Earlier this month, SI ran a report, based on an anonymous source, that B.C. defensive tackle B.J. Raji failed a drug test at the NFL Combine.  Today, they ran a one-paragraph correction.  The report was false.  B.J. Raji did not fail a drug test.  They “regret the error.€Â  I’m sure B.J. Raji does as well.

Kudos to SI for admitting fault, but why was this allowed to run initially?

Sportswriters claim to be journalists, so let’s divorce this from sports.  Pretend it’s a prominent politician.  A reporter has one anonymous source that said politician used drugs, with no corroborating evidence.  What editor at a reputable news publication would run that story?

There is room for anonymous sourcing.  Many government injustices would go unexposed without it.  As the Judith Miller case showed, however, such sourcing should be corroborated, treated with the utmost suspicion and used only when necessary.

Anonymous sourcing has a place in sportswriting as well.  Trade rumors and potential draft strategies are fun conjecture.  Teams, unlike public institutions, have a competitive incentive not to expose their inner workings.  It can be the only way stories get out.

Raji’s case was different.  There was no conjecture.  He was at the NFL combine and took a drug test.  Either he failed or he passed.  A reporter could have easily corroborated that story, by getting the test results.  Without that there was no story.  Submitting it was lazy.  Running it was irresponsible.

It’s no different than the Tomase debacle with the practice taping.  Anonymous sourcing, even in something as superficial as sports, must be vetted.

Sportswriters claim to have “learned certain rules about what is journalism and what isn’t.€Â  Follow them.