Perhaps Rolling Stone would like a little introspection given their fear mongering and false reporting about the University of Virginia. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/17/business/media/rolling-sto...
Rolling Stone did retract the story, and has done some considerble introspection on the topic.
http://www.rollingstone.com/culture/features/a-rape-on-campu...
A key point of the story for me, having seen multiple other instances of people claiming narratives which proved false, is that it is difficult to guard against someone who is committed to telling and promoting untruth. The more so if the person appeals to you as sympathetic or persuasive. This is at the very heart of the con.
It's why being both compassionate to someone who's claiming wrongdoing, and making triply-certain you've dotted all 'i's and crossed all 't's is so crucial.
Hoaxes and (bogus) conspiracy stories, financial and business cons, and political cons work like this. They press all our psychological levers which are geared toward belief, and twist them. Piltdown Man, Crop Circles, Clever Hans (the more so as the perpetrator himself was by all accounts among the deceived), the Chess Turk, and other hoaxes.
I could draw more examples from current headlines, though that might prove more divisive.