Brian's actions towards Rosenberg immediately prompted me to listen to "The Wind Beneath My Wings."
For people complaining about spoilers, I have bad news: they fire the guy. But we won World War II, so we've got that going for us. Unless this is an alternate history and we're all Nazis, but only Michigan State fans believe that because Michigan State fans will believe anyone is a racist if it helps exonerate Will Gholston. Denard: totally racist.
Anyway, I show up briefly. A few reporters show up more extensively, and then there are the players—addressed as a group—and the new athletic director.
This guy's opinion: boy, does that hippie with the blog need a haircut. But his logic… so dashing.
(And you guys.)
So… right. There are some scattered MGoBlog references, mostly as a reading of the fan zeitgeist. "Never Forget" is referenced because "Never Forget" is always referenced all the time; The Horror is identified as The Horror, and so forth and so on. The blog's permanence relative to most message boards (and even newspapers, which put their stories behind a paywall after a while) seems to have made it the database of record when it comes to how the average fan felt at X point in time, even if the average fan here is not the average fan elsewhere. It's around. Since that's more than anything else can say, its opinion wins by default.
A couple people have asked for more detail about the point in the book where I show up in the flesh. This is after the WMU 2009 press conference, which was the first one post-Free Press story. I've had a couple days to consider the story and have come to the conclusion that it's a misleading, unethical hack job. I am steaming. I go to the press conference to liveblog it.
Afterwards—and in retrospect I can't believe this actually transpired—I go to the front of the room, where Snyder is, and repeatedly ask him if he knows what a countable hour is in an unfriendly fashion. He refuses to answer. The pattern is: I ask, he says he won't respond because I am a "competitor," I ask, he says the same thing, I incredulously ask if he will not defend his article, etc. etc. etc. This is actually broadcast (off-camera but audible) on the MGoBlue stream, which was not turned off after the presser.
I give up on Snyder and am in the process of storming out when I happen on Rosenberg in the little vestibule between the Junge proper and outside. I ask the same thing; Rosenberg responds that he does know what a countable hour is, so I start in on why that wasn't in the article and how realistic it is that a head coach at a major program had been more than doubling the NCAA's allotted maximums for years. He starts asking me my name over and over again, which I ignore in favor of further badgering. Craig Ross, watching this with a combination of bemusement and horror, eventually tells Rosenberg my name. I think this was because he wanted Rosenberg to start saying other things, but you'd have to ask him and he doesn't remember interjecting. So that's lost to history.
I had no idea this was going to be in the book until just before the thing went to print when Bacon emailed me with Rosenberg's version of the event and asked me if I had any corrections, which I did since he remembered me as some wild-eyed nut instead of a wild-eyed nut with very specific questions.
And <poof> like that, he's gone.
As for my bête noir… well now. Revelations about Rosenberg from the book:
Rosenberg has taken to twitter to call Bacon a "fan" and claim the book is "littered with errors," complaining that Bacon made "almost no attempt to talk to anybody who would contradict his subject's point of view."
How Rosenberg knows this is unknown. Bacon states in the book that he repeatedly tried to talk to Martin, Coleman, Carr, and Brandon but never got anywhere. Certainly Brandon's response to the book—a disingenuous "what book?" issued at the same time he's pressuring the M-Den not to carry it and Bacon has been exiled to Drew Sharp Row—indicates the sort of cooperation the AD is providing the guy.
Meanwhile, the height of irony:
When I asked Rosenberg if they had made any attempt to talk to players with different views, he replied, "Did we keep calling until we got guys to say, 'Hey, it's fine?' No, we didn't."
The difference between Bacon's book—which contains a half-dozen quotes from Rosenberg as it attempts to show both sides of the story—and the Free Press piece is stark. The [REDACTED] has the balls to complain about Bacon's approach to journalism? After the NCAA called the original article exaggerated and misleading? After they took countable hours out of the story? /head explodes
That this guy still has a job is a black mark on the Free Press. That he's still allowed to show up at press conferences is inexplicable. That he has the chutzpah to criticize someone else's journalism is totally expected, because he's just that kind of guy.
The only enjoyable parts of the book are the moments when Michigan's players come into focus. I suspect that Bacon soft-pedaled some of the Tate stuff. He comes off as a fairly likeable, if pretty weird, kid. Denard and Devin and Mark Moundros and Ryan Van Bergen and Mike Martin all come off well.
At least we've got that after the last few years. Michigan's players are easy to root for. They don't put MIKE VICK on their eyeblack or fracture skulls or not pay for tattoos or give quotes about how "everybody murders" to the media. They leave all that stuff to the adults.
That feeling you got at the end of the Hoke press conference when Brandon was talking and you thought "Rodriguez was a dead man even before the bowl" is a feeling most of the players had. Bacon, too, which he made more explicit than he did in the book in an appearance on the Huge show yesterday.
Brandon's drawn-out firing process does seem like an unnecessary delay of an already-made decision. The impression Bacon got was the players thought Rodriguez was done, people around the program felt Brandon was hoping for a loss in the bowl game. So cut the cord already.
We don't get much else on the current AD.
Brian's actions towards Rosenberg immediately prompted me to listen to "The Wind Beneath My Wings."
the audio clip from the MGoBlue video. Any chance we can get that on here to relive it???
I'm waiting for the day Brian releases a book w/ the real TELL ALL book.
I clicked the Never Forget link Brian and Bacon referenced. In the original photo, there were only 7 players. By the time the season ended, that had easily doubled to the point where there was no room left to add another player. GERG was bad, I freely admit that. RR had to go. But how anyone expected us to have a decent defense given the number of true FROSH playing is beyond me.
I knew it was over for RR when I watched the Bowl pre-game show with Brandstatter and RR. (How the banquet and Groban-gate didn't clue me in, well, sometimes I'm a little slow.) Rich had no enthusiasm. He looked like a beaten man. When the wheels came off in the bowl game, there was no stopping it. The dam broke and 52-14 later, we had a new coach.
Seeing pics of RR and Miss Rita, either right before/after that particular moment...they looked DRAINED. No other word for it. OK, maybe one other word. DONE.
And to know that the book holds back on yet MORE crap, more utter pettiness from the esteemed Michigan Man clique. I don't want to be a member of that club!
I have to say I feel pretty dirty about a lot of the people associated with the program at this point in time.
I have to concur with the assessment that DB held out on RR's termination soley to "protect the brand".
Lotta reasons, including good ones from an institutional POV, for Brandon to wait until January. NO f'ing reason to hint to players that RR was gone. Stay classy and professional there, Mr. B., while Rosenberg and Snyder sit pretty and Bacon moves to the cheap seats. A disturbing case of killing the messenger.
I still want to know what turns Lloyd around on RR--or whether he simply hated Lester so much he would push anyone the h else.
P.S. I can construct telling Mallet he had to go as just looking out for the kid's interest. He was no spread QB. (Exploring the angles here.) And (have to read it, obviously) but I'm still not getting whether the hatred for RR on the part of Lloyd's old players was just trumped up or whether they were just swallowing the bad news that came out, including the Freep Fairy Tales and really decided he was awful. Little bit o' both, I guess.
Want to know more about the divide between Bo's boys and Lloyd's; hadn't really heard about this.
I still remember our conversation in '95 or '96 when we were casually talking about Michigan football and about Carr, who had just recently assumed the job. I had made a positive comment about Lloyd, and I was shocked to hear him say how much he, and many other guys who played under Bo, disliked Carr intensely. Among other things, he said that Carr refused to allow older players to come to practices or watch games from the sideline. That's why it wasn't surprising to me that it was the Bo/Moeller-era players and coaches who participated in the RR rally at the Michigan Theater, whereas Carr and his players were notably absent, at least in terms of visible participation and open support.
I'm pretty sure that the most fervent group of pro-Miles backers within the program are those who played with Miles in the early '70s, or those who coached alongside him from '88 through '94. As soon as LC became HC in '95, Miles left.
I happen to be in town for a dinner thing at the university, and I saw Lloyd at Zingerman's this morning. He looked a little ravaged, although to be fair to him, it's not as if I know what he normally looks like in the morning. It was around 9:30 AM, so not that early.
Now that the public knows that you had a major role in sabotaging the career of Rich Rodriguez at UofM, what do you have to say for yourself? John Bacon's book portrays you as the vindictive leader of a witch hunt, which seems apt. I find it intersting that your sister paper is publishing excerpts of the book all week while the sham of a paper that you write for remains silent on this issue. What, you don't think Detroit cares about the three years under Rodriguez? Or is it that you don't want the public to know that you're guily of character assassination? Speaking of books, how is yours selling these days? It's good to know that Michigan fans provided some fine reader reviews to help you out.
Thanks for your e-mail. The author of that book quoted me saying things I never said and assigned me motives I never had. This was not shocking, since he was granted access to the coach and made minimal attempts to contact anybody who would contradict the coach’s point of view. As a result, the book is filled with misinformation, half-truths and lies (and many of them don’t even have anything to do with me or the Free Press).
I don’t have the time or inclination to detail all the book’s flaws here. But just to give a few examples: Rich Rodriguez’s own agent has stated in his deposition for the West Virginia lawsuit that he called Michigan to pitch Rich’s interest in the job, shortly after pitching Rodriguez to Arkansas; the idea that Lloyd Carr lured Rodriguez to Michigan is fiction. The author quotes Rodriguez saying the coaches never said anything to Justin Boren; in fact, Boren had already been quoted on the record about the coaches’ language. (The author also quotes the coach, in the same breath, saying he had not met me, when in fact he had. The author never asked me about this.)
The author writes, with no attribution, that Carr told his players they could skip class during rivalry weeks. In fact, as a running joke, players would ask Carr if they could skip class. Nobody ever believed they were allowed to do that – except, apparently, the author of this book.
In the author’s world, nobody was breaking rules, but when the team started losing, it was because they weren’t able to do what they had done before. The author also claims he “initiated” the investigation into Michigan basketball, which is ridiculous. The Free Press broke that story. (Not me – I didn’t even work here at the time.)
I could go on, but I won’t. I’ve covered a thousand stories in my career and I’m not interested in rehashing this one. I never have harbored any ill will toward Rich Rodriguez. If he learns from his mistakes at Michigan, I think he can be successful in his next job. We stand by our reporting.
Columnist, Detroit Free Press
Author, "War As They Knew It: Woody Hayes, Bo Schembechler and America in a Time of Unrest"
But he's right about some things. I won't get into all the claims, but Bacon claiming he broke the Basketball story immediately jumped out at me, because it was the Freep, and they had other guys (mostly in investigative more than Sports roles) who were trying to knock U-M down to size. Bacon had little to do with it, and he takes credit to puff up his "unbias cred", I guess.
The skipping class thing seems like a joke. As on the other side, the Boren thing does (who believes anything he says?). And I seem to recall a lot of talk about Rich's agent at the time....
So he may be in full CYA mode, and a liar's liar...but even a broken clock is right twice a day.
But note that none of Rosenberg's points do anything to refute Bacon's account of Practicegate - if Bacon's wrong about Practicegate, why not refute that directly?
And I don't think Rosenberg has a leg to stand on over Practicegate. So he's deflecting. Just saying that there were some...interesting...claims in the book, that unfortunately give people reasons to doubt parts...which opens up the ability to bring into question other parts. Which is a shame in the case of Practicegate, because that's so well documented elsewhere, Rosey has no choice but to try and pull a slight of hand.
Rosenberg is absolutely, positively full of shit if he thinks Justin Boren's foul-language sensitivity was offended by Rich Rodriguez. Every one of the Borens is a nasty, foul-mouthed wannabe asskicker. Boren is quoted by Rosenberg's own paper as having said that at halftimes of his (Pickerington North) games, his dad (Mike) yelled at him so severely that Justin thought "somebody might call the cops." Rosenberg's version of the Boren story is a bad joke, that doesn't even make sense. Mike Boren's own statements make it clear, and it is confirmed by the timing; Justin Boren was yanked out of Michigan the moment that Zach was not offered by Rodriguez. In the book, Bacon states that in a simple declarative sentence. I wish he'd have said more in detail. But that's that. Not only is Rosenberg full of baloney; his paper should be ashamed for having blown the real Boren story.
And this -- NO, Rosenberg really ISN'T "standing by the reporting" of Stretchgate. Rosenberg hasn't explained much of anything, except providing really crappy anwers to the hard questions. Rosenberg has no good answer as to why his sources needed anonymity if they were gone from the Michigaan program. Rosenberg has NO good answer as to why he'd name Stokes and Hawthorne in the story (no anonymity?) but not somebody (hypothetically) like Clemons, Boren or Mallett. Rosenberg has tried, and basically failed, in explaining why the paper failed to clarify "countable hours" (as is mentioned in the book in some good detail). Rosenberg clearly went after Barwis in the story, when the investigation showed Barwis to be as innocent as anyone. He's had no good answer to Jon Chait's complaint about why he'd assign himself to the story. It goes on and on.
Bacon personally told me the story of how he was involved in breaking the Michigan Basketball scandal. It had to do, as I recall, with some kind of acquaintance who had access to an apartment overlooking the towyard where the overturned SUV was taken, some rather daring work taking pictures out of an open window, and the associated running of the license plate number to figure out who owned the car. Thus, money trail to Ed Martin established, story broken.
Rosenberg's assertion that Bacon had nothing to do with the story is incorrect.
Like Al Gore and the internet, sometimes things are open to interpretation. Stuff like this happens all the time.
Not that I want to stand up for Rosie (b/c I think hes a twerp), but based on posts in some of the diary book reviews, some of Bacon's assertions might not be accurate. There have already been several examples of timelines messed up and assertions made based on falsehoods (one example is Bacon's incorrect recollection of the Purdue game). I think at the end of the day, this book might just be one more "he said she said" type document instead of historical fact.
I may get negged to Bolivia for this, but.... I think it was dirty pool to bomb Rosenberg's book on Amazon out of spite.
Do I think he is a dolphin-punching immoral sack of syphilitic monkey dung? Absolutely. Does that make it right to try to deep six his book about Bo? No.
I think he should be fired from the Freep for shoddy reporting. I'll never read his book (and I refuse to let my book club choose it-and yes, it's been suggested). But I'd never write a false review for it.
Book leteraly just got dropped off on my door step just now, so I know what I'll be reading Saturday during a long day at work. Along with watching football, of course.
Rosenberg hates kittens.
Did NOBODY ask Rosenberg if that story was true?
Dollars to donuts says it definitely is.
Tell us how you really feel.
The whole episode and its aftermath is really strange, and I don't think shows anybody involved in a good light. Frankly, the behavior of the coaches, the staff, Carr, Brandon, etc. all leaves me with a bad taste in my mouth.
As for Brandon...I think he got put into this mess, and has been cleaning house. He is still defending people and their actions from the prior regime...which can be ugly. I wish he had taken an interview for this, but of all the people involved, he seems to be the least responsible.
As for Rosenberg...he is a douche. Simple as that.
The book was fantastic, and there will certainly never be another like it, as nobody is ever going to get that kind of access again. But does anybody else feel a bit disappointed? A lot of the "bombshell" stuff got glossed over with no new real info. There is no detail about the golf outing, just that there was some misbehavior. As Brian mentioned, Tate gets the baby gloves treatment. There's little to nothing about canning Shafer and the ineptitude of Tony Gibson. I mean, if you are the type to buy and read this book, you are going to already know about 97% of the contents.
Even after 433 pages, I still have so many burning questions: was there ever a GERG ultimatum? What was up with Pryor recruitment? What ever happened with that skank from Dennison who wanted to tag team Shoelace and Grady? And, in a similar vein, what the fuck was the deal with the beaver!?!?
At the the end of the day, my main takeaway from 3 And Out, is that the Barwis Effect may have actually been a real thing, and the people running major athletic departments are not doing so because they're intelligent or competent whatsoever.
Probably have a really different take on the book than someone just picking it up cold. Most of the rumors in the book are rumors we've heard before, and are still rumors today, because most of it is second hand quotes...or contrary opinions of events (see "Rosenberg-Cook" for the perfect example of how events are told differently by dishonest and honest people...and how even witnesses can't or don't remember things exactly).
But the omissions stand out. OK, we don't need to go over why the defense lacks talent, is poorly coached, etc.....not sure I buy that, and still think it's missing THE story...but ok, even if you accept that - isn't the book about how politics and the inner workings were ravaging Michigan Football? And if he's got so much info about what's happening inside the higher reaches of the University and the Athletic Department (which he didn't have any direct contact with, and seemed to get most of his info from Rich and his staff), how does he have NOTHING about the inner workings and politics of the coaching staff, the guys he was with every day? He mostly paints it as a back-slapping band of brothers (other than the occassional..."well, he didn't want to step on GERG's toes too much, BUT..."), but we know that wasn't true on defense. What were the politics between Shafer and the guys Rich brought with him? Anyone seeing that last press conference has to know Shafer was more than just unhappy at being fired. How bad was Gibson (at the very least, in Shafer's eyes?). We had that other horrid coach take a "promotion" and leave the defense (who also got a lot of the blame), and he was from the outside too. What were the dynamics of that side of the staff, and switching to the 3-3-5 willy-nilly in the middle of the season?
And really, I've only got double digit pages left, but I'm terribly disappointed that the beaver never gets brought up. It may go down as the greatest WTF moment in Michigan football history.
It's perfectly fair to concentrate on the politics rather than the X's & O's as the theme of your book (I don't think it nearly comes close to telling the story of the last 3 years that way...but he can choose to tell whatever story he wants). But if you're amazed at the politics that goes on behind the scenes at a University, but turn a complete blind eye to the politics that are going on right in front of you with the staff you're embedded with, repeatedly...well, I don't know what that says about the book. Because I don't know how you can't corroborate things that are happening with the guys you're hanging out with every day, but you can in meetings you weren't in on that took place between 2 or 3 people, and in some cases where none of them will talk to you.
What authority do you think Dave Brandon has over Dhani Jones' mouth?
I agree with what RVB said a few months ago. The fact is, however, the school DOES have some authority over Van Bergen - it doesn't over millionaire NFL players.
Someone can say "Hey, stop that", and maybe they did, I don't know. But simply - Martin and Brandon can't control Braylon and others. The closest thing I saw was Carr calling out Trent's accusation that Rodriguez's staff slandered him (Trent), and that was likely because Trent involved Carr in his lie.
I think that if you're under the impression that Braylon Edwards takes people's counsel as to how he should behave, you're giving him too much credit.
What authority do you think Dave Brandon has over Dhani Jones' mouth?
I don't think anybody has authority, or control, over Dhani Jones' mouth. We quickly ruled out Dhani Jones, and after that, we ran out of suspects.
Yes, Dave Brandon, VP of Alumni Censorship.
Come on, man! Think!
Issued the reprimand, it strikes me as something Brady Hoke would do. It would also explain why RVB has been so prominently interviewed. True, he's a good interview, but it is the coaching staff (Hoke) that makes him available. It seems to me that if DB reprimanded RVB, Hoke would be more reluctant in allowing him to be interviewed. Hoke, on the other hand, were he the one that reprimanded RVB, would be more comfortable allowing his being interviewed.
Off topic I know but maybe Bacon's next book will be the story of the 2009-2010 Cleveland Cavaliers and what the hell really went on with Lebron in the playoffs. Did he quit on the team cause he knew he was going to Miami? Did his mom really hook with another player? Did Shaq walk in on them? Did a fight really break out on the team plane coming back from Boston after game 4? According to Bill Simmons it's the greatest single mystery in sports right now.
That team won over 60 games, blew out Chicago in round 1 and then completely tanked after game three in the Boston series. Something happened but nobody's talking. Maybe Bacon can find out the truth.
I would pay a LOT of money to read that book. Or any book that might take a behind the scenes look at exactly what happened when the greatest basketball player of his generation choked 3 years in a row during the playoffs.
He had one of the greatest series ever in their loss to Orlando.
Cleveland lost that series because they couldn't stop the Magic, not because LeBron 'choked'
Aw hell, I'll just save those two cents, put them together with 13 more cents, and I'll have enough money to buy Rosenberg's book. (Really - this is pasted directly from the Amazon site. 15 cents! Way to go, Rosenberg!)
Started crying again.
As long as we are on the subject of Rosenberg, I wanted to add this.
In the book, Bacon does something which I would not have expected Brian to do, which was to get all journalistic-y with Rosenberg; and Bacon asked Rosenberg about Jon Chait's criticism as to why Rosenberg would assign himself to the Stretchgate story, when his main gig was to be a columnist and he had been becoming a rather unfriendly opinionator with respect to Rodriguez. Why not just turn it over to Snyder, the beat-writer, and an investigtive writer.
In the book, Rosenberg tosses off the question saying that the paper had no sports dept. investigative writers to assign, and that the Freep sports staff was stretched too thin, or didn't have the resources. I leave the exact quotes to the book, and to Bacon, and Rosenberg if he wishes to rebut.
But what I do know for a fact is that before the publication on the weekend of August 29-30, 2009, Rosenberg had not FOIA'ed anything from Michigan's Athletic Department for purposes of his 'investigation,' and Snyder's FOIA's (there were just a couple) were tangential 'gotcha' items like "Has the football program ever been found guilty of an Major Violations by the NCAA in its history." And Snyder did that late in the game. It was so thkat they could include a line in the story about how clean Michigan had always been, and now...
But AFTER the story was published on the front page of the Sunday paper, one of the Freep's senior investigative reporters, Jim Schaefer, got on the story, and he issued a FOIA (again, after the story was published) asking for something like every document relating to Countable Hours from the beginning of time.
I know, because I FOIA'ed the Freep's FOIAs and I have copies of the Snyder/Schaefer emails.
So here again is a case of Rosenberg not having a good answer to the question, and the more he says, the less credible he seems to be. The Freep had no trouble assigning Jim Schaefer to dig into all of the paperwork, but it was only after Rosenberg's shot had been fired.
Yes indeed. And my happiness might even be more real than yours.
I'm not sure if this has been covered before, but are you (or were you, at some point) a journalist yourself?
I'm just trying to get at the level of obsession you have with this thing - you actually filed a FOIA request in order to get your hands on Rosenberg's FOIA request? If Brian did that, or someone else with a serious blog did that, it would make some sense. But if you did it just to fuel your Rosenberg Is an Asshole vendetta ... man, that's some high-octane crazy right there. I think Rosenberg's an asshole, and I know his reporting was both unethical in intent, dishonest in execution, and disgusting in the way it was defended with silence and straight-up lies in the aftermath. We all know that.
I just hope you can start to move on now. I hope you don't do anything really crazy with regard to the Freep or to Rosenberg. Ultimately, the effect of Rosenberg's bullshit was to put an undeserved blemish on the football program and to contribute fractionally (and I would debate that it's a relatively small fraction, though I know you feel differently) to the firing of a football coach. In the meantime, he made Rodriguez go through a lot of bullshit that negatively affected his quality of life. And that's it. That's the sum total of the Jihad. Some perspective is required.
And, I don't know if you've read the book yet. Having read all of my stuff and Brian's on this blog, you actually won't learn much new about what Rosenberg did that was so offensive. But what the book will tell you, which I never could, is how badly the whole mess affected the coaches and the team.
So what you think is "the sum total of the Jihad" is probably not what you may have thought.
Speaking of minor characters, you know who else comes off as being every bit the douchebag that we all suspect him to be? Mark Dantonio. Page 361 for those of you who have the book.
Disclaimer: I still need to pick up a copy. However, I have read all the spoilers and I have one burning question that I've seen some others mention, but no one has really offered an answer:
Why would Lloyd go out on a limb to offer RichRod (beyond his authority really) and then turn on him in such a short time? Surely Lloyd of anyone, would know it takes at least 3 years to make such a drastic change in scheme. Lloyd of anyone knew what the future talent level looked like.
My guesses of possible motives, and I'd love to hear others thoughts since Carr will probably never speak of this:
1. Lloyd had plans for Hoke or someone else all along, and wanted to set RR up for failure all along. This is devious, but possible
2. Similar to #1, but maybe Lloyd got tired of all the "lloydball" talk and though that switching to a "radical" spread offense that failed might bring the fans crying back for "manball". Again, devious.
3. Lloyd genuinely believed in RR but other forces came into play and either drove a wedge between Lloyd and RR, or caused Lloyd to rethink his opinion of RR. I find this hard to believe since Lloyd seems to be a smart man and stubborn in his ways. I don't think others would influence him.
4. Lloyd simply felt RR was not getting it done on the field (again, I would find this hard to believe given what Lloyd knows about football, and specifically UofM's short term future).
5. RR did something to piss of LLoyd
6. Lloyd felt RR was embarassing the program (court cases, bad press, stretchgate, etc). Maybe it churned his stomach.
7. We know Lloyd alledgedly asked RR to "have your people stop smearing me". Maybe Lloyd (probably wrongfully) felt others were against him earlier and put him on the defense early on?
Anything else? I apologize if this is in the book, I haven't seen anyone really answer this, and to me it's the saddest part of the story. To put myself in RR's position, to have a successful predecessor hand pick you as their successor and then turn on you in a matter of 2-3 years is tragic.
About 2/3 through the book. Hard reliving 08-09, but agree with previous comments that having Rosenberg (and Snyder) discredited as serious journalists was fun to read. I hope that hack suffers professionally.