Today's lesson in Freepology.
Newspapers can engage in "smears," and they can merely "campaign." The Detroit Free Press, led by Michael Rosenberg and followed by Michigan beat-writer Mark Snyder, as well as its columnists and staff writers, and defended by its publisher Paul Anger, have engaged in "smears" of Rich Rodriguez and the Michigan football program in the past, most notably the splashy front-page headlines of one year ago. "Smears" in the form of allegations that were shown, upon investigation, to have been "wildly exaggerated if not flatly incorrect."
Today's lesson in Freepology is about the difference between a "smear," composed of inaccurate or mistaken information, and a "campaign" of one-sided information, designed to create an impression.
And so today, we have the Sunday Free Press, which is the flagship weekly print edition of our local fish-wrapper. And on the front page of the sports section above the fold, we see featured the months-old news that six staff memebers within the Michigan Athletic Department had letters of reprimand placed in their personnel files for matters having to do with the NCAA investigation.
What was "news" for the Freep was that it had successfully utilized the Michigan Freedom of Information Act to obtain copies of those letters. This week, or earlier, The Freep obtained those letters. It is clear, that the FOIA response from the University was completed many days ago. But the Freep held onto the documents, so as to make splashy headlines in the Sunday edition. This is what we call a "campaign." It wasn't and isn't really news at all. It is old information. Everybody knew about the letters of reprimand months ago. And the details of the letters themselves can't really be news in the eyes of the Free Press, or else they would have published them on Monday, or Tuesday, or whenever they got ahold of the copies via FOIA. The Free Press wouldn't sit on important, time-sensitive news. Would it?
No, the Free Press did this; on Thursday or Friday, in connection with a another print-edition, the Free Press let loose with the copy of the letters involving Alex Herron, the GA who was dismissed for lying to NCAA investigators. As teaser. They saved the letters pertaining to Rodriguez, Barwis, and the others for Sunday. Wehn, in the Sunday edition, they'd have the most print space, with the most impact, for the most readers.
It is, after all, better for the campaign against Rodriguez, to put the old-news copies of letters into the Sunday edition, even if it isn't news.
This concludes today's lesson in Freepology.
August 22nd, 2010 at 1:44 PM ^
No one thing is life is perfectC'mon dude MICH is perfect.
August 23rd, 2010 at 3:25 AM ^
You can't look at the last 1-1.5 year of exclusively negative coverage of the M program and not have the opinion that there is a bias involved.
Are they doing it for 'their own fun'? No, and no one is saying that either. Rosenberg has articulated a dislike for Rodriguez and is using his position as a reporter to smear him, that much is clear.
His motives aren't really important, are they? I have no doubt that they went for the big $$ expose with the original articles and dug themselves a hole that they now can't really get out of. So they have dug in, are pandering to the particular demographic that eat up what they have to offer and are trying to make it okay by continuing to slander him. The only way out for them is through.
That is not okay. Lack of accountability is the problem here, not the inability of some to take a blind eye to it.
August 22nd, 2010 at 2:17 PM ^
It's a newspaper covering a sport played by 18-22 year olds. I refuse to treat it with absolutes akin to what one would use when discussing terrorism. I just live my life, stay well informed from a variety of sources, cheer on my alma mater, and call it a day.
August 22nd, 2010 at 5:39 PM ^
Jesus H. Christ man. Stop playing the OMG FREEP R TEH DEVIL card. We get it. Certain writers published an article of questionable ethics and it hurt the sports team that you (and I) love. Because of that, you have decided not to support the newspaper that employs them. Good for you. However, it is really tiring to have to sift through one of these threads every few days. I choose not to shop at Walmart because I don't support their business and human-relations practices. That is my right but you don't see me posting a bunch of threads saying WALMART SUK and then negging anyone who disagrees. Some of us like to read this fantastic blog for information about the players and team we support. Here we are almost one year after the original article came out and these threads still clutter up the board. Boycott all you want, but please stop posting about how much you hate the Free Press.
August 22nd, 2010 at 7:32 PM ^
However, it is really tiring to have to sift through one of these threads every few days. I choose not to shop at Walmart because I don't support their business and human-relations practices.
From your own words, it appears you have the self discipline to not shop at Walmart. Is it more difficult to not click on a clearly titled thread that you don't want to read?
August 23rd, 2010 at 3:27 AM ^
because Wal-Mart isn't actively denegrating something you care about, so......perhaps if they were selling doctored/fraudulent photos of Lloyd Carr in compromising positions with farm animals you might feel a bit more inclined to care?
How long does it take you to 'sift through' one of the these posts every few days? Do you read really, r-e-a-l-l-y slowly, such that it involves even 15 seconds out of your life every few days to read the subject line and NOT click? It should be apparent to you that the content of the post is not something of interest to you. Perhaps your reading comprehension skills are so lacking and the subject line wasn't clear enough that you STILL had to click it and read the post before you understood that it doesn't interest you?
Oh, and let's see, apparently since it takes you 15 seconds to read the subject and decide to click or not, let's compare that to the 2-3 minutes you spent clicking, reading the post and then responding, telling us to get over it. 15 seconds < than 2-3 minutes. If your time is so precious........do the math.
We are NOT going to let this go, so don't bother coming in here and telling us to. It is not YOUR blog, it is something we all enjoy and everyone has to deal with a little something they don't like. There are plenty of topics on here that I do not find interesting, so guess what...I DON'T READ THEM. What a novel idea! I just pass right by them, because guess what, I'm not a mod and no one has ever granted me any kind of status as being someone who gets to tell others what they can post here and what they can't, so I keep my mouth shut and stick to the posts that i want to read. Posts that don't belong here get deleted quite regularly and this one is still here, that should tell you all you need to know about whther enough people on here want to read it.
Get this, we ARE going to follow this, we are going to post about it here and discuss it, until it ends. Until then, you can do whatever you want about a local paper that is smearing the program and the coach, just grant me the same respect I grant you in NOT telling you to care.
Not to mention, your characterization of the post as
OMG FREEP R TEH DEVIL
is clearly off target, as the post is well-written, provides an informed viewpoint, has zero typos or grammatical errors and is hardly the mlive type of mouth-breathing, spittle-laced drivel that you attempt to compare it to. Congratulations on representing that set pretty well yourself.
August 22nd, 2010 at 2:00 PM ^
From Bando's description - here's a picture of Section 1 hard at work punching out this post:
August 22nd, 2010 at 2:46 PM ^
okay then, here is poster from Bando's room
August 22nd, 2010 at 2:53 PM ^
And as a self-respecting LS&A grad, I have of course corrected said poster's grammar with a red marker.
August 22nd, 2010 at 3:02 PM ^
the grammer was in the graphic, I didn't write it
August 22nd, 2010 at 4:19 PM ^
Ahhh, the recursiveness of it all...
August 23rd, 2010 at 12:10 AM ^
I'll put a /s in for you next time
August 22nd, 2010 at 1:15 PM ^
we make any posts about the Freep or what the Freep does off topic even if its about Michigan football.
August 22nd, 2010 at 1:21 PM ^
They are instigating controversy and succeeding.
August 22nd, 2010 at 1:22 PM ^
The M administration, and their PR department, deserve some blame in this. This was news months ago, and by withholding public documents until the law specifically requires their release, they, in part, made it news again. I think if they had just released the docs when the stories were timely they could have avoided this second round of BS.
August 22nd, 2010 at 1:31 PM ^
You are so wrong! You have no idea!
Michigan didn't "withhold" anything!
What the Free Press obtained, via a FOIA, was documentation that I am surprised they were able to obtain at all. Private documents from individuals' personnel files. Michigan didn't "withhold" anything. What happened was that the Free Press sent a FOIA to the University's FOIA officer, demanding the copies. That request was undoubtedly, and properly, ciruclated through the University's HR counsel. In the end, the University took the side of "disclosure" and released documentation that was "private" under any other circumstances.
Even the Free Press would scarcely make a charge of "withholding" under these circumstances.
So you are way, way off base here.
August 22nd, 2010 at 1:48 PM ^
Sounds like I was- sounds like you know more about it than I. Why did they release the information at all then if it was confidential personnel information? Either way, a delayed release opens it up to a second round in the news cycle, that was my point.
August 22nd, 2010 at 2:05 PM ^
The Free Press turned it all into a second bite at the apple, news-cycle-wise. At held it, for use in a Sunday edition.
Someday, I'll find out when and how the Freep FOIA was issued. The FOIA office generally needs about four weeks, sometimes more, to comply. This one, I think, would have been a particularly thorny request.
August 22nd, 2010 at 1:46 PM ^
try setting up your own blog to endlessly analyze the Free Press. That way you can pontificate as often and as long as you want, and nobody would complain!
August 22nd, 2010 at 3:55 PM ^
No, the Free Press did this; on Thursday or Friday, in connection with a another print-edition, the Free Press let loose with the copy of the letters involving Alex Herron, the GA who was dismissed for lying to NCAA investigators. As teaser. They saved the letters pertaining to Rodriguez, Barwis, and the others for Sunday. Wehn, in the Sunday edition, they'd have the most print space, with the most impact, for the most readers.
Is the Herron article you're referring to titled "Fired Michigan grad assistant Alex Herron didn't dispute NCAA charge of lying"? That article was published in the Saturday print edition, which is a slimmed-down edition that isn't home delivered.
If this was supposed to serve as a teaser, why would they put it in a paper that most of their readers won't even get? Wouldn't they have put in the Thursday or Friday paper? Those are the only other days besides Sunday that the Free Press is home delivered.
August 22nd, 2010 at 4:03 PM ^
But let's return to my point, that the Free Press deliberately reserved its splashy story of today, for a Sunday print edition.
I think clearly they did; and the way to prove it will be to send a FOIA asking for (1) the Freep's Michigan FOIAs and (2) the University's cover letters enclosing responses to the Freep.
The real question, as I see and as I posed it in the OP, is if it was "news" with respect to Alex Herron on Saturday (as you correctly point out), why didn't that edition include all of the FOIA responses? The answer, I submit, is that they wanted another front page hand-grenade with Rich Rodriguez's picture on it. In the tasty home-delivered Sunday edition.
August 22nd, 2010 at 4:33 PM ^
First of all, given that the Saturday edition is so truncated, there probably wouldn't have been room to run both stories in the Saturday paper.
Second, as jamiemac has already pointed out, saving "splashy stories" for Sunday editions is nothing new. The Free Press is hardly the first paper to run a major investigative piece on a Sunday.
It may not even be a matter of "saving." Your whole argument is based on your theory that the story had already been written and then the Free Press withheld publication until Sunday.
It's equally possible that at some point the paper's editors decided that the main story on the FOIA requests should run in the Sunday paper and then the writer worked on it with that deadline in mind.
August 22nd, 2010 at 4:57 PM ^
I guess we shall see...
August 22nd, 2010 at 5:06 PM ^
But I did think today's sports front page splash was typical slime. I mean, Not only did we know the letters existed months ago, we pretty much knew what the content was (if not word for word). And when you look at them word for word, there is no content value. It's a a few short paragraphs. Nothing new, and certainly nothing newsworthy. Just an excuse to bring up..."hey, you remember what they did? And hey, what we did?" I'd love for any newspaper guy to argue with me the prohibitive value of it, beyond sensationalism. Crap story. And after yesterday's "Hey, Rich doesn't want anyone to say anything about the scrimmage" headline, immediately followed by the "F" Rich "Please post all your comments on the scrimmage HERE" headline....I mean, I'm less annoyed by their bias than the fact that they don't seem to feel the need to even HIDE their bias.
August 22nd, 2010 at 6:53 PM ^
You mean there is still one person that reads the Freep? Damn. I didn't know.
August 23rd, 2010 at 3:39 AM ^
I read a lot of the comments and the first post. If you don't like them and say they are not a credible source of information. Then why do you write about it? Our papers slam the Pacers all the time. You just blank it out and move on. They aren't going to change.
From what I understand there is a large anti RR fan base in Michigan. There are people who have never liked him from day 1. That being said. It goes to reason if people in the press get a chance to run a negative story they will. I am not taking away from RR, but he hasn't had a stellar record.
It is simple economics of marketing. Scandals, Sex, and Rumors even if not proved move media. It is not like this is something new. I can say been there seen it. They have been saying fire Larry Bird for the last 5 years. It doesn't ever go away when you are losing.
Winning clears all these types of things. It shuts up the media, fans jump back on the band wagon, and old fans rejoice in happiness. It is the way of the new generations. Instant gratification seems to be the marker for positive or negative press. That is not going to change and neither is what Freep prints until the wins start rolling.