Rolling Stone retraction

Re “Rolling Stone retracts rape story,” April 6

Back in Memphis in 1968, following the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr. and my brother’s arrest for having hair below his ears, I wrote to Rolling Stone. I explained how the publication felt like a lifeline to those of us out in the hinterlands of conservatism.

The staff ’s response was thoughtful and collegial; I was told that even the publisher had read my letter.

Sadly in contrast, as I encountered the magazine’s retraction of the University of Virginia rape story, my reaction possibly mirrored that of many others who long ago saw the publication become just another glitzy mainstream magazine: People still read Rolling Stone?

In retrospect, life just seemed a little more scintillating back when we had to “fight the man” just to refrain from getting a haircut. Rolling Stone’s relevance recedes, but we still owe it for its early pioneering journalism.

Power to the people (in the fact-checking department)!

Cay Sehnert South Pasadena

In his last book, “Life Itself,” Roger Ebert describes a sign posted above the desk of an editor at the Chicago Sun-Times stating, “If your mother says she loves you, check it out.”

How sad that journalism, like seemingly the rest of society, has moved from healthy skepticism to “truthiness” for both liberals and conservatives. The motto now would be, “If it feels right, it’s true.”

Larry Cahill Irvine