Rolling Stone magazine was once the iconic voice of the American counterculture. Founded in 1967 amid the swirl of psychedelic music, Vietnam protests, and youthful rebellion, it captured the spirit of a generation demanding freedom from “the Man.” But decades later, Rolling Stone no longer fights “the system”—it is the system, echoing the ideological demands of modern progressivism with little of the skepticism or independence it once prized.
While still branding itself as edgy and rebellious, today’s Rolling Stone functions more like a cultural enforcer for elite progressive orthodoxy. It no longer covers just music and pop culture but leans heavily into political activism. It is openly ideological, fiercely partisan, and increasingly intolerant of dissent. In short, it has become a media platform that consistently frames news and cultural developments through the lens of Neo-Marxist and progressive worldviews.
This article will examine Rolling Stone through multiple lenses: its ownership and funding, ideological tone, specific incidents of bias, key figures, controversies, and how it handles 20 dividing issues that distinguish Progressive media from Conservative truth-tellers.
Ownership and Worldview
Who Owns Rolling Stone?
Rolling Stone was founded by Jann Wenner in 1967. For decades, Wenner maintained control and influence over the publication. In 2017, Wenner Media sold a 49% stake to BandLab Technologies, a Singapore-based music company. Shortly thereafter, Penske Media Corporation (PMC), a conglomerate that owns Variety, Deadline, and other entertainment-focused media, acquired a majority stake, eventually becoming the full owner.
PMC is a privately held company owned by Jay Penske, the son of billionaire Roger Penske. While not publicly aligned with any political party, the editorial direction of Penske’s properties—including Rolling Stone—clearly reflects a progressive ideological tilt.
Revenue Sources and Influences
Rolling Stone draws revenue from advertising (especially in entertainment, fashion, and tech sectors), subscriptions, and digital media partnerships. Like many left-leaning outlets, it has benefited from corporate sponsors who share its ideological leanings—particularly in promoting diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives. It also maintains friendly relations with Hollywood and the music industry, both of which are dominated by progressive values and personnel.
These financial and institutional relationships encourage conformity to elite narratives and suppressing dissenting views—particularly on topics like race, gender, climate, and foreign policy. Though not directly funded by partisan donors or NGOs, Rolling Stone reflects the broader cultural ecosystem shaped by academic institutions, activist organizations, and left-leaning media consortia.
Typical Claims and Outlook
General Tone and Ideological Orientation
Rolling Stone maintains a fiercely adversarial tone toward conservatives, Christians, traditionalists, and even centrists who fail to toe the progressive line. Its reporting is often framed with derision toward “right-wing extremists,” “climate deniers,” “Christian nationalists,” and “anti-trans bigots.”
The outlet is proudly ideological. It does not pretend to be objective or balanced. Instead, it seeks to shape culture by framing issues in ways that promote the progressive agenda. Headlines routinely signal ideological positions before the article begins—often using emotionally charged or slanted language.
Core Progressive Causes Promoted
- Race: Advocates for critical race theory (CRT), reparations, and systemic racism narratives
- Gender and Sexuality: Champions LGBTQ+ ideology, including child transition, and vilifies religious objections
- Israel/Palestine: Frequently frames Israel as an apartheid state and emphasizes Palestinian victimhood
- Capitalism: Skeptical at best; often promotes socialist, anti-corporate messaging while paradoxically funded by ad dollars from corporations
- Policing: Embraces “defund the police” rhetoric and promotes stories about alleged systemic police racism
- Christianity: Treats conservative Christians as backward, dangerous, or oppressive
- Climate: Embraces the most alarmist climate rhetoric and calls for rapid decarbonization
Specific Incidents of Bias
UVA Rape Hoax (2014)
Perhaps the most notorious example of biased reporting in Rolling Stone’s recent history was the 2014 article titled “A Rape on Campus.” The piece described a brutal gang rape at a University of Virginia fraternity that supposedly went unpunished due to a culture of indifference. The story was later exposed as a complete fabrication.
The magazine failed to verify basic facts, ignored contradictory evidence, and did not contact the accused parties for comment—all to support a narrative of systemic campus rape culture. The result was a $1.65 million defamation settlement and the retraction of the article. The reporter, Sabrina Rubin Erdely, was widely criticized for activism masquerading as journalism.
January 6 “Insurrection” Hysteria
Rolling Stone has described the January 6 Capitol riot as a “terrorist attack,” equating it with 9/11 and Pearl Harbor in tone, if not directly. It ignored contrary facts—like Capitol police allowing protestors into the building or non-violent protestors being sentenced to years in prison. The magazine amplified Democrats’ claims of a vast “right-wing coup” without exploring legal abuses in prosecutions or the broader context of FBI infiltration and surveillance.
War in Gaza (2023–2024)
During the recent Israel–Hamas conflict, Rolling Stone ran multiple op-eds and articles casting Israel as the aggressor and decrying “genocide in Gaza.” It gave ample voice to pro-Palestinian activists while downplaying Hamas atrocities—including the October 7 massacre. It used terms like “apartheid,” “ethnic cleansing,” and “occupation” uncritically, and largely ignored Israeli civilian perspectives, much less Jewish voices concerned about rising antisemitism.
Neo-Marxist and Ideological Influence
A. Terminology and Frameworks
Rolling Stone routinely uses progressive academic language without challenge. Terms like “equity,” “decolonize,” “white privilege,” “systemic racism,” “gender-affirming care,” and “patriarchal oppression” are presented as objective truths, not ideological constructs.
B. Promotion of Radical Gender and Race Ideologies
- Articles uncritically advocate for biological males to compete in women’s sports
- Editorials praise puberty blockers for children
- Writers dismiss concerns about indoctrination in public schools as “far-right hysteria”
- CRT critics are described as “racist reactionaries”
C. Hostility Toward Traditional Christianity and Constitutional Values
- Treats religious freedom claims as cover for “bigotry”
- Scorns originalist constitutional interpretations
- Promotes revisionist history from projects like the 1619 Project
- Celebrates drag queen story hours while vilifying concerned parents as “book-banners” or “Christian fascists”
Most Ideologically Reflective Figures
Jann Wenner – The Founding Visionary Turned Progressive Gatekeeper
Jann Wenner founded Rolling Stone in 1967 and remained editor and publisher for five decades. Initially seen as a voice for the anti-establishment left, Wenner’s long tenure transformed the outlet into a tastemaker of progressive culture. While his early efforts championed rock musicians and antiwar activism, his later years saw the magazine become aggressively partisan.
Wenner faced criticism in 2023 after saying that black and female musicians and thinkers weren’t “articulate enough” to be included in his book The Masters, which profiled white male rock legends. The backlash led to his removal from the board of the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame, revealing a tension between his old-school progressivism and the radical intersectionality dominating the younger left. Ironically, Wenner was consumed by the same cancel culture he helped cultivate.
Sabrina Rubin Erdely – The Activist “Journalist” Behind the UVA Hoax
Erdely’s now-retracted article, “A Rape on Campus,” remains a defining scandal in activist journalism. Erdely approached the subject of sexual assault on college campuses with the intent to confirm a narrative rather than investigate a story. She admitted to not speaking with alleged perpetrators or verifying basic facts, saying she wanted to “stay in Jackie’s world.”
The damage done—to the falsely accused, to journalistic integrity, and to public trust—was severe. The Columbia University School of Journalism issued a scathing report on the magazine’s editorial failures, but Rolling Stone never fully recovered its credibility.
Tatiana Siegel – A New Face of Politicized Entertainment Coverage
Tatiana Siegel has written extensively for Rolling Stone and other Penske outlets. She brings political framing to entertainment reporting, often blending cultural critique with progressive identity politics. Her pieces frequently spotlight racial and gender disparities in Hollywood, reinforcing the outlet’s equity-obsessed lens.
Andy Greene – Music Editor with a Political Edge
While ostensibly a music journalist, Greene regularly uses his platform to inject political commentary into artist coverage. Whether reviewing albums or concerts, his writing often includes attacks on conservative politicians, support for progressive causes, or promotion of musicians as political figures.
Scandals and Controversies
“A Rape on Campus” and Defamation Lawsuits
The most devastating scandal in Rolling Stone’s modern history came from its UVA rape hoax article. The fallout included:
- A $1.65 million defamation settlement with a former dean
- Another $3 million judgment for the falsely accused fraternity
- A full retraction and public humiliation
- An official review from Columbia Journalism School citing “a failure of basic journalistic principles”
This event is not a minor blemish—it is a case study in how activist journalism can destroy lives, institutions, and reputations by subordinating truth to ideology.
False Reporting During the Trump Era
Rolling Stone published a September 2021 piece claiming that ivermectin overdoses were overwhelming Oklahoma hospitals. The article cited a local doctor, Jason McElyea, but the claim was swiftly debunked. Northeastern Hospital System stated that McElyea hadn’t worked there in months and that no patients had been treated for ivermectin overdose. Nevertheless, the claim spread rapidly across liberal media and social media platforms.
The episode showed Rolling Stone’s willingness to publish ideologically convenient falsehoods without adequate fact-checking—a recurring pattern.
Trump-Russia Collusion Echo Chamber
Throughout the Trump presidency, Rolling Stone repeatedly amplified claims of collusion between Trump and Russia, rarely acknowledging the weaknesses in the Steele dossier or the political origins of the narrative. Even after Robert Mueller’s report failed to prove collusion, the magazine doubled down on its narrative rather than re-evaluating its assumptions.
Rolling Stone on 20 Progressive vs. Conservative Issues
Let’s evaluate Rolling Stone across 20 dividing lines between Progressive and Conservative worldviews:
1. Election Integrity and Voter Laws
Rolling Stone consistently frames voter ID laws and election reform efforts as “Jim Crow 2.0.” Articles suggest that any tightening of voting regulations—signature verification, voter rolls maintenance, or ID requirements—is racist voter suppression. They platform voices like Stacey Abrams and Marc Elias without critique while ignoring evidence of irregularities in 2020 and 2022 elections.
2. Abortion and Reproductive Rights
The magazine treats abortion as sacred. It equates the overturning of Roe v. Wade with a “war on women” and demonizes crisis pregnancy centers. Pro-life activists are portrayed as extremists, while abortion is euphemistically called “reproductive freedom” or “health care.”
3. Gender Identity and Transgender Policies
Few outlets promote radical gender ideology as aggressively. Rolling Stone champions “gender-affirming care” for minors and uses female pronouns for biological males without exception. It derides opposition to male athletes in women’s sports and treats dissenting medical voices as dangerous bigots.
4. Race and Systemic Racism
The magazine is all-in on systemic racism. It promotes Black Lives Matter, vilifies police, and supports reparations. It regularly invokes white privilege and “anti-racism” ideology, platforming figures like Ibram X. Kendi and Ta-Nehisi Coates while ignoring black conservatives entirely.
5. Climate Change and Energy Policy
Alarmism is the norm. Rolling Stone pushes net-zero policies, calls for the end of fossil fuels, and glorifies figures like Greta Thunberg. Dissenters from the climate consensus—scientists or policymakers—are treated as threats to humanity.
6. Immigration and Border Security
The magazine supports open-border policies and sanctuary cities, portrays illegal immigrants as victims, and decries border enforcement as xenophobic. It vilifies ICE and supports amnesty without serious engagement with the costs of illegal immigration.
7. Israel and the Middle East Conflict
Rolling Stone leans heavily pro-Palestinian. It refers to Gaza as “occupied” and uses the word “apartheid” to describe Israel. It frequently omits context when covering Hamas terrorism and frames U.S. support for Israel as imperialistic.
8. Second Amendment and Gun Control
Gun rights are treated with contempt. The magazine blames the NRA for every mass shooting, supports bans on so-called “assault weapons,” and promotes red flag laws. It rarely, if ever, covers stories of defensive gun use or acknowledges the constitutional rationale for the Second Amendment.
9. LGBTQ+ Rights and Religious Liberty
Rolling Stone prioritizes LGBTQ+ rights over religious liberty, mocking Christian objections as homophobia or transphobia. It supports lawsuits against Christian businesses and schools that don’t affirm progressive gender ideology.
10. COVID-19 Policy and Mandates
The magazine supported lockdowns, vaccine mandates, and masking. It demonized dissenting doctors and skeptics. Even as evidence grew regarding natural immunity and side effects, Rolling Stone remained committed to the state-corporate consensus.
11. Policing and Criminal Justice
“Defund the police” narratives are promoted regularly. Rolling Stone presents policing as systemically racist and supports “restorative justice” models that minimize incarceration. It shows little sympathy for victims of violent crime in urban areas.
12. Education and Parental Rights
The magazine opposes parental oversight of curricula, treats concerns over gender indoctrination as hysteria, and supports teacher autonomy over parental consent. It portrays school choice advocates as enemies of “public good.”
13. Censorship and Big Tech
Rolling Stone supports deplatforming. It frames content moderation as a public good and describes free speech concerns as veils for “hate speech.” It supported social media bans on Donald Trump and the suppression of the Hunter Biden laptop story.
14. January 6 and Political Violence
The Capitol riot is described as an “insurrection” and “terrorist act.” The magazine suggests that the Republican Party is complicit in sedition. It downplays BLM and Antifa riots by contrast and avoids comparing legal outcomes.
15. Corporate Wokeness and ESG
It applauds DEI initiatives, ESG mandates, and corporate virtue signaling. Rolling Stone celebrates when businesses fire or deplatform those who challenge progressive orthodoxy.
16. Hunter Biden, Biden Family, and Political Corruption
The outlet largely ignored the Hunter Biden laptop story and downplayed Biden family corruption. When addressed, the focus is on “right-wing disinformation,” not the contents of the emails or Biden’s business ties to foreign entities.
17. Trump and the Republican Party
It treats Trump as a threat to democracy, civility, and sanity. “MAGA” is shorthand for fascism. The GOP is framed as a vehicle for racism, misogyny, and insurrection. There’s little distinction made between conservative Republicans and fringe extremists.
18. Affirmative Action and Racial Preferences
Rolling Stone defended affirmative action before the Supreme Court struck it down, describing merit-based admissions as “racist.” It sees colorblindness as a cover for white supremacy and supports race-based quotas in education and employment.
19. International Institutions and Sovereignty
It promotes the UN, WHO, WEF, and other globalist institutions, framing them as rational, scientific, and benevolent. Skepticism of these entities is described as conspiracy thinking.
20. Culture War Issues
The magazine embraces the full progressive cultural agenda—drag queen story hours, woke language reform, anti-“ableist” speech policing, and sexual content for children—all under the banner of tolerance and inclusion. Concerned parents are treated as reactionary villains.
The Devolution of Dissent
Rolling Stone once prided itself on being the voice of dissent—an outsider publication amplifying rebellious artists, anti-war activists, and countercultural ideals. But over time, that posture of rebellion was hollowed out and repurposed. Today, Rolling Stone doesn’t challenge the system—it enforces the dominant ideology of elite progressivism.
Its evolution mirrors that of many Baby Boomer–founded institutions: once idealistic, then institutionalized, and finally weaponized against those who reject the postmodern consensus on race, gender, and identity. It is no longer anti-establishment; it is the propaganda arm of the establishment Left.
When Rolling Stone publishes stories on gender-affirming care, it’s not holding power to account—it’s defending the new medical-industrial orthodoxy. When it attacks “Christian nationalism,” it is not warning against theocracy—it is demonizing those who hold to historic Christian convictions. When it publishes pieces accusing parents of book banning, it’s not advocating for freedom—it’s shaming moral boundaries.
The Cost of Abandoning Objectivity
There is nothing inherently wrong with a publication having a perspective. The problem with Rolling Stone is not that it leans left. It’s that it has become openly hostile to intellectual diversity, journalistic caution, and cultural humility. It ridicules rather than reasons. It mocks rather than engages. It cancels rather than converses.
Its most egregious failure—publishing a fabricated rape story—was not an aberration. It was the inevitable result of treating ideology as evidence and moral narrative as fact. The UVA hoax was not just about one bad article. It was about a media culture that believes the “larger truth” (rape culture is real, therefore this story must be true) matters more than factual accuracy.
This same mentality appears again and again in its coverage of election integrity (where all conservative concerns are “baseless”), transgenderism (where child transition is never questioned), and COVID (where government overreach is never a cause for concern).
Rolling Stone’s Real Legacy
Despite its glamor, Rolling Stone has become a shell of what it was. Today’s legacy is defined not by cultural innovation or principled resistance to power—but by its servile embrace of ideology.
It is no longer rebellious. It is a catechism manual for the cult of woke.
It is no longer edgy. It is sanitized, pre-approved, and risk-averse.
It is no longer countercultural. It is culture’s high priest, demanding obedience to the moral fashions of the moment.
Those who still read Rolling Stone as a source of cultural insight should do so with great caution. It may still review albums and publish concert lists, but its main function is ideological formation, not cultural commentary. And that formation is rooted in Neo-Marxist, secular progressive, post-Christian worldviews.
Final Verdict: Hall of Shame Worthy
Rolling Stone deserves its place in the Hall of Shame not simply because it has taken progressive positions—it is the vehemence, dishonesty, and ideological fervor with which it pushes those positions that merit its inclusion. It does not argue so much as it asserts. It does not debate so much as it denounces.
For those concerned about truth, free speech, journalistic integrity, and the preservation of American constitutional and Christian values, Rolling Stone is not a trusted guide—it is a cautionary tale.
It reminds us of what happens when institutions lose their moral bearings, when storytelling becomes sermonizing, and when rebellion becomes enforcement.
Let the reader beware.
S.D.G.,
Robert Sparkman
MMXXV
christiannewsjunkie@gmail.com
RELATED CONTENT
Concerning the Related Content section, I encourage everyone to evaluate the content carefully.
If I have listed the content, I think it is worthwhile viewing to educate yourself on the topic, but it may contain coarse language or some opinions I don’t agree with.
Realize that I sometimes use phrases like “trans man”, “trans woman”, “transgender” , “transition” or similar language for ease of communication. Obviously, as a conservative Christian, I don’t believe anyone has ever become the opposite sex. Unfortunately, we are forced to adopt the language of the left to discuss some topics without engaging in lengthy qualifying statements that make conversations awkward.
Feel free to offer your comments below. Respectful comments without expletives and personal attacks will be posted and I will respond to them.
Comments are closed after sixty days due to spamming issues from internet bots. You can always send me an email at christiannewsjunkie@gmail.com if you want to comment on something afterwards, though.
I will continue to add videos and other items to the Related Content section as opportunities present themselves.