It's not clear to
Rolling Stone is in such jeopardy, they didn't, for example, exhibit contempt for the judicial process from beginning to end, they, I assume, have real libel insurance and are cooperating with their insurance company (although I wonder how policies are written to deal with actual malice findings). They're going to take a big hit here, and the fraternity lawsuit is likely to be much uglier, but as of yet it doesn't seem to be an existential threat.
Gawker and it's empire, though, were an outlier, for example making a business model such as it was out of "actual malice", it was only a matter of time until they were brought down.
And taking a step back, I think it's vital that our system has effective feedback like court cases such as this, especially in the post-New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times_Co._v._Sullivan) era where the bar has been set so high for "public figures" that, all things considered, libel and slander law is non-operative for pretty much everyone but scientists (who are't public figures and who's reputation is vital for their careers, such suits don't make sense and therefore are seldom pursued without serious damages being on the line).