Some Words On Agenda And Bias
It was with some trepidation that I agreed to be on Mitch Albom's show last week during the jihad reaction*. But I figured, hey, what the hell, the worst thing that happens is some guy listening thinks I might be worth reading. So I go on, and express my point of view. Albom asks some pointed but fair questions, and I hang up. Fine. But the next 30 minutes or whatever are then dedicated to the proposition that I am just an example of Michigan fans "circling the wagons"; none of the points made are actually addressed. Instead I am dismissed as the Google Master from the MGoBlog… by Mitch Albom of the Free Press.
While the rest of the planet has moved past the idea of true objectivity, grizzled newspapermen still cling to the idea that a fact is a fact and the manner of its presentation and the context its surrounded with have no impact on how that fact is received. Albom asked me "do you think the writers of this piece have an agenda?" in a fashion that made it clear that this would be the journalistic equivalent of crossing the streams. Sure, they heard tell some guys down yonder tried it once but that's why there's this big smoking crater and everyone's kids have three heads.
I responded "well, agenda is a loaded word" because the context I was in—hey there you go—but my immediate thought was of course they have an agenda. Albom might as well asked me if I thought the reporters were robots. (A man without an agenda @ right.) People who are not robots have agendas, motivations, desires, and so forth and so on. They want to be tall and have hair and people who read their writing who can actually remember what the writer identifies himself as. Or they want a shiny prize. Or they want to jump off a sinking ship.
The most obvious and universal agenda to want your work to be important. I'm always annoyed when I've got this cool theory that the stats don't bear out. I then have to actively remind myself to present the full story when I (usually) try to make my case anyway. Most recent example: rugby punting reduces long returns. There's a natural tendency to ignore or downplay things that detract from your argument, especially when you've put a ton of work into it. Everyone wants their work to be meaningful.
So no one gets away without having their motivation examined anymore. No one. Jim Carty just put up an interesting post about "faith-based reporting," which is the idea that increasingly the people in the room at press conferences are working for GBW or the Wolverine or this site and make little pretense about being generally in favor of Michigan winning football games. Unsurprisingly, I disagree with large swaths of it (around 50%) but no section more than this one:
The suggestion that Rosenberg shouldn't have worked on the piece is nothing less than bunk, as I've covered above. He's a terrific journalist - just recruited to contribute for SI.com, incidentally - and one of the most fair people I know. Nothing he's written in the past would be cause for him to be removed from this piece. The suggestion that the Freep somehow took advantage of the freshman because it didn't fully brief them on their full agenda is similarly silly.
That's gone, man. The days when people could be expected to take it on faith that the reporters in question were noble just-the-facts truth-seekers, ma'am, has been steadily evaporating for 30 years and boiling off since the people formerly known as the audience started firing back. I do not care what people who personally know the guy think. I automatically suspect bullcrap in all ways that fit into conventional narratives or wishful thinking too easily, whether it's LOL NC$$ hates SEMO or Andrew Maxwell casually outing MSU on the MSU official site. There is no way I'm exempting a columnist who's regularly deployed false assumptions in the pursuit of Rodriguez or a newspaper that headlined said columnist's ill-researched Justin Feagin column "Win at all costs poor formula for Rodriguez." Carty interprets the Deadspin post defending Rosenberg's objectivity as legitimate; I don't see how anyone who's followed the Free Press' inflammatory headlines and snotty opinion pieces can come to that conclusion. A preposterously long breakdown of said article is at the foot of this post. I've thrown it behind the jump because it's tedious.
My base assumption is that unnecessary lack of transparency is always in the service of concealing dishonesty. And there are plenty of instances of concealment or outright dishonesty in the article in question:
- Misrepresenting quotes from two freshmen. Even leaving aside the questionable ethics of asking players questions about a piece you're planning without disclosing the unusual focus of the piece, the quotes from Hawthorne and Stokes are flat misrepresentations of what they said. At no point did they say any of the activities were "required," and in fact literally everything they list can and likely will fall under the NCAA definition of a noncountable hour. The problem with quoting the freshmen is not that they were not briefed on the agenda of the piece but that quotes were blatantly misrepresented.
- Providing anonymity for flimsy reasons. I'd be surprised if a single current player is one of the anonymous sources providing damning quotes. It's certain that at least some of them come from departures. And there are no potential repercussions for a departed player outside of what happened to Toney Clemons at Colorado, who was told "don't do that again" and directed to release a statement that made him seem like less of a dip. That is not sufficient justification for anonymous quotes in a story that you think makes a case for major NCAA infractions.
- Cloaking the distribution of current and former players. Even if you provide anonymity to the departed players, there's no reason to cite ten people interviewed for the story, drop the bombshell of "current and former," and not clarify whether or not the only current players in the story are the aforementioned duped freshmen. There is zero reason to not put "current" or "former" between the words "anonymous" and "player" after the anonymous player drops a damning quote.
- Ignoring the extremely obvious context. As previously stated, "everyone does it" is not a moral defense (which, IME, is unnecessary) but it's certainly a technical one.
In a media environment where you are always (rightfully) under suspicion it's imperative to show how the piece came together, to forthrightly address reasonable criticism, and provide the primary-source data that you used to construct the story.
The Free Press did none of this. Worse than that, there are sections of the story that are clearly disingenuous. That kills your credibility. That goes double when you are on record as the sort of extreme Rodriguez skeptic that would trot out a host of weak sauce in a column that slams Rodriguez for doing literally the exact same thing John Beilein—who you've never said a discouraging word about—did when he broke his contract. It goes triple when you couldn't be bothered to do the simple legwork of calling Justin Feagin's high school coach or checking his juvenile record before launching a broadside at the sort of kids Rodriguez is bringing into the program. (And don't give me that "I'm not saying, I'm just saying" stuff. Couching your work in disclaimers doesn't change the thrust.)
There was a way to go about this in a fair manner: disclose the names of the transferred kids. Clarify where the damning quotes are coming from. Provide appropriate context (45 hours a week) for the allegations. Don't misrepresent quotes from kids you're about to hang out to dry.
I've heard a lot about how I'm a Michigan fan. I've heard a lot about how I identify myself as Brian. I haven't heard one word about the actual content of my criticisms. Eventually, it becomes clear the lack of response is because they simply don't have one.
*(For the record: this isn't my jihad. The whole jihad bit is a reference to the first Jihad, which was way closer to an actual jihad. It was launched when an incredibly credulous West Virginia reporter announced that Rich Rodriguez had shredded every last document concerning West Virginia football.
I mean, really, which side here is a technologically deficient society bitter about its fading glory and hugely resistant to change? That's what I thought.)
**(Specifically here. I didn't want to do this but sometimes you just started writing a brief bit for UV and it expands to fill the universe:
Blogfight. Tommy Craggs responded to John Chait's response to Dashiell Bennett's response to Jon Chait's response to The Article In Question, and I guess this is my response to that. Woo internet. Quickly skipping to the snarky end:
I know plenty of people who say the very same things about Rodriguez. Sure, I guess you could say they're biased, too, but no one ever accuses them of secretly campaigning to undermine the program. That's because they're Michigan fans.
Those links go to diaries by BlueFront and the Barking Sphincter, both of whom got negbanged into oblivion and banned because everyone hated them. I have no idea how long it must have taken Craggs to dig up the bloated corpses he linked, how many pages and pages of Michigan fans who generally support Rich Rodriguez it took before arriving at his destination. Probably a long time. I do know how long he spent checking the general reaction to these guys: zero seconds.
The content of the post is a bunch of Rosenberg copypasta that purports to show Rosenberg is a critical but fair evaluator of the situation. An assessment of that:
- Articles before the infamous July 10 Vader hat column—all of which came before Rodriguez's first spring practice—shouldn't be part of the survey since there was a severe shift in Rosenberg's opinion after he caught a practice or two and got an earful o' swearing, leading to the "I find it sad that the University of Michigan is paying a man millions of dollars a year to humiliate some of its students" line that Craggs ignores. How can you ignore that without shooting your entire theory in the foot?
- Article 1: declares that Michigan fans should cease deifying Rodriguez; marks first appearance of fancy rhetorical device: "I'm not saying Rodriguez should be dipped in butter and thrown into Notre Dame stadium, but now that I've established I'm reasonable let's do that." States "free pass ends when team takes the field," which is… um… insane, right?
- Article 2: something on McGuffie after the Miami game. One paragraph is excerpted and no link is provided (not that it would matter since it's locked behind a paywall). It says nothing, really.
- Article 3: Headlined "SYSTEM FAILURE: THE EARLY TAKE ON RODRIGUEZ: ATROCIOUS." This one doesn't need explaining, I don't think, but was taken apart anyway.
- Article 4: About how Michigan's shift in offensive focus is helping Michigan State. True. Sort of negative and obvious.
- Articles 5 and 6 take their highlights from the Fancy Rhetorical Device, and are repetitive notes about Michigan not being very good.
- Article 7… later.
- Articles 8, 9: boilerplate I don't remember. It's just typical sportswriter talk like "Michigan obviously won't go 3-9 but how not 3-9 will they go?" Reads like it was rattled off in 30 minutes without thought.
- Article 10: The extremely well-researched and fair Feagin article.
On article 7: I missed this when it came out but it appears to be a direct response to this here blog. I try to be cautious about assuming someone is reading you or responding to you or plagiarizing from you when they've probably never heard of you—most ideas aren't so original that they cannot be replicated. But I think there's a case here. The extremely well-researched and fair Feagin article took a shot at "Rodriguez defenders" whose initial take to the cocaine FOIA was to assume Michigan hadn't run background checks as thoroughly as they should have because Rodriguez was scrambling to reassemble a Carr recruiting class and find someone, anyone to play quarterback. This site's initial take:
It's also one guy that Michigan apparently didn't run as thorough of a background check on—or possibly any background check on—as they scrambled to reconfigure Rodriguez's first recruiting class.
Article 7 is a response to "Rodriguez defenders" who noted that the "Get a life" quote was taken out of context, which this site did. Rosenberg thinks that lack of context lacks context:
Rodriguez's defenders say the comment was taken out of context. They are correct. It was taken out of two contexts.
First, of course, Rodriguez was definitely not telling all fans to "get a life." He was speaking to a small group of fans who go way over the line. Most of us agree that some fans are indeed rude, vulgar and hurtful.
But the second context is the question that Rodriguez was asked. I don't think many people have any idea what it was:
Q: What have you learned about yourself this year?
How do you go from that question to telling some fans to get a life?
This criticism, it will not surprise you to find out, lacks context itself. It gives the "full answer" as provided on this site but not the full answer as provided by Rich Rodriguez:
Q. What have you learned about yourself as a coach and as a person?
COACH RODRIGUEZ: I've learned. I think you've got to keep learning. There's probably a lot of fans that think I'm dumber than I was a year ago or two years ago, back when we were winning games. I'd like to think I'm smarter. We showed up on Saturdays. I think you've got to learn a little about personality, about your place. I've learned more about this place. I learned a whole lot more about our team which I think is important your team, your staff.You know, obviously you've got to learn to have thick skin. But I learned that a long time ago with coaches. The last ten months, even before I started the season we've learned the effect it can have on your family, and the things that you've got deal with as a coach.
This is a public position. It's not like a politician, I'm not running for office. I mean, God bless them. They choose to have that public scrutiny. As coaches, we know it's part of the job, but we don't choose to have it. Most of us would rather not.
It's at this point Rodriguez starts into his disappointment at some of the stuff he's heard or read. He says "to make it personal to a coach or player" isn't right, emphasizes the players are amateurs, and makes it clear he's talking about personal comments not related to coaching or playing.
This is all about perspective, right? From my perspective, that's a guy who's talked extemporaneously (read: rambled) for a bit and found himself naturally drawn to something that's bothering him—attacks on his players and coaches—and attempts to defend them. This is not a character flaw to me. To Rosenberg it is, which is the entire point. He casts the world into "Rodriguez defenders" and… well, himself. He willfully interprets ambiguous things as negative. He won't let even the most off-base Rodriguez criticism go, instead hoarding non-events like team captaincy changes and kerfuffles over the #1 jersey like they're precious gold.
And he was put in charge of a major investigative piece that seems slanted to the point where national ESPN folk are calling it a "joke" and a "witch hunt." Chris Spielman(!!!) did the same on local Columbus red-meat Buckeye radio. So, yeah… very convincing there, Craggs. )
Brian, in the years I've been reading this blog you've done what pretty much no other football writer - besides those who, bless their souls, still stick to solid beat reporting and leave out the soapbox shit - has managed to do: convince me that the really important thing to you is being truthful. Yeah, sticking with the team, yeah, statistical analysis, yeah, inside sourcing, that's all nice. But truth? Not just truthiness, but the real stuff? I think that's why so many people still read mgoblog. Obviously things like play-by-play breakdown and the insane attention to recruiting are attractive qualities, but we are more often than not looking forward to withering, righteous fire from on high or the impermanent joys of self-deprecation, and, seriously, I suspect the bits where you say, point blank, "Well shit, there's probably no way I could have been more wrong, but, well, you know, at least there's puppies out there somewhere," or something similar... those are the bits that bring me back. Sometimes I try to approximate the number of hours it took me, in the course of a few days or weeks, to put up a post completely devoid of citations of any kind of evidence, and then I extrapolate and wonder what you do, just as you mentioned in this post, when a beautiful theory meets grisly facts. This blog often has the tone of an Economist piece: authoritative and infallible on subjects alarmingly broad - Muslim immigration to Europe, the bonifides of five star rankings - and bafflingly narrow - British laws regarding telephone surveillance, Donovan Warren - but, unlike Economist pieces, I don't take your tone to mean you're right no matter what, just that you happen to be right because the facts are on your side or at least have offered a mercenary fee for the next hour or so. I believe that at the heart of the matter lies a loyalty to Michigan, and that always includes a loyalty to being honest about Michigan. That's a priceless commodity, man, so I am glad you aimed some withering, righteous and, more importantly, Ghostbusters-referencin' fire from on high at those who ought to know better but don't.
This post, FTW.
That's almost as cool as the Space Emperor
btw, no mention of how rosenberg's 10 = 6 when it comes to sources?
has any news source clarified why this is? how a reporter could lose four "sources" with no comment? anyone?
here i thought i could have a relaxing weekend at home but NOOOO....
now i have to sit outside brian's window with a boombox and a peter gabriel tape to show him appreciation...
wonderful. super. i didn't want to go to chuck e cheese with the kids anyways.
I think a lot of my (our?) initial anger at the free press was due to the fact that the "story" became a "story". I read the claim, saw Brian's first post response break the argument piece by piece, wondered who would print such garbage, and immediately moved towards freep-hate. From there things just sort of digress. I started worrying about the discussion surrounding the article, "ESPN said what!?", when I should have let Brian's first post and the testimony of CURRENT players and parents stand on its own. Then all anyone has to attack is the single argument,
whether or not the evidence substantiates the claim. Instead I hear talking heads circle their own wagons around our circled wagons. We could spend years arguing about journalistic integrity and get no where. I'm going to try and move on to something more productive. I hope I have better things to do.
the level of discourse in these comments is bringing me back to my days in AA c. 1989. what I haven't yet heard used in a sentence is: le petite bourgeoisie, proletariat, educated elite, Thomas Paine, Cicero, etc.
there's a term paper/dissertation on mass media v. blogs (NM) here boys. someone's got to decoct the narrative.
meantime, Let's Go Blue!
"Everyone does it" is not a technical defense. Your mother told you that years ago. Dashiell Bennett makes a strong point in his Sept 1 post on Deadspin. http://deadspin.com/5349961/what-is-the-michigan-story-really-about
A reason for the rush to the defense is that everyone (i.e., everyone for whom success on the field is the be all and end all) does do it. And the Herbstreits and the Tressels and the (fill in the blank) want to keep on doing it. Maybe that's a good thing.
And maybe it is not.
jim48315
"Everyone does it" is a defense when you are being accused of major rules violations. Because if everyone else is doing it, it's probably because it's not against the rules, and there no major violations are being committed, and the whole article is a bunch of crap. Now, I understand if you want to say that Michigan is supposed to be better than everyone else (leaders and best and all), but that's not the article Rosenberg and Snyder wrote here. If they had said that the amount of hours put in by Michigan football players is wrong and the rules should be changed to give them more time to be students, they would have had a point. But that doesn't get mentioned on Sportscenter, so instead we get accusations of major rules violations that go on with every team because it doesn't violate the rules.
Our helmets got wings
Yes, yes, a thousand times yes. This is why the prima facie case for violations was so ludicrous to begin with.
If Michigan is being accused of spending 41-44 hours per week on "football-related activities" and the national average is 44.8 (see USA Today piece), then it suggests that either (1) everyone is in gross violation of the rules (save the few unknown teams that spend < 20-25 hours a week), or (2) the rules have been written in such a way that no one is in violation of them.
William of Ockham sez door #2.
The argument that "Michigan should be better than that" is meaningless because there is no "that" to be better than, precisely because of how vaguely the rules have been written (unless mandatory countable hours > 20, of course).
"(i.e., everyone for whom success on the field is the be all and end all) "
I hate this counter-argument attempt. It's not necessarily the be all end all, but it sure as shit is the goal. I don't know, maybe it's just me, but I don't approach anything with the desire to succeed only 50% of the time. I mean, how do I know when I should win or lose then?
It kills me, people that rail against the "win at all cost" strawman then turn around and typically ridicule the coach for NOT winning all the time, or not winning up to their standard. It's the most amazing cognitive dissonance ever.
So Jim, do you agree with the rest of Brian's article?
If Carty was going to post here he'd just post as Jim Carty.
MGoBlog | Sporting News | HTTV 2009 | e
That is not Carty. Jim is a very common name.
MGoPosts|MGoDiaries|Twitter|Email
Apologies
Carty misrepresented himself to players when he did his UM hatchet job, so he has to defend Rosenpuke for doing the same.
I used to really like Carty, but he definitely jumped the shark when he became indignant toward those who criticized his hatchet job. Now, he spends a lot of time defending his agenda and belittling others who write. I am especially appalled at his arrogance toward bloggers and radio hosts whom he calls "just fans."
Apparently, writing with an agenda is only OK if you are pretending to be objective.
http://midnightmaize.blogspot.com/
It's pretty easy to condemn journalists and the journalism industry as a whole. I think that is a small part of the class warfare that has been going on in this country for many years.
The farming community where I live sees the Auto industry going down the toilet and says, "Well, hellz bellz. No wonder. A guy in Detroit makes $25 an hour to put a hubcap on." or they buy into the argument that half the country is on welfare. I say, "Well, hellz bellz. How's about that 1000 acre plot of land the government pays you to look at?" "Um, er...HEY! I'm a farmer dammit! You know how hard it is to farm the land?"
So a rogue journalist breaks out with a piece that tears apart an insitution that a lot of people love (a football team), and the whole industry sucks and we can see why newspapers are dying. And we, the consumers, are not alone in celebrating the demise of newspapers. Broadcast journalists quite often voice their own eulogies of the newspaper industry. Instead of JUST Roseneberg and/or his editors being called out, it is an entire industry.
It is a typical American knee-jerk reaction. It's easier to jump up and down shouting about the demise of society every time something like this happens (and it is ALWAYS someone else); and it is often done the most by people who absorb the least. And the criticism almost always (from the masses) comes in the form of a pitchfork mob mentality. I'll bet more than 90% of Rosenberg's negative emails and responses were one sentence rebuttals along the lines of "I didn't read it because I refuse to read your crap and you are a douchebag."
I have no doubt Rosenberg has an agenda with regard to Rodriguez. He don't like him and never has. And his PracticeGate Report was guided by that bias and it dictated the terms and processes by which he snooped and then wrote. But HE GETS ACTION when he does this. He discovered it early and often and he won't stop. The Consumer is now at fault here. We allow ourselves, whether it is Rush Limbaugh or Keith Olberman, Angelique Chengelis or Michael Rosenberg, to be marginalized and pitted against each other. We expect nothing more from the media until we disagree with the media.
The Consumer has been shown to be a bit of a masochist as well. How many zillions of threads appear here and at other CF fan blogs or boards with "THIS GUY HATES US! (link)" and then 95 posts from all the guys who read it (and then most say they didn't because said writer is and always has been a douchebag) and their anger boils and boils--and then they're emailing the author telling him they're "moral, and go to church, but I hope you die a horrible death when your plane crashes into a train carrying an atomic bomb"?
I LOVE seeing intelligent rebuttals to pieces like Rosenberg's. I love outing him as an agenda-driven writer. I really love it because I think he is the mouthpiece for agenda driven people within UM itself. But like others have said, no need to trash journalism as a whole much in the same way Albom wants to discredit every guy on a message board or blog.
I think there are many reasons why newspapers are dying. Not the least of which are people may not really like to read anything anymore unless it has neat graphics, links, is short and sweet, and it doesn't pile up in the corner of your basement and eventually take over your house. But to say newspapers are dying because journalists suck ass and have a bias--well, then 'splain to me why the intranets, blogging and message boards like this are taking over the world. You can't get any more biased or agenda driven than websites that people flock to to get the kind of stuff they like to read and totally agree with most of the time.
That being said, it is what it is.
Nice post.
Because the intranets, bloggers, and message boards don't attempt to hide their obvious bias behind false claims of objectivity and moral high ground.
The whole Mitch Album thing really was the tipping point for me. I mean even little green men from Mars know Rosenberg has had a hard on for Rich Rod since day one. For those that listened to the WJR spot will remember that Mitch said he was doing the show from LA that day and had just arrived a couple hours earlier from Detroit. That is absolutely true because my partner (fellow M alum) sat next to him the entire flight (first class of course!)
What Mitch didn't bother to tell his listeners is what he told my partner over the course of 4+ hours on the plane to LA. When asked, Mitch said he thought the piece was a hatchet job and likened it to writing a piece about speeding but interviewing only one driver. Then he goes on the air and proceeds to laud the Free Press and Rosenberg (big surprise)rip Brian(after he hangs up on him of course), minimize the whole thing down to a bunch of disgruntled fans and the Googlers. Bloggers are not real journalists don't you know.
The whole thing was just so self serving. Outside of our little sphere here, Rosenberg gets lauded and rewarded as a real journalist, other news outlets for whatever reason accept it on its face (insert conspiracy theory here) and the momentum grows.
Just a sad commentary on our drive-thru society of Sheeple. It's all good. We know the truth and on Saturday the truth shall set us free.
Badgers? We don't need no stinking badgers.
ThatIS a huge difference. It's one I point out often myself when I go off on the self-righteous hypocrisy that pervades the media. Thanks.
That being said, it is what it is.
Your last paragraph is important. This is what's bothered me about the newspaper/internet schism: the internet as a whole has just as many problems as newspapers. MGoBlog is representative of the best of the internet, but not of the internet as a whole -- just as Rosenberg's article is representative of the worst of shoddy newspaper writing, but not of newspapers as a whole.
sgtwolverine.com
+20,000. Man. I can't articulate crap today. I'm glad other people can.
MGoPosts|MGoDiaries|Twitter|Email
With the New Media still shaking itself out, I'm hesitant to affix a label (like Journalist) to you. What matters to me is that you write well thought out pieces that I enjoy reading. That's pretty much the criteria I apply to all you writy folk.
I think (or would hope) the media relations people recognize who brings the story that 'those who care' want to read. That's the type of person media credentials should be given to. Oh, and kittens that listen to The Smiths are cool, too.
...the biggest blog in college football?
So Brian how many unique visitors does mgoblog get in a week?
How many people listen to Mitch Albom's radio show?
I expect Albom has an....odd....notion of the relationship between these two numbers.
I bet I can find the Albom number.
To find Brian's numbers, click the sitemeter link at the very very bottom of any page. The last 7 days (at time of posting this) has been about 713k.
http://www.sitemeter.com/?a=stats&s=s49mgoblog
MGoPosts|MGoDiaries|Twitter|Email
Thanks, that is great, much appreciated. It's not exactly what I was looking for, because it's not "unique visitors" (what if Brian visited 13000 times and I visited once and you visited 699,999 times).
But still, it's good to know. In a week, 713k x 17/60 = 202,017 hours per week.
Albom doesn't just appear on WJN though, he's nationally syndicated. So to get a comparable number we'd have to estimate a) his national weekly audience and b) what percent of the time he is talking about sports. I'm going to dig around for a) but if anyone has an opinion about b) I'd love to hear it.
BOOM. Brian'd.
These are the times that try fans' souls...
BOOM Cook'd
works much better.
BOOM. 3rd time in this thread'd.
MGoPosts|MGoDiaries|Twitter|Email
That's what I get for not reading all of the comments.
FAIL.
These are the times that try fans' souls...
There is really so much to say about this but I want to hit a few points regarding the big picture. I think what you have is a much more savvy consumer with greater choices turning away from the dinosaur media. The consumer is savvy in the sense that the aura of objectivity has faded and most pieces are recognized to have some kind of agenda even if they are not outright opinion pieces. When Carty laments that opinion pieces are becoming more commonplace and more in demand is where he reveals that he is a dinosaur – opinion is all you have to sell. If he thinks he can sell objectivity anymore he is wrong.
Objective facts do not necessarily yield truth and that is the disconnect between the old paradigm and today. Take the Freep situation. If Rosenberg had pictures of bags of money changing hands and strippers and coke, he might have had a story. All he had was gossip, some freshman quotes, and a poor understanding of NCAA rules. For him to present it in such a sensationalized form as a Sunday Above The Fold Headline means that either he or the Freep are either inept or malignant – You Decide!
My concern in all of this though is that I want a place for large scale profitable media. We the people need media to be a watchdog against corruption and oppression and the media needs to have many expensive lawyers and deep pockets to do it well. See the Freep regarding Kwame. No matter how much you like your favorite political blogger he will never really be able to go to battle against entrenched corrupted power structures from his parent’s basement. Maybe if they focused more on exposing the corrupt entrenched power structures (they shouldn't have to look too hard) they would find their audience again.
Excellent discussion here for such a long and detailed piece.
Another rip on journalists day at MGoBlog.
(And here all I wanted was a UFR)
Hold on -- lemme climb up on the dunk tank seat...okay, bathing suit? check. Target? check. Enough MgoPoints to survive a neg-barrage. check.
Let's start rhetorically:
Why is it that whenever we talk about media bias, it's an and/or, black/white thing: "Oh, that [journalist/publication/columnist] is such a [political view] -- I wouldn't believe anything he says."
There are shades of gray. I may miss something important about the current administration, or I may have been more skeptical of the previous one, based on my politics. That sucks. It makes me worse at my job. But should I have to tell readers whom I voted for every time I write about some EPA teleconference?
There are degrees of bias. Nobody forces you to believe everything you read from us. If you suspect something, read a few more of that person's writings, and if you see a pattern, then shit, point it out! We have e-mail addresses posted with our bylines, and our editors have e-mail addresses too, and most of us have not gotten so big that we are immune or used to ignoring criticism.
We all have some bias. But there's no time for the reader to do a massive background check on every minuscule bias of every reporter. That's why we band together to form a repository of generally trustworthy names on one publication. The reader can then place his/her trust in the brand.
--------------------------------------
Why We Stay Straight
You know what motivates most journalists -- our agenda if you will? Respect from readers. This is a profession that inherently attracts people who want everyone who sees our work to know us and respect us. We love the byline. We want you to read the byline and associate the good article with the good name.
Our credibility is not just essential for doing the job. It's part of the whole pleaser-who-needs-to-be-respected-and-in-the-know psychology that first makes our ears perk up when the middle school paper does its recruiting spiel.
How do we prove this?
We can't, unless we all become blogs and give up on the entire idea of a media brand. It has been suggested that this is a good thing. I don't think so. I think it sounds like a good thing to people who want to spend a lot of time consuming and parsing information, but is pure miasma for the typical reader.
--------------------------------------
Hey, Other Journalists, Some Guy in Ann Arbor Just Said 'Bias' -- Let's Get Him!
If journalists have begun looking at those who say "bias" like you're crossing the beams, it's because every explosion over every article ever has tons of claims of agenda. Like it's impossible that like every other person on this planet, we maybe sometimes simply fuck up.
And more than that, it's because "bias" and "agenda" become a black and white thing.
Finding and printing information that nobody else knows and is important enough that people want to know, but isn't going to unfairly hurt somebody involved is not easy job. It is awash in ethics problems at every turn, and normally requires a lot of effort that proves fruitless (like spending an afternoon investigating a non-story).
I don't have to defend Rosenberg's biased piece of shit of an article to defend journalism. Why must journalism itself be trashed every time someone wrote a biased piece of shit of an article?
Trash him to oblivion. But I'm sick of the whole profession getting dogged for one guy's abuse of it. If I held Brian accountable for every blog out there, it'd be just as fair.
--------------------------------------
It's Not Just Us
The truth: we would dive into lions pits if the truth is all you want. The thing is, that's not true, is it? Maybe for you, on Michigan football, but look, I got numbers, and numbers say that people have very bad taste in what kind of news/entertainment they want to consume. People will watch/read utter crap on top of utter crap, even when they know it's utter crap.
Drew Sharp has not made a positive contribution to Detroit sports in years -- yet he is one of the most widely read columnists in Detroit. People are making a conscious decision to click on his articles again and again. Someone's gotta be buying him.
--------------------------------------
The Educated are Not Alone on this Earth
I think people have a hard time changing their opinions. I think people overestimate how many other people share their opinions.
I think we also do the same. If everyone in Detroit thought the article was utter B.S., or even if it was just the Sparties who liked it, there would have been an apology. Our outrage has not been echoed everywhere. The fact that we're right and he's wrong has barely registered among the masses who frankly don't care enough to find out. Most registered that Rich Rod is having some trouble, and stowed that.
I'd like to think that he would know there were places like MGoBlog, however, where journalists should be expected to find constructive criticism. I don't think naming the post "Jihad" helps identify this blog as such.
--------------------------------------
Don't be so bitter
It's also not a fair fight. Brian, most everyone on this blog is behind you. We all, of course read you. Going meta to attack Rosenberg and his paper and his industry and everyone associated with his industry will get all sorts of approving nods, but how many opinions are you changing? How is the Freep to respond?
Most major papers don't, and that's not because of the money -- the flame war that would be started if Rosenberg dedicated his next column to bitter U-M fans who blindly follow Rich Rod etc. would be hittacular for freep.com. It's an editorial decision, for the good of the brand, that keeps back the journalist's natural wish to respond.
Yes, it's more unfair that Rosenberg can change 2 million opinions while Brian can change 10,000 with much better content. Part of the reason Rosenberg can do that is because the institution has gotten very good at not flaming.
I don't want to discourage Brian or anybody here from picking apart an article, especially one as suck-filled as Rosenberg's piece and subsequent drivel supporting him.
But keep it to that. Extrapolating into the industry, to me, seems as self-righteous as newspapers sniffing at bloggers.
This team is under construction. We thank you for your patience.
is it a coincidence that the american public's confidence in the legacy media continues to plummet, as evidenced by polls, and even more telliningly ratings for the big three newscasts that have dipped lower than reruns of Family Matters, and dead-tree dinosaurs that are long on venom, but that are forced to stop printing during the week or even at all?
You can say that a few bad apples are tarnishing the profession, but it is far more than that. Do you really think that the American people have lost confidence in the legacy media because of a few bad apples, or has there been a shift from the newsman as the most trusted man in america, to a perception that the journalist's own personal opinions and biases are being presented in the guise of straight news? Are you really suggesting that editorial bias in straight news stories has not become legion? If you really believe that, you are not alone -- the rest of the legacy media has had trouble recognizing that as their ratings and circulations plummet -- but you are wrong.
Even worse than your refusal to acknowledge the changing face of legacy journalism is your prescription for those who dare point it out: Blame the consumers who are too stupid to differentiate between the good and bad apples. Contrary to your position, it is not the consumer's job to weed out the bad apples for you, if you are concerned that the few bad apples like Rosenberg are giving the otherwise noble practioners of journalism a bad name - maybe you should do some self-policing. Instead of giving them pulitzers, be the first to tear them a new asshole. Because if you dont and you continue to blame the consumers for complaining of bias rather than seeking to police it on your own (as has sadly been the navel-gazing, self-congratulating practice currently employed) the consumers will, as they have continued to do, simply seek places where the bias is embraced and out in the open wihtout the pretense of objectivity (blogs, partisan magazines or publications, fox news or msnbc).
In all, your piece, although unintended is very condescending. Telling us we dont know bias when we see it, and if we see it, hey shut up because we journalists dont want to hear it from you.
The news business is service, and until you get over yourself and start to either regain the trust that has been on slide of erosion since Walter Cronkite declared Vietnam unwinnable, or embrace the bias in a honest way, you will continue to alternatively be baffled by what is happening, and lash out at those who point it out, all while you see your circulations and ratings continue to tank. You're monopoly is over - truth shall set you free.
We can't run. We can't pass. We can't stop the run. We can't stop the pass. We can't kick. Other than that, we're just not a very good football team right now. - Bruce Coslet
By linking to Brian's article and debating it with supporting facts (also could be linked) and information. Oh wait, neither of these things work when printed, and the Freep refuses to acknowledge how the internet actually works. The New York post just had some article released where they acknowledged that company policy was to NEVER credit (or even mention, really) blogs as sources.
This is the Freep's failing, not Brian's. I do think the number of meta articles are unnecessary as Brian's winning, the Freep knows it, and that's why they are doing shit like having Mitch Albom bring him on the show to attempt a hit and run.
What do you mean Brian's winning? Brian and the Freep aren't playing the same game. It makes sense for Brian to flame, Michigan football is his niche, but sadly the masses the Freep is marketing itself to don't demand that kind of accountability. If you ever want a kick in the pants of depression head over to CNN.com and see how many inane headlines you can count at the top of their homepage and compare that to how much genuinely good analysis you can find on there. Just now I see the number 3 headline is Parents honor wish, wed at end of son's funeral; further down, but still at the top Jon Gosselin: 'I despise' Kate; Stripper stuns George Clooney, seeks kiss; LeAnn Rimes tarnished by relationship drama; Is mystery shadow a backyard Bigfoot?
This is at the top of CNN.com's homepage. And you know what? People love it. It's one of the most popular sites and probably the most popular news site on the internet. Make no mistake New Media does not spell the end of ignorance.
You can hate on me all you want to, but what can you possibly say to somebody that looks like Rambo, pretty much, with his shirt off?
Brian's winning in the sense he's the automobile manufacturer and the Freep is trying its damndest to prevent them newfangled machines from overtaking their horse and buggies. Eventually the Freep will shrivel and die as those masses realize they are paying for a lot of stuff they neither need nor care about.
There was some kerfluffle about the Washington Post removing movie listings from its paper. I can't recall anything about the story other than my shock that people consult the newspaper for movie listings.
http://www.alexa.com/topsites/countries/US
CNN.com is behind Twitter (already?!?!) Blogger, and only 3 ahead of Wordpress. Remember when everyone was on AOL? Things change.
I don't think everyone here is attacking journalism as such. I think a lot of people, myself included, are just attacking those journalists who cloke themselves in self-annointed "objectivity" in order to hide an obvious bias (see Fox News "Fair and Balanced" for obvious and much-ridiculed example)...I very much agree with one point you get at. It's absolutely true that some parties will say that a reporter who says the sky is blue is biased b/c those parties have in interest in it being green. The "I'm objective" vs. "you're biased" argument can go back and forth, but sometimes one of those arguments really is true, as you obviously agree.
"That's horrible"
"Terrible is what it is."
My example would be the myriad of posters that refuse the freep over a sports article, when the paper also did the great investigative reporting on Kwame Kilpatrick within the same year. Yes, that one collection of Rosenberg articles were done poorly, but to boycott the entire paper is profiling either a profession or a group of people at the paper who are not entirely tied together.
MGoPosts|MGoDiaries|Twitter|Email
You can call it profiling all you want, but when a newspaper publishes trash like that and then proceeds to defend it, well, they get what they deserve. Any newspaper or news organization that publishes something like that will get the same treatment. They aren't worth my time or money.
What's hard as a reader, though, is to know where to hit back when the Free Press does something like this. Sure, I don't want some guy who does a good job, say, covering crime in the metro area to suffer for Rosenberg. I do not, on the other hand, know how to show my displeasure for Rosenberg's work w/out risking that. I assume, perhaps cynically, that the editor who gets a letter from me saying how much I dislike Rosenberg's work will think to him/herself "good, at least we've got people reading." So, for lack of something fairer, I don't read the paper.
"That's horrible"
"Terrible is what it is."
I'm facing exactly the same dilemma. I feel dirty/stupid every time I've looked at the Free Press since that original article -- particularly when they remind me about that travesty of journalism on a daily basis by continuing to find excuses to mention it on the front page, having their editor explain what a great story it was (while making up new facts -- now there are "10 players and four parents" who supported the allegations, as opposed to the 5/6 out of 10 cited in the original article), etc. Yet, on the other hand, it seems petty to cancel my subscription just because of one sports "journalist" with an obvious axe to grind, when others at the paper are doing a good job and providing valuable information about the goings-on in metro Detroit. (After all, I've continued reading all this time despite their continued employment of Drew Sharp.)
In the end, though, they've pretty much forced me to go the cancel-my-subscription route. With all their continuing efforts to stir things up and keep the attention focused on the "story" (read - work of fiction), I feel like I'm a co-conspirator if I keep reading or providing financial support. Thanks, d-bag Free Press editor/publisher, for throwing your good journalists under the bus after Rosenberg.
+10,000
MGoPosts|MGoDiaries|Twitter|Email
As a print journalist for more than 10 years, I've never used anonymous sources. It's lazy, unnecessary and gives the person making the statements no accountability. On one occasion, we gave a person an alternate name to protect their identidy, as they had been a victim of a crime.
And he piled upon the whale's white hump, the sum of all the rage and hate felt by his whole race. If his chest had been a cannon, he would have shot his heart upon it.
.
I actually don't have a problem with most of the piece. While it shows some bias towards the Freep and the other reporters, it does bring up a good point that you still need unbiased coverage, even with blogs. The bias I mean is the bias towards one side of the issue or another; every reporter is biased towards finding a story. I think it's still possible to have objective reporters; I don't think Rosenberg is, but they're out there. You just don't notice them as much as the ones you hate.
i'm actually becoming more and more skeptical. as we move further toward the internet and away from print media, it seems to me that journalists are rated based on the "hits" to their articles on paper's websites.
i wonder sometimes if a guy like drew sharp believes what he reads, or is intentially fanning the flames of fans in order to enrage them and obtain internet hits to his article.
perhaps the same goes here for rosenberg and snyder, whose article is one of the worst written, especially when alleging serious NCAA violations. they could have easily reported that "voluntary" workouts existed and what constitutes "mandatory" under NCAA rules. this would at least allow the reader to think about it. but they didn't. and talking heads throughout the country (ya, you ESPN) ran with it as fact. that either makes rosenberg and snyder incredibily biased and agenda-driven or just plain incompetent. you make the call.
I don't think anyone is objective. I think Brian covered this but the only way to fight our own bias is to present both sides of the story the best that we can. This means that (especially in the case of investigative reporting) when you come across suspicious behavior, you better make sure you at least give the other side as much of a chance of response as you give BEFORE the article is released. The reason I think that the freep article is so filthy is that it seems like Rosenberg/Snyder are trying to create a problem as opposed to reporting on something that happened.
In doing so, they twist quotes to justify themselves and suffocate anything that questions their premise. You wonder how much they themselves have witnessed.
Hail to the Victors!
The thing that jumps out to me is the way that Rosenberg and the freep are trying to diminish Richrod. Here is a general list of the criticisms over the last year or so:
1) Coach Rod is selfish and is always looking for a better job to make more money.
2) Coach Rod has a "filthy mouth."
3) Coach Rod belittles his players.
4) Coach Rod requires his players to practice too much.
If I'm not mistaken that sounds like any coach that has gotten to any level of success in football. Assuming Rosenberg wants the opposite, just for fun let me list his qualifications:
1) A coach who will take minimum in terms of pay and be wholly devoted to Michigan's past traditions even to the point of reinstating the wishbone offense and installing predictable game plans against inferior opponents.
2) Said coach must be a priest or a pastor who resorts to prayer instead of cussing.
3) Taking the team out for ice cream and greeting players who fumble/drop passes/miss blocks/etc. with a hug on the sideline, saying: "The important thing is that you're having fun" with a sympathetic smile on his face.
4) Instead of practicing all week, the coach will use practice time to hold a Bible study and prayer service followed by study hall.
I think Rosenberg needs to get used to the fact that Michigan football has entered the 21st century as well as creative journalism. Blogging saves trees at the very least :-)
Go blue and pound the Irish!
Hail to the Victors!
I was in the Thumb this weekend for labor day. I woke up Sunday morning and went to get a newspaper. I couldn't find any copies of the News. There were more than enough Freeps to go around, but I wasn't looking for toilet paper. Anyone else notice this? (Or maybe the news doesn't put out a sunday paper?)
I am a long time Michigan fan who really wants to believe that MY program is doing things the right way. Throughout the last 18 months I have asked myself if I am really being objective or being a homer. I'm never the smartest guy in the room, but I've always had a good sense of what is fair and balanced. The biggest problem I have with the article wasn't what was there, but what wasn't there. For instance, there were no quotes from parents who disagreed with the anonymous parents. We also do not know the identity of the current players, but we are not told they are someone other than the two freshmen. Nor were we told which hours were countable and which were not. They are sins of omission. I'm very glad for blogs like this - and I'm over 40 yrs. old!