Roughly three weeks ago, the website of Sports Illustrated reported that NFL draft prospect B.J. Raji had tested positive for marijuana at the NFL combine. The story was widely quoted but it also drew criticism, especially after Raji’s agent disputed the tale. Days later, SI scrubbed the story off its site. The FanHouse asked SI to explain why it removed the story and received this statement:
We have investigated the claims of Mr. Raji’s agent and although we have several credible sources for the report we have decided to take it down while we continue reporting the story.
So you just disappear the story rather than explain that you now have doubts about it? The report finally earned a correction this week after the NFL released the list of players who tested positive at the combine. Raji wasn’t on it. Here’s the correction:
An SI.com report posted earlier this month incorrectly stated that Boston College defensive tackle B.J. Raji’s name would appear on the NFL’s list of players who tested positive for drugs at the NFL Scouting Combine in February. We regret the error.
SI did Raji a major disservice by going with the initial report, scrubbing it, and then publishing a weak correction. Where’s the apology, and explanation of how the error occurred? From the FanHouse:
Posting a correction was obviously the right thing to do, but questions remain about why SI got this story wrong and why it took so long to correct its mistake. I have attempted to contact Pauline, and he has not responded to my messages. It’s a shame that after Pauline and SI were so quick to report this erroneous information, they’ve now been so slow to accept responsibility.
UPDATE: The New York Post published this correction on April 23:
Based on a report that originated on SI.com, The Post reported on April 20 that Boston College defensive tackle B.J. Raji’s name would appear on the NFL’s list of players who tested positive for drugs at the Scouting Combine in February. This was incorrect. Mr. Raji did not test positive for drugs at the Combine. The Post regrets the error.
