Rumors about the Chicago Bears moving away from the historic Soldier Field to a new stadium in Indiana have circulated ever since the team began seriously considering a move across the border following Illinois’ decision to not award $826 million in public monies to a new stadium project.
The Indiana move still appears to be where the Bears are focused. Kevin Warren, the team’s president, met with reporters on Thursday and described the potential stadium site in Hammond, Indiana as the “sole focus” of the Bears’ stadium search, though the team is doing “due diligence” on other sites and still has “occasional” meetings with Illinois.
Those remarks from Warren weren’t the bombshell that many had come to expect on Thursday, however, due to a report by Chicago Bears analyst Ben Devine posted to social media on Wednesday evening.
“Breaking: A finalized stadium deal is expected tomorrow with the Chicago Bears landing in Indiana. Per source, Indiana is so heavily incentivizing the deal, as to include a name change with ‘Indiana’ in the team name when the stadium completes,” Devine’s report read.
The post, which at the time of writing has been seen by over five million X users, obviously caught the attention of both Chicago sports fans and NFL fans due to the shocking nature of the supposed developments. However, as it would turn out, Devine was completely wrong. Warren did not announce any finalized plans about the Bears’ future stadium on Thursday, and Devine retracted his report right before Warren took the podium on Thursday afternoon.
“Retraction: I was duped. The source mentioned here, I now believe to be either fraudulent or intentionally manipulative. Someone went to immense lengths to verify identity for this one post – I’ve gotten no other info from him,” Devine wrote in his follow-up. “I will not be posting any further stadium updates. I believe there will not be any name change, but will land in Indiana.”
While followers commended Devine for taking accountability over the mistake, he reiterated that publishing the report was “not OK.”
“I deserve the beating I’m gonna get here,” he added.
Based on Devine’s initial report and retraction, it appears his report was based on a single source, which is always a risky endeavor, particularly for a story this big. Devine responded to one follower saying of the source, “It sounded fishy, that’s why I required several forms of verification. I have no idea how someone can impersonate on so many levels.”
Whoever “duped” Devine appeared to have gone to great lengths to pull off the ruse. Credit to Devine for owning it, but there are, of course, consequences to his credibility for bungling a report of this magnitude.
