Last week, Sports Illustrated reported on its web site that B.J. Raji, a former Boston College defensive lineman who is expected to be a first-round NFL draft pick, had failed a drug test at the NFL's scouting combine. Raji and his agents said that report is false, and now the report no longer appears on Sports Illustrated's web site.But if the editors at Sports Illustrated think the story will end there, then they're stunningly ignorant of the way the media works. A report that an athlete tested positive for drugs lives forever. Just because the URL where Sports Illustrated posted the story has gone dead (the story used to be located at this URL) doesn't mean people can't read the story, and it doesn't erase the fact that several newspapers picked up the SI report. How on earth can Sports Illustrated simply pull the story from its web site and think all will be forgotten?
It's quite simple, really: Either Sports Illustrated should tell its readers it stands by its reporting on the Raji story, or it should tell its readers that it no longer stands by its reporting on the Raji story. There's no middle ground here. Sports Illustrated's report was either right or it was wrong. Simply pretending the story doesn't exist and never existed is unacceptable.
And it goes beyond just Tony Pauline, the writer whose byline appeared on the original Sports Illustrated report, and his editors. When SI's top NFL reporter, Peter King, addressed the Raji story, he wrote, "I applaud SI.com for breaking the story, and it deserves to be reported." Does King still applaud SI.com for breaking the story? If he doesn't, he should say so.
Sports Illustrated owes its readers and B.J. Raji an account of exactly how this report ended up on its web site, and exactly why the report was pulled. If the story was wrong, simply deleting it isn't enough.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
4-08-2009 @ 1:46PM
m said...
Apparently SI didn't learn any lessons from the Mike Price debacle.
Reply
4-08-2009 @ 4:03PM
sircivic95 said...
Is it possible this was planted by a "team source" who wanted to drive Raji's stock down so his team would have a shot at getting him. Sounds to me like SI got pimped into manipulating the draft... now SI needs to clean it up.
Reply
4-09-2009 @ 2:21AM
checka624 said...
sircivic, thats the dumbest thing i've ever heard. A source making up lies about a player wont drive his stock down. The truth always comes out in the end, and trust me you wouldsee way more false reports if thats what team sources were doing to try and get a plyers draft value to drop. ONLY a player can make their draft value raise, or drop, not other sources.
Reply
4-09-2009 @ 10:49AM
claytor said...
Gotta agree with you on this MDS, but really, should we be surprised in a media age? The media want to be the stars, not the subject matter they report. SI will pull an aww shucks, and continue to drag names of athletes through the mud, all in the name of sensationalism.
Thats sad.
The lack of a public retraction should draw a massive lawsuit in response.
Even then, that probably wont stop SI from blatantly printing garbage like this anymore.
Reply
4-10-2009 @ 2:00AM
foxr1234 said...
Ok first things first, what is truly appalling is that SI tries to carry itself as the leading source in all things sports, despite the competition from ESPN et al....I have had my differences with Mr Smith on occasion, but he is 100 percent on the money here. To take it a step further, ( I know all the SI corporate lawyers are gathered around a table now trying to spin doctor their way out of this)
It's not enough for me that they got this wrong, how about a story from SI about how they got it wrong, who had the responsibility for due diligence on the story, independent fact checking anyone? If SI does not own up on this story, how can any of us semi literate readers ever take them seriously again.
Another point, one of which is a hot topic right now, Drug Testing is SUPPOSED to be CONFIDENTIAL, or has that eluded everyone's attention. If SI initiated a drug testing policy at their workplace, how would Peter ( Pass me another twinkie) King feel if his confidentiality was breached. Somehow I think he would feel a little differently about it. Thanks MDS, Keep the pressure on!
Reply