVE

Last week, editors at The New Republic found out they had dodged a bullet:
Rolling Stone is getting sued by D.A.R.E., but they're not. In the
complaint against Rolling Stone, lawyers for the drug education program
explain why: in California, where the suit was filed, there is a one-year
statute of limitations on libel suits, "or else The New Republic would also
be a defendant in this lawsuit."

First The New Republic, and then Rolling Stone, ran critical stories about
D.A.R.E. by Stephen Glass, the lovable rascal who turned out to be a total
fabricator. But by the time he confessed last May, The New Republic story
was a year old-- which means the mag was saved by the bell.

Or was it? Sources familiar with the case say it didn't hurt that The New
Republic's editor, Charles Lane, published humble retractions in the June 1
and June 29 issues. "We are not proud of the fact that Glass's falsehoods
ever made it into our pages," he wrote, and later itemized Glass's
fabrications about D.A.R.E. and repudiated the substance of his work.

Meanwhile, Rolling Stone stood by the story, repeating the claim that
D.A.R.E. and its supporters used intimidation tactics to silence their
critics, even though most of these allegations were based on fictitious
sources. In the July 9­23 issue, the editors wrote, "To date . . . we have
found nothing to contradict the essence of this piece." By then, D.A.R.E.
had sued Glass, who later tattled to D.A.R.E. lawyers about both magazines'
editorial processes, and wrote a craven apology letter of his own.

The only one who has yet to eat humble pie is Rolling Stone managing editor
Robert Love, who released a defiant statement in response to the D.A.R.E.
suit filed February 2, calling it "little more than an attempt to
intimidate and discourage legitimate debate."

Rolling Stone is expected to fight the suit on First Amendment grounds.