This article is bollocks and it sounds like the independent investigation was bollocks too (subject to reading the full report - maybe this article totally misrepresents it but I doubt it). Rolling Stone and the author's apologies are obvious bollocks too, as is the statement that Rolling Stone will change their policies.

Why? Because nobody is talking about the actual cause of the issue, namely the feminist ideology.

So according to this piece the report says things went wrong because Rolling Stone decided to unquestioningly believe "Jackie". But it doesn't bother to ask why. As if Rolling Stone just randomly decides on some stories or some sources to just completely change it's entire set of journalistic policies, 'just because'.

The Columbia report found the article's failures chiefly emanated from a firm trust in the accuser. As a result, the report concluded that the reporter and her editors acquiesced to Jackie's emotional volatility, consciously deciding not to take basic reporting steps that could have saved the magazine from catastrophic error.

And why did they do that?

The report concluded: "The editors invested Rolling Stone's reputation in a single source."

That's not a conclusion. Everyone knows what they did, the question is why. Well the managing editor says more about the why that the report refused to say:

"We decided that it was important to believe a woman who said she was a survivor of a sexual assault — and to not question it, and to not feel like she was being kind of retried in public by journalists," Dana told NPR

So if that's all the story, and this isn't about blindly following feminist ideology, then the solution is to quit believing rape victims and to effectively retry them in the court of public opinion, right?

Dana said he regretted that decision, based in part on studies suggesting the rarity of false claims about rape

Feminist ideology that is, not reports. so anyway. lesson learned right? So you wont do that again -- believe the rape "victim"?

"Decisions that we made about this story are very different than decisions we'd make about pretty much every other story that we've done in all the years that I've been here, out of what seemed like deference to someone who had been a victim of a terrible trauma," Dana said.

Yes, yes we got that. You do have perfectly good journalistic policies in place for any other story but you intentionally tore/ignored down all those checks and balances, all those journalistic practices and policies BECAUSE of "believe the woman", so to fix the problem that means you have to STOP "believe the woman", right? You don't need any changes to your journalistic policies. You just need to apply them instead of "believe the woman". You need to NOT believe so-called rape victims. So what changes did you actually make?

Since the story came under fire, Dana said he has issued more explicit guidelines for expectations of what steps writers, editors and fact-checkers need to take in reporting and verifying their stories

More journalistic policies to be completely ignored whenever a female "victim" is part of the story. Changes that are completely unnecessary to cover up the real issue.

No journalists associated with Rolling Stone have been suspended or punished at the magazine for their role in the debacle

Of course not. They would do exactly the same thing again.