BJ Raji vs. the Internet, when Al Gore's superhighway is not a good thing

by MaPatsFan on Apr 10, 2009 9:58 AM EDT Comment 5 comments

In this Feb. 23, 2009, file photo, Boston College defensive lineman B.J. Raji runs a drill at the NFL football scouting combine in Indianapolis. Raji, who is considered the top defensive tackle eligible for this month's NFL draft, reportedly failed a drug test at the combine. The report, which did not identify the drug, was published on SI.com and attributed to unidentified NFL team sources. (AP Photo/Michael Conroy, File)

10 months ago: In this Feb. 23, 2009, file photo, Boston College defensive lineman B.J. Raji runs a drill at the NFL football scouting combine in Indianapolis. Raji, who is considered the top defensive tackle eligible for this month's NFL draft, reportedly failed a drug test at the combine. The report, which did not identify the drug, was published on SI.com and attributed to unidentified NFL team sources. (AP Photo/Michael Conroy, File)

Browse more photos »

10...9...8...crap, not working. Ok, finish my Dogfish Head 60 Minute IPA...that's not working either. Here goes: I will not rant, I will not rant, I will not... Nope, nothing's working. I've gotta get this one off of my chest.

When SI.com reported former BC defensive lineman BJ Raji failed a drug test at the combine, the Eagles defensive tackle, reportedly one of the most sought after players in the upcoming draft, watched people begin questioning his status as an elite prospect. This news spread like wildfire; pretty soon, every blog and "legitimate" news source on the Internet had grabbed hold of it. Unfortunately, with today's aggregation technologies like RSS and twitter, the damage had been done. Raji was a victim of the speed of the Internet. Later, the NFL informed BJ Raji he DIDN'T fail the drug test. Michael David Smith of fanhouse.com does a nice job of running this one down in this article, but this quote stuck out:

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.

Whether or not BJ Raji has sparked up a fatty has little to do with why SI.com should run a full front page story on their website exonerating Raji. Their accusation was specifically this: he failed the combine's drug test which was later proven to be false. Instead of issuing a retraction or an apology to Raji, SI.com appears ready to sweep it under the rug. Tsk, tsk, tsk.

Remember Spygate? I know, I'm sorry to stir up those memories. John Tomase, Patriots beat writer for the Boston Herald, was publicly fileted for his accusation that the Patriots taped the Rams' pregame walkthrough prior to our 2002 Super Bowl matchup. I, as well as many other bloggers, absolutely HAMMERED John Tomase. I despised the guy. I despised him for not doing in the beginning what he should have done, as outlined by this quote from his apology:

"First and foremost, this is about a writer breaking one of the cardinal rules of journalism. I failed to keep challenging what I had been told,"

I like to take it one step further: Tomase fell victim to bloodlust, the blood being "first with the scoop". This is a very real addiction to those providing information on the Internet. It's almost euphoric to be first and get it out there before everyone else. However, there is a responsibility to be absolutely sure or pay the price. I touched on this in an Interview with Shalise Manza Young, Patriots beat writer for the Providence Journal:

There seems to be no more barriers to publishing a story due to the immediate nature of the Internet; the deadline is literally as fast as you can get it online. Is it all about "being first"? Is good writing suffering as a whole?

For someone like me, who considers herself a writer first, and wants stories to not just be informative but also a good read, this is a particular problem. But more than that, blogging and the immediacy of the internet have absolutely had a negative effect on journalism in general -- you're right, it is all about being first, even if it's by three minutes, and if it turns out a couple of facts in the story were wrong, well, at least you were first and you got acknowledged on the ESPN crawl or profootballtalk.com or by one of your competitors. And by the time anyone realizes you may have gotten one or two things wrong, you've either clarified or the original story has been forgotten anyway.

Tomase trusted his source and was later burned by it. But, I give the guy major props for admitting his mistake and issuing a public apology. If SI.com and the writer who reported the erroneous information don't do the same, they can kiss their credibility goodbye. It is too important to be right rather than first. If we just let it fly no matter what the consequences, we'll all become the Internet's version of the National Enquirer, aka: tmz.com

0 recs | Comment 5 comments | Share

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Personally – I don’t care if he smokes doobies in the offseason. If he falls to the Bills @ 11 and they grabbed him i’d be happy.

Him and Marshawn can hang out

The rest of you go get the goods on Stan. His mom grounded him once for setting something on fire. Let's find out what that something was and then lie and say it was a puppy.

by J2 on Apr 10, 2009 10:05 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

kinda missing the point

While it appears that in face this guy is clean (which is good news), I wanted to address the attitude here. The problem isn’t so much a guy “smoking doobies in the offseason.” It’s a guy smoking doobies immediately before probably the most important single workout of his life—a workout where he ABSOLUTELY, POSITIVELY KNOWS he is going to be given a drug test for both performance-enhancing and recreational drugs.

If a guy is either so addicted to pot—or so lacking in even the most minimal self-disciple—so as to STILL show up to the combine with pot in his bloodstream, then you have a much, much bigger issue than someone possibly ocassionally using a common (but illegal) recreational drug. You basically have someone who simply is unable to control his own behavior when it comes to putting out his best effort on the field.

If a guy is too stupid, or too addicted, to not smoke pot the night before the combine, what reason would a team have to not think the guy would be too stupid, or too addicted, to smoke pot the night before a big game against a division rival? Or that big week 17 game that determines whether or not they make the playoffs? Or the night before the Superbowl? THAT’S what’s really at stake here. It’s a red flag about someone’s ability or willingness to modify his “personal” (recreational) life for the sake of giving 110% on the football field.

by JohnPaul on Apr 10, 2009 1:23 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

oh no – I completely understand. and your 100% correct. but he didn’t test postitive did he? it was all speculation – same as matthews and cushing..(if i remember correctly). CNN or more specifically – sportsillustred published that article and it wasn’t even true. so i wouldn’t put much stock in that.

on a side note – his attitude is a major problem and your right. he’s given 2 interview thats i’ve seen and he acts like he’s 12. he’s in serious need of growing up thats for sure.

now the difference between the Pats and Bills is that you have the luxury of avoiding picks like these. If we want above average or borderline elite potential we have to be willing to take a risk on a guy or two. something that we haven’t really done all that much until recently. because you have much more talented players – as a bills fan – I just want someone who can actually make a difference in a game. so i’m willing to overlook the pot smoking issue since it is aparently speculation.

The rest of you go get the goods on Stan. His mom grounded him once for setting something on fire. Let's find out what that something was and then lie and say it was a puppy.

by J2 on Apr 10, 2009 2:22 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs