Brian has done enough "un-freeping" the past week so I figured I'd handle this lame editor response for him.  Four specific things caught my eye when I read the article.

1. "Last weekend, the Free Press published a report about the University of Michigan football program that was a month in the making, based on interviews by reporters Michael Rosenberg and Mark Snyder with former and current players and a detailed review of rules governing the sport."

Yes, this groundbreaking/earth-shattering expose' took a grand total of ONE month to form.  This is basically an admission that no work was done to examine the opposite side of things (WVU's clean compliance records, the widespread opinions of current and former - HA see what I did there? - college coaches and players such as Herbstreit, Tressel, et. al., the 99% of current M players and their parents who DON'T think there is any problem with what is going on).

2. "Rodriguez said he would no longer ask players to report for duty on Sundays."

As stated by RR this week, last year players came in on Sundays and had Mondays off, and this year they will have Sundays off and come in on Mondays.  Anger makes no mention of this - his implication seems to be that RR feels like he got caught so he is ceasing activities on Sundays to try and atone for his wrongdoings or soothe the worries of his dectractors.

3. "The backlash has included threats against Rosenberg and Snyder. One gem from the fanatical fringe: 'I'm a person of strong moral conviction ... however, I wish nothing but pain and death to you.'"  

Also: "Rosenberg is primarily a sports columnist but, like many columnists, is also an excellent reporter. In columns, he's been critical of Rodriguez, as some cyberspace conspiracy theorists point out."

This is a textbook response from someone who cannot refute the claims being made by the other side - you see it all the time in politics: Ignore the 99% of people who have legitimate, logical points and questions and instead focus on the far extreme fringe who say something really dumb and easily refutable.  And while you're at it, slap a good ol' ad hominem on it for the cherry on top.

4. "At the annual media day event where reporters mingle with players made available by the coaches, two freshmen on scholarship freely answered questions about the team's off-season programs, including workouts. You can question, as some have, including the father of one freshman, whether we should have quoted them."

That is totally not the issue at all.  There is absolutely nothing wrong with quoting freshmen, and no one has argued this.  The issue that we fans have is that their quotes were taken and used in such a way that upset Hawthorne and Stokes and motivated them to go to their coach and ask him what they did wrong.  When the question about how hard they were working was asked, whichever writer asked it conveniently failed to mention that he was going to use their words in a story alleging that the UM football coaches broke NCAA rules and that the program could suffer possible sanctions as a result.

After reading this half-ass counter-punch, it is painfully obvious as to why the original article got out in the first place - Snyder and Rosenberg's editor is just as clueless as they are.