With no explanation, label the following with either "hyperpartisan" or "not_hyperpartisan".
An attorney for the former University of Virginia dean suing Rolling Stone for defamation alleged during closing arguments that the magazine’s campus rape story was reported with a “reckless disregard for the truth.” Attorney Tom Clare charged that Rolling Stone “needed a villain” for the Nov. 2014 feature piece — and the story’s author, Sabrina Erdely, decided former associate dean of students Nicole Eramo fit the bill. “Every one of her stories has a victim, a villain and a vindicator … Ms. Erdely and Rolling Stone were intent on imposing that on this story,” Clare said. “It had all of the elements of a perfect story, but when something sounds too perfect to be true, it probably is.” Eramo, who is seeking $7.5 million, claims the since-discredited story portrayed her as turning a blind eye to gang rape claims made by a former student identified as “Jackie.” Clare argued that the defamation case is not about rape, but about journalistic failure. The lawyer said Erdely left out important details in her piece on purpose, like the fact that Eramo took Jackie to the police on two separate occasions. ‘Every one of her stories has a victim, a villain and a vindicator…’ “They made a decision to remove [from the article] every reference to the police and that’s actual malice,” he said. Clare also blasted Erdely for ignoring red flags, such as Jackie’s refusal to put her in touch with sources who could corroborate her alleged gang rape account. “Jackie’s refusal to put Ms. Erdely in touch with people who could confirm or deny her story was a giant, waving red flag,” he insisted. “Once they decided what the article was going to be, it didn’t matter what the facts were,” Clare added. Rolling Stone’s attorney Scott Sexton countered that Erdely put a “tremendous amount of work” into the article, but was ultimately fooled by Jackie. “Sabrina was acting in good faith when she wrote the article with the information she had,” he insisted. “Our world would shut down if we walked out that court room door and expected everyone to lie to us.” Sexton also said that because Eramo is a public figure, Erdely had every right to criticize her. “She is a highly compensated public servant… we are entitled as citizens to criticize a public figure,” he explained. Sexton argued that Eramo’s attorneys are intent on proving that the story was republished in Dec. 2014 — when the magazine added an editor’s note to the piece after Jackie’s rape account had been called into question — because they, “have no case for actual malice” before then. One of the questions jurors will be asked is whether they believe that Rolling Stone “affirmatively reiterated the content of any false and defamatory statements.”
not_hyperpartisan.