There's absolutely no way that ends up on a bulletin board somewhere
One Thread to Rule Them All: Analysis of the Freep article on Dorsey's past
Filed under:
[Note: I have two hours to write this and then I have to go. I won't be back until late tonight. I know it is bad form to put up a diary and then disappear. Note also that this diary is focused on the journalism of the article itself. Others have already done a better job expressing the human side of this story, especially this thread.]
On the surface, the primary Freep article on this topic, A look inside Demar Dorsey’s recruitment to Michigan: What police records show; what U-M’s recruit says (link is to printer-ready version, no ads), is not problematic. It gives Demar a voice, and it lays out most of the facts. Fine.
On closer inspection, however, there are two not-so-hidden agendas in the article that deserve our attention. One is its attempt to defend Drew Sharp by continuing to argue that "Dorsey will be able to play college football … thanks to breaks he has gotten from the law" -- that he received "special consideration from law enforcement authorities" because he was "one of the country's highest-rated defensive backs." The other questionable aspect of the article is in its attempt to portray Rich Rodriguez as being disingenuous in his "wrong place, wrong time" comment. Neither of these gambits holds up under scrutiny.
Let's start with the first, which is a more subtle and pernicious version of Sharp's inflammatory "O.J." claim. One obvious point to be made is that in the summer of 2007, when Demar was still 15, he was not yet "one of the country's highest-rated defensive backs." He hadn't yet played as a sophomore in high-school. The consideration Demar received was the same the juvenile division gives any kid at that age in those circumstances. Maria Schneider, the assistant state attorney in charge, says as much in the article:
However, where the Freep's thesis breaks down entirely is when it comes to the more serious felony armed-robbery charge brought against Demar later, when he was older. First, let me say that this is quite obviously what Rich Rodriguez was referring to when he said "You have to look into why he was in the wrong place at the wrong time." Dorsey was present in a car that was used in a mugging with a pellet gun. Here's what Demar had to say about it:
Plus, let's not forget the other big-picture point here. If Dorsey was getting "special consideration" because of his status as a star athlete, how is it that he was arraigned and brought to trial before a jury? If he had done it, he would have been convicted. Indeed, we can surmise that someone else was convicted of the crime from the judge's statement:
That's about it, then. The Freep says Demar got a huge break, but he was brought to trial before a jury. That doesn't sound like much of a break to me. Moreover, a judge and/or jury decided that he didn't do it and that he was indeed in "the wrong place at the wrong time." Only someone with an agenda could possibly argue that Rich meant the burglaries, which Demar confessed to, by "the wrong place at the wrong time." The Freep jihad lives on!
On the surface, the primary Freep article on this topic, A look inside Demar Dorsey’s recruitment to Michigan: What police records show; what U-M’s recruit says (link is to printer-ready version, no ads), is not problematic. It gives Demar a voice, and it lays out most of the facts. Fine.
On closer inspection, however, there are two not-so-hidden agendas in the article that deserve our attention. One is its attempt to defend Drew Sharp by continuing to argue that "Dorsey will be able to play college football … thanks to breaks he has gotten from the law" -- that he received "special consideration from law enforcement authorities" because he was "one of the country's highest-rated defensive backs." The other questionable aspect of the article is in its attempt to portray Rich Rodriguez as being disingenuous in his "wrong place, wrong time" comment. Neither of these gambits holds up under scrutiny.
Let's start with the first, which is a more subtle and pernicious version of Sharp's inflammatory "O.J." claim. One obvious point to be made is that in the summer of 2007, when Demar was still 15, he was not yet "one of the country's highest-rated defensive backs." He hadn't yet played as a sophomore in high-school. The consideration Demar received was the same the juvenile division gives any kid at that age in those circumstances. Maria Schneider, the assistant state attorney in charge, says as much in the article:
We are dealing with kids. The vast majority of kids stop offending. I hope this is one of them. … We try to take juveniles and judge them by the circumstances surrounding them. There are many, many things that can be taken into account.The facts are clear. Dorsey was twice sent to a diversion program, once as a first-time offender, and once because he confessed to participating in two burglaries on the same day. The police told the second victim about Dorsey's promise as an athlete and asked him what he wanted to happen:
I responded that I didn’t want the guy to get away scot-free because he freaked me out, to be honest about it. … But I didn’t want to screw the kid’s life up forever.So there you have it -- the victim/witness made the decision. Three older kids were convicted. Two younger kids where not. [I'm assuming that, because the Freep couldn't find a conviction for the other younger kid, there isn't one.] Okay, so there's some room for argument here. Demar's promising future was a factor. Just as it would be with any other kid with extenuating circumstances: high grades, class president, whatever.
However, where the Freep's thesis breaks down entirely is when it comes to the more serious felony armed-robbery charge brought against Demar later, when he was older. First, let me say that this is quite obviously what Rich Rodriguez was referring to when he said "You have to look into why he was in the wrong place at the wrong time." Dorsey was present in a car that was used in a mugging with a pellet gun. Here's what Demar had to say about it:
We was right down here going to my house. We dropped one of our players off, one of our teammates off. When we were dropping them off, they got out the car, tried to rob somebody. I was still in the car.So what do you think the Freep follows up this quote with? A rational reader would expect a comment on how, yes, indeed, Doresey does seem to have been in the wrong place at the wrong time in this case. But no... Here's what the Freep writers follow the above quote with: "Dorsey’s admissions to police in the … burglaries contrast with the portrait drawn of Dorsey’s actions by Rodriguez." No mention at all of how the armed-robbery incident fits Rod's statement perfectly.
Plus, let's not forget the other big-picture point here. If Dorsey was getting "special consideration" because of his status as a star athlete, how is it that he was arraigned and brought to trial before a jury? If he had done it, he would have been convicted. Indeed, we can surmise that someone else was convicted of the crime from the judge's statement:
The defendants all blamed one another as to who committed the armed robbery. My guess is what it came down to was identification.Was someone else convicted of this crime? Odd that the Freep would go to press without finding out this simple, verifiable fact. Let's also not forget that there is a jury verdict extant from the trial. It's right here. The verdict says very plainly that Demar has "been acquitted by a jury." I'm not a lawyer, but this document seems to call into question the judge's recollection of dismissing the charge against Dorsey at trial. Funny that the Freep does not mention it.
That's about it, then. The Freep says Demar got a huge break, but he was brought to trial before a jury. That doesn't sound like much of a break to me. Moreover, a judge and/or jury decided that he didn't do it and that he was indeed in "the wrong place at the wrong time." Only someone with an agenda could possibly argue that Rich meant the burglaries, which Demar confessed to, by "the wrong place at the wrong time." The Freep jihad lives on!
February 5th, 2010 at 1:17 PM | 
My E-mail to the Editors at the Free Press Sports' Department
My E-mail to the Editors at the Free Press Sports' Department
February 5th, 2010 at 1:26 PM |
Nice work
Nice work
I would also point out more evidence of the Freep's agenda at work. The Freep promptly dispatched two reporters -- one of whom, Jim Schaefer, is an actual investigative journalist -- to pursue this Florida-based story, and then gave them a FULL PAGE to report what they found. To my knowledge, the Freep never dispatched ANYONE a whole 90 miles up the road to East Lansing to look into the pot-luck beatdown -- involving, of course, the on-campus activities of 15 local college players as opposed to one out-of-state 15-year-old kid -- and the total column inches the Freep has devoted to that story probably are half of what they gave this single article about Demar Dorsey. This, once again, shows that the problem is as much or more with the Freep's editorial "judgment" as with clowns like Drew Sharp.
February 5th, 2010 at 1:36 PM |
Real investigative journalism
Real investigative journalism
Real investigative journalism cannot turn out a story overnight, which is essentially what happened here, given the timeline between Dorsey's commitment and the subsequent appearance of the article on the Freep website. In no way can an author cover enough grounds to know all of the sides of the story in that amount of time. Schaefer knows this. Shoddy journalism at its finest...
February 5th, 2010 at 1:45 PM |
Reading List
Reading List
http://www.freep.com/article/20100202/SPORTS07/100202057/MSU-police-repo...
this was just from earlier in the week.
they're not ignorning this story at all. there are many more links I could provide.
February 5th, 2010 at 1:51 PM |
Agree in part
Agree in part
I'll admit that I wasn't aware of this recent story. Notice, however, that it consists almost entirely of stuff lifted from the police report, with no evidence of any independent investigation on the Freep's part. In the immediate aftermath of that incident, the only thing I remember reading in the Freep was a discussion with one of the player's parents, who of course said his kid (who later pled guilty) had done nothing wrong. Not exactly hard-hitting investigative journalism, was it?
February 5th, 2010 at 2:13 PM |
At least
At least
At least they are using whatever power FOIA gives them.
The article says they've filed multiple FOIA requests trying to get info. The Dorsey thing is a done deal and, as such, a lot easier to track facts down as opposed to an ongoing police investigation and legal action, which can be a lot trickier becuase cops and DAs dont really want the info public either. And, of course, MSU is clearly providing barriers to the reporters if they have to file multiple FOIAs.
I'd love to hear Crime Reporters input on how much harder it is to get info during an ongoing investigation as opposed to one thats been a done deal for years. The former there will always be roadblocks, even things like court gag orders that get in your way. The latter you can do from your desk with a few phone calls if you know who to call and how to ask questions.
I understand why people want to compare the coverage of these situations, but i think they are two different types of stories and its almost fruitless to compare and contrast for uor own partisan benefit.
February 6th, 2010 at 2:31 AM |
I don't understand you, jamiemac.
I don't understand you, jamiemac.
Are you actually comparing the Rather Hall/Dorsey situations?
Dorsey isn't accused of anything! There are no pending charges! It is old news; juvenile cases; CLOSED cases.
The MSU situation involves current pending charges of violent felonies, not to mention the number of players and the outrageous surrounding circumstances.
But whatever; as Brian Cook rightly pointed out, the better comparison is to Roderick Jenrette; he had a pre-admission criminal record. Forget Jenrette's involvement at Rather Hall. Forget Jenrette's dismissal from the team. Just focus instead on Jenrette's MSU enrollment. Where was the Free Press? Just how is that situation different from Dorsey.
I'm sorry, my friend. This is a pure case of disparate treatment of two stories by the Freep that screams out the evidence of the Freep's vendetta against Rich Rodriguez, even if it means running over the 18 year-old Dorsey.
February 5th, 2010 at 1:34 PM |
Eh
Eh
Eh, I think the story was fine. And pretty fair.
It would have been better had they just done one big story, rather than the constant updating of the same story on their site, but I guess that's a more modern, blog-like form of news gathering.
A good newspaper story will rub everyone involved the wrong way because it will bring up facts people dont want brought up.
And, of course we see bias. It's because we're biased about it in the first place.
I think its a good story and I think Rodriguez would have been better off addressing the issue more firmly with facts, rather than sugar coating it and leaving himself open to this kind of after-the-fact scrutiny on his statement.
I know it runs counter to everyone's feelings here, but not everything the freep or the media does is evil or inherently against michigan. looks like the freep at least took him up on his offer to go get all the facts.
Big difference between this story and the rambling of sharp in his column and podcast, IMHE.
February 5th, 2010 at 1:46 PM |
You're missing one point, however
You're missing one point, however
This particular story, within its four corners, might seem reasonably "fair." But part of its purpose -- as the OP shows -- was to shore up the crap previously shoveled by Sharp. The Freep did the same thing with their "practice-gate" story -- original POS written by Rosenberg, followed up later with a researched story (written, again, by Schaefer) that actually surveyed the practices of other schools, quoted players and coaches who noted the players' own motives for working more than the minimum hours, etc. I don't think you can so easily pick this particular story up out of the steaming pile of s**t that it lives with.
February 5th, 2010 at 2:03 PM |
Actually, no
Actually, no
Actually, no, the OP didnt really show anything but his own biases.
For example, the OP all but faults and alleges prejudicial reporting because the Freep claims the kid was given breaks because he was one of the top recruits in the nation. In fact, the story never said that.
The story did say he got breaks from law enforcement. And, the story also ID'ed Dorsey, in a separate graph, as on the top recruits in the nation. It never connected the two as related. The OP, however, is leading readers into believing that it was described as going together.
In fact, the story included commentary and a quote at the top of the story contradicting the notion he was given breaks soley on account of football skills. IT reported that said Dorsey was given a break like most juveniles would have. The commentary from folks in florida did say the kids involved with sports and other activities like it--not just stud recruits--get breaks because the structure that kind of activity will provide.
Look, we all have of our biases. A good new story has a tendency to cut the people involved because they only want their side and voiced represented. Its a news story. Not a fan blog.
February 5th, 2010 at 2:41 PM |
Actually, yes
Actually, yes
I'm sorry, but you have your facts wrong. In the article that appears on the front page of the sports section (which I'm holding in my hands right now -- it burns, it burns!), there appears the following sentence: "Dorsey, one of the country's highest-rated defensive backs, has that chance [to play for Michigan] because of special consideration from law enforcement authorities in Florida's Broward County." Is that a clear enough connection for you? As you point out, the detailed story four pages later refutes the thesis of special treatment -- so what does it say that the Freep still makes that claim on the front page? Can you really deny this evidence of an agenda?
And, again, you're ignoring the context of what preceded this story (which, I've already agreed with you, is reasonably fair within its four corners). Drew Sharp had explicitly stated that Dorsey got special treatment because of his football skills. Honestly, are you going to tell me that today's article retreats from that position in any way? It's like first calling someone a murderer, and then, only later, presenting facts (minus any editorial comment) that would allow a discerning reader to draw a different conclusion. All in all, this doesn't add up to a "news story" to me.
February 5th, 2010 at 3:02 PM |
How
How
How is that sentaece inaccurate? I dont think it is. And, since the ensuing graphs explain that it had little to do with his recruiting status, I think the reader is served pretty well here
Admittedly, I missed the sentence combining the two facts, but I dont think thats a misrepresenation at all. They didnt say one happened because of the other. Although, the statements from the folks in Florida did highlight his involvement with football as a positive in his favor. And, I'm glad they did as I'm a big believer in sports helping kids out like this. Again, I think college football and college football at Michigan in some part is about getting kids like Dorsey out of their troubled areas and into our great community. I want the kid here because I believe UM football has turns peoples lives around. Every year. Hell, every day, for that matter.
I can see why we partisans would think that's bias, but they explain the situation pretty cleary, IMHE. Had they not, then thats a different story.
Frankly, this piece and the Sharp pieces are different. Schaffer wasnt told to go prove Sharp right, for example. That's a stretch you and the OP are making. Sharp is a fiasco and what he has written in the past has been contradicted before by Freep reporting.
I dont think I've read his column in over 10 years. Sadly, I heard his podcast. For the Freep's own benefit, he should have been canned years ago because this is a pretty good news story that does look dodgy becuase its coming after Sharp's shenanigans. As someone who has had their own work undermined by an uninformed and biased columinst, I bet its better than 50/50 that this Shaffer cat doesnt like Sharp either.
Anyway, good discussion going on here. You probably wont buy it, but I enjoy journalism critiques and the discussion it ensues.
February 5th, 2010 at 3:17 PM |
Almost entirely agreed
Almost entirely agreed
I, like you, think it's a good thing that Dorsey got the treatment he did, whether it was "special" or not. And, of course, we all hope he takes advantage of the opportunity. I also agree that Schaefer likely wasn't sent out on a mission to prove Sharp right -- he was sent out to find facts like the actual journalist he is. (I also agree, though it's obviously speculation, that Schaefer probably isn't a fan of Sharp.) But once Schaefer found what he found, that's when the editorial judgment (some, like me, might say "agenda") of the Freep stepped in, to shape the story the way it actually appeared. Sorry, but as a writer myself, I hold myself responsible both for my actual verbiage and the inferences one can obviously draw from it. If you don't think that the two parts of that sentence (highly-rated player and "special consideration") were purposefully put together to advance an argument, then I'm afraid we will have to respectfully disagree on that point!
February 5th, 2010 at 3:53 PM |
Yes
Yes
yes, we'll respectfully disagree.
I echo and respect your principles as a writer. I was a reporter for 10 years of my life. I never purposely puts words, verbiage and inferences together to forward an agenda. Hell, I never had an agenda other than getting good stories, meeting deadlines and not dying of a heart attack working 80 hour weeks. Yet, every week I was accused of this constantly. I suppose that's why I am defending Schaffer's piece as a good one.
I had those accusations thrown my way by folks who either A.) just couldnt appreciate that the other side is allowed to have their side told and B.) folks who attempted to draw a parallel to what I was writing/reporting and what my editors were doing on the editorial pages and C.) just random folks for random things: I once wrote that the local jv hoop team was undefeated and beating opponents by a 'guady' 15 points per game and was stalked by parents for two weeks who thought I was being purposefully mean to their kids by using the word guady.
Getting back to B: I have two former editors, who were also the lead columnists for the papers, that I would punch in the mouth GBMW style if I saw them today becuase how difficult they made my life for cherry picking facts from my reporting to fit their own opinion pieces. It really tore at my own credibility in the worst way. But, none of these editors actually reworked phrases and such in my stories. Headlines? Another story. Their own columns? Another story.
Personally, I think you're looking way too deep into semantics. Had they not gone in depth to detail how the justice system worked in this case and not done it towards the top of the story, maybe I could buy this story as an example of an agenda. Anyone who reads this story and concludes this kid only got his breaks becuase of his star status is not really reading the story at all, IMHE.
February 5th, 2010 at 4:24 PM |
The problem is
The problem is
that the Freep seems to be trying to make the situation "B" you described go away by obliterating the line between reporting and editorializing. This point was made in the aftermath of their "practicegate" stories -- that opinion columnists like Rosenberg were being passed off as investigative journalists.
In the end, I think we're mostly arguing apples vs. oranges -- you keep pointing to this article itself as not advancing an agenda, but I can't see how the Freep gets to play it that way, having hopelessly muddled opinion and (precious few) facts in its coverage of the Michigan football program. Let's put it this way -- nothing in their overall coverage suggests that they think they are writing for people like you, who are able to judge each piece on its individual merits. I think they have a larger narrative in mind, and they're disingenuously pointing to the occasional article by a real journalist as cover for that. When you think (as I do) that they're insulting your intelligence in that way, articles like today's almost make it worse -- and, at a minimum, make you feel sorry for the guys who wrote it.
February 6th, 2010 at 2:21 AM |
jamiemac - There IS evidence of the Freep doing what you deny.
jamiemac - There IS evidence of the Freep doing what you deny.
I can be quite specific, too.
The Free Press' CARA/practice time story came out in the Sunday print edition on, I believe, August 28, 2008.
I knew that the Free Press had run that story without resonable notice to Rodriguez, Martin, the Athletic Department, etc. In fact, the Free Press called Michigan on the Friday before the story went up on the online Freep edition on Saturday. Basically, less than 24 hours' notice, for a long, complex story that the Freep had worked up for a month.
So I sent the University a FOIA request of my own; I asked for the Free Press' FOIAs. What I found out was that the Free Press NEVER sent FOIAs for any of the detailed information from the Compliance Services Office until AFTER the Rosenberg/Snyder story had run. In other words, they waited until their story (based entirely on anonymous sources) broke before Jim Schaefer started to collect any of the relevant paperwork.
Tell me that they aren't reporting to follow a predetermined agenda.
February 6th, 2010 at 7:50 AM |
jamiemac
jamiemac
Anyone who reads this story and concludes this kid only got his breaks becuase of his star status is not really reading the story at all, IMHE.
Yes, I would agree with that. That was my experience. I wish I had made that clearer -- indeed, it was the driver for my doing a full diary instead of 19 comments in various Board threads on the ridiculous handling of Rich's simple "wrong place, wrong time" comment. There is a disjunct between the information presented in the story and the main conclusion drawn from it, namely that DD received breaks that he would not have if he were not the star football player at the local high school.
We will have to disagree about the prominence of that argument in an otherwise (mostly) unproblematic story. IIRC, there were two places where the connection was quite clearly made: at the start, as argued above by InterM, and somewhere around the middle, near where the interview with the burglary victim/witness appears.
The other thing that really bugged me was the failure to investigate the judge's hazy recollection of the case that went to trial: "My guess is what it came down to was identification." What does that mean? The article doesn't say. I guess the implication is that the jury didn't convict anyone because the accused were all blaming one another. If so, the failure to convict anyone should be easily verifiable. So why wasn't that done? Or does it mean that someone was identified, presumably by the victim? Were the suspects all tried together? We don't know, at least not from this article.
February 5th, 2010 at 1:49 PM |
Agreed
Agreed
I have gone on about this enough in other threads, but I agree. Sharp's radio thing was over the top and his column was pushing it. I think the article in today's / last night's paper is reasonable and pretty fair.
February 6th, 2010 at 2:09 AM |
"What" is not today's journalism question.
"What" is not today's journalism question.
No -- today's question is, "Why"?
Why this story? Why this story, with this level of detail, given this amount of prominence? Why now, when Dorsey is in no trouble, not accused of any wrongdoing, and isn't even involved in any pending trouble as a subject of, say, a recruiting or other rules violation?
An editor's job is not merely to fact-check what his writers write. The editor needs to address wider questions of context and meaning. If I were to dig up, and publish, the juvenile arrest records of a Free Press editor's children, and post those records in srupulously accurate detail on the internet, I bet that you (and many others) would think that an outrageous act on my part. I would justify it by saying, "It calls into question the judgment of the Free Press editor, and it is important information for any prospective employer of the editor and the editor's child. Its public information." So what is different about Demar Dorsey? What is it that makes him such a fair target for reporting, however accurate, about his juvenile past?
February 5th, 2010 at 2:06 PM |
Biased crap article
Biased crap article
It was better than Sharp's but still made unsubstantiated assertions, mainly that Dorsey got special treatment.
Poor journalism, poor ethics.
It's sad that the FREEP had to dredge up crap on a student and smear him just because he's a football recruit.
Very sad.
In a better world, Sharp would be fired and the FREEP would apologize.
But that won't happen.
Let's let it die.
February 5th, 2010 at 2:19 PM |
unsubstantiated assertions?
unsubstantiated assertions?
What? They had quotes and commentary from the people involved in the Dorsey case explaining why he got special treatment. And, that that treatment was generally no different than what most Juvy's would have received and that being involved with a structured activity like football helped.
there was nothing unsubstantiated about it. its all attributed to named sources, which is more than I can say for most of rumors that are spread around certain parts of the M blogosphere about the lloyd carr cabal tearing down michigan from the inside that a percentage of this board has swallowed whole.
February 5th, 2010 at 2:39 PM |
"Let's let it die?"
"Let's let it die?"
Are you the new moderator of mgoblog? Why not just trust everyone here to be mature enough to make their own decisions on when to speak and when to be silent?
Mgoblog is full of passionate, intelligent fans who are perfectly capable of making their own decisions. Since that is what makes mgoblog such a great place, I would suggest that we simply allow that passion and intellect to run its own course.
And that appears to be exactly what is happening here.
February 5th, 2010 at 2:57 PM |
Misdemeanor State...
Misdemeanor State...
I don't mean to be one of those guys that gets personal here, but this probably is in some manner. I apologize in advance for being kind of a dick, but something compels me to say this.
What's with the Misdemeanor State and Drew Dull stuff? If you can get negged into oblivion for using Spartina or MSUcks or O$U, why is it ok to go on with this? I think it adds nothing to the discussion and makes you look petty and immature. The tag line also is kind of disingenuous. Is there a record of a State recruit coming in with a misdemeanor conviction or a record any worse than Dorsey's? (I ask this honestly) Should our tag line be, "dominating out of state recruiting one criminal at a time" now?
You're obviously a passionate fan and generally have pretty good insight into things, I just don't think it's necessary to ruin it with stupid stuff like that.
February 6th, 2010 at 8:13 AM |
I see
I see
Tater has changed it, but surely it was a reference to the nine MSU football players who were recently charged with misdemeanors in East Lansing. It had nothing to do with recruiting.
February 7th, 2010 at 7:53 PM |
Wow
Wow
Relax, buddy.
Are YOU the new moderator of Mgoblog?
I made a suggestion.
Dorsey threads are full of similar but much less polite and much stronger sentiments.
You should follow your own extremely opinionated advice.
February 5th, 2010 at 2:24 PM |
Let me ask these questions very simply.
Let me ask these questions very simply.
Has the Free Press EVER focused such attention on a football recruit's past record?
Why this focus on Demar Dorsey?
Why now? In particular, why is Dorsey's past now such a major, front-Sports-page-continuing-for-a-full-inside-page story?
I COULD UNDERSTAND, IF WE WERE CURRENTLY DEALING WITH A SITUATION IN WHICH DORSEY WAS CURRENTLY ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN INVOLVED IN ANY ILLEGAL ACTIVITY, OR PERHAPS EVEN IF HIS RECRUITMENT WERE THOUGHT TO HAVE BEEN VIOLATIVE OF NCAA RULES. I COULD EVEN UNDERSTAND IT, IF DORSEY'S PAST HAD BEEN A COLLATERAL ISSUE, SAY, IN ANOTHER STATEMENT BY RODRIGUEZ, OR DORSEY, OR THE MICHIGAN ATHLETIC DEPARTMENT. IN WHICH SOMEONE HAD SAID SOMETHING UNTRUE, COVERING UP DORSEY'S PAST. BUT NONE OF THOSE THINGS ARE APPLICABLE TO THE FREE PRESS TREATMENT OF DORSEY AND RODRIGUEZ. NONE OF THOSE PARTICULARS ARE, IN THIS CASE, TRUE.
I do understand the internet convention that "all caps" is "yelling." I am yelling.
February 5th, 2010 at 6:03 PM |
A comment
A comment
on another thread pointed out that DetNews and the Fr**p are partners. I don't know how much to read into this.
Does it mean that both papers are manipulated by a larger entity, maybe Gannett, as a sort of good-cop/bad-cop combo to glean income from a cross section of readers, and that ultimately Drew Sharp answers to the same boss as Angelique Chengelis? Does it mean that our boycotts and utilization of revenue-free print links and anger are impotent unless we also direct them against the folks who write Angelique's paychecks?
I'm hoping someone can tell me that the papers sink or swim separately, that they can be treated separately, and that it means something to direct our ire against the offending paper alone.
February 5th, 2010 at 6:37 PM |
J.O.A.
J.O.A.
Freep and News entered into a Joint Operating Agreement in the late 1980s. Editorial content is mostly separate. Business end is basically one and the same. They have even been sharing the same building for years.
Now, its a little murkier with recent mergers and such. Here's some more info, per wiki:
February 5th, 2010 at 6:54 PM |
Phew.
Phew.
Is it true about Thursday-Friday-only home delivery? Things have come a long way since I lived in the land of ice and snow.
So, until I hear anything more definitive, my boycott of the paper that doesn't publish Angelique Chengelis is still on.
February 5th, 2010 at 2:25 PM |
Tired
Tired
I am tired of the Dorsey/Freep train of events. I hope he has a great football career at Michigan and an uneventful one as a student, that will in the end be more than enough to prove DS is a jerk.
Semper Fidelis
February 5th, 2010 at 4:49 PM |
Heartless Bastards
Heartless Bastards
Really. I'm not tired of this conversation. It needs to be discussed. What the Freep has done is throw an 18 year old kid under the bus. A kid who admittedly engaged in illegal activities. Yet for two years he has kept a clean record.
Aside: how many times have ADULT athletes screwed up, gone to rehab, or simply "apologized" and are immediately greeted with standing O's?
Anyway, we all know kids who have screwed up at 15 or 16 and then try to get their lives in order and move forward as good citizens. And we support and encourage them because IT IS THE RIGHT THING TO DO. At least if you have some compassion. Evidently not the Freep. They're just heartless bastards. And they will toss a kid overboard if it advances their agenda against RichRod. It's an obsession. Ahab and the whale and any damage is acceptable if it means getting the whale. Included damage to an 18 year old trying to do things the right way.
So, to Paul Anger and Mark Snyder and Michael Rosenberg, I hope your children are never in the wrong place at the wrong time. Or never fall in with the wrong crowd. But if they do, and it happens, I surely hope the adults they come into contact with have more decency and compassion then you have shown. Shame on you all.
Adams Axiom: The major difference between something that might go wrong and something that can not possibly go wrong is that when a thing that can not possibly go wrong goes wrong it usually turns out to be impossible to get at or repair.
February 5th, 2010 at 6:05 PM |
No Link from Main Freep Landing Page to Articles
No Link from Main Freep Landing Page to Articles
The links and descriptions of the Dorsey articles at the paper's main landing site, freep.com, are gone. The headlines still appear in the "most popular" section. Pretty quick hook for a world-wide exclusive story of earth-shattering importance.
February 5th, 2010 at 7:19 PM |
Here or There
Here or There
To me the bottom line is this: So fucking what if Dorsey DID receive special treatment because of a proposed future in football? It's called a sign of hope for the kid.
He has a future, and the ever-crowding courts and jails system should look at kids who have something going for them and allow them to pursue that avenue. Dorsey had no record as a violent or threatening criminal.
I can't even believe this is a sniff of a story. If the authorities in Florida decided to give him a break in the hope he would not become a permanent part of the system, and for two years he has kept himself clean, that's good for me!
Oh, wait, we could just keep him in jail or on probation and rotate him in and out, sending him back to the streets with less and less hope until he becomes one more statistic or young dead black man that we all turned our backs on.
The only thing that really matters is sex.
February 5th, 2010 at 7:58 PM |
Drew Sharp is
Drew Sharp is
a misnomer. His name should really be Drew Dull.
AJ Bluefan
February 5th, 2010 at 8:01 PM |
Diversion
Diversion
I am a lawyer and while I do not practice criminal law, my firm represents a number of school districts. From helping them through the legalities of student discipline (it can be more complicated than you think), I have some experience with how the authorities handle juvenile offenders. From that experience, diversion programs are, in fact, very common. The idea is to help a kid rather than jail him/her for a couple of years until they reach adulthood. If the kid doesn't learn, they stop offering it and try the kid. Seems like that is what happened here. There doesn't appear to be any special treatment by the authorities in Flordia here.
"Thank You Team 132!"
February 5th, 2010 at 11:25 PM |
Press passes
Press passes
Can we return to Fortress Michigan, and pull press clearances for the DFP? Has it ever been done? Is there anything to lose?
I want to be the man Fred Jackson says I am
February 6th, 2010 at 1:57 AM |
RR's Fault......
RR's Fault......
I have been a strong supporter of RR and the changes he is trying to bring to the Michigan program. I was also a huge critic of Lloyd in his final years for various reasons, mostly related to his conservative approach. But RR is at fault here for one major miscalculation....or simply not recalculating his approach.
If there was one thing Lloyd had a handle on, it was the douchebag media in the Ann Arbor/Detroit area and the blatant anti-Michigan or specific targeted bias of pathetic journalism such as the Free Press.....
Lloyd gave these losers as little info or insight as possible, and shot the death stare at idiotic questions when needed. RR has been open and amiable with the press...and his repayment, they continually shit on him. The "awe shucks" hillbilly approach is endearing and may work at WVU, but in Ann Arbor the elite story hungry excuses for journalists will shit on you at any opportunity presented.
RR needs to punish these irresponsible yellow journalists. Close practice, withhold information, favor only the reporters who are not so transparently driven by their own agenda.
RR....Your problem is not going after kids without perfect pasts. Demar Dorsey deserves this shot and so do many other kids with some issues from their youth. The problem is...you give douche bags like drew sharpe an inch and they take a mile. You extend a finger, he'll grab the hand. Cut these assholes off RR, they have proven themselves unworthy of producing any piece without putting a ridiculous anti-Michigan spin on it. Cut them off RR, they deserve not your kindness or cooperation.
Finally, just win baby. Win, and all this trash becomes irrelavant.
BILG
I am hacked, and I just sent an following e-mail to all of the editors.
____________________________________________
From:
Sent: Friday, February 05, 2010 11:48 AM
To: 'gmyers@freepress.com'
Cc: 'jjahnke@freepress.com'; 'tpanzenhagen@freepress.com'; 'kbull@freepress.com'; 'mdelagarza@freepress.com'; 'ssolon@freepress.com'
Subject: Disappointed by Editorial Decisions
Importance: High
I am a 40+-year subscriber to the Free Press, and I am disgusted by the editorial decisions associated with the recent articles on the Michigan football recruit. They constituted an intentional attack on an 18-year-old soley because he is a football recruit. It is amazing that Florida, Florida State, and USC -- and many other schools -- came to the same conclusion as to his character and were willing to offer him a scholarship.
THE FREE PRESS WOULD HAVE EVERY RIGHT TO RUN A DETAILED PERSONAL HISTORY ON THIS STUDENT'S PAST -- IF AND ONLY IF HE COMMITS TRANSGRESSIONS AFTER ENROLLING AT MICHIGAN.
What is the Detroit Free Press's criteria for publishing these articles? I would be most interested in your reply.
Your apparent motive was to create buzz and controversy. Mission accomplished. If a student get trashed mercilessly on the front page, oh well. I think the editorial decisions to run Drew Sharp's column, the text of the headline of Drew Sharp's column, and this latest story were disgusting.
Let's see a extended, special-edition story on the child of a current Detroit Free Press writer who has made bad decisions as a teen.
Reporting on the alleged NCAA violations was justified, whatever one's opinion of whether the articles were fair or well written. There was no excuse for publishing these articles.
What next? I am certain that another Michigan football recruit has an ex-girlfriend with a great story.