Writing a Report on Freep Sports Bias

Submitted by Seth9 on
I am currently in the early stages of writing a report that will speak to whether or not the Detroit Free Press has demonstrated a clear double standard with regards to Michigan and Michigan State and whether the Detroit Free Press has a bias towards Michigan State (or against Michigan) in its reporting. My first intention is to send questions regarding a perceived bias on the part of the Free Press sports department to every editor on the Free Press staff, as well as every reporter there who has written any articles concerning collegiate athletics. I will also ask various MSU fans in the blogosphere of their opinion on such a possibility. As such, I have prepared a preliminary list of Freep reports that appear to demonstrate an anti-Michigan bias on the part of the Free Press. I am aware that this list is somewhat derivative of topics that have been heavily discussed on this blog. However, my goal is to develop a comprehensive list of incidents suggesting journalistic bias, which requires that a comprehensive list of incidents of potential bias be formed. As this list is probably flawed and incomplete, I would be grateful for any comments regarding the list of topics, as well as suggestions for additional points that I could add to the list.

List of Instances Suggesting a Potential Journalistic Bias by The Detroit Free Press Sports Department

·  Concerns Regarding the Free Press investigation on alleged practice violations by Michigan:

o Rosenberg and Snyder do not, at any point in their investigation, explain what they mean when they term the Michigan practices “mandatory”. They claim that Rodriguez and the coaching staff called extra-hour practices voluntary but these were actually required, without specifying what the consequences of missing these practices were. For instance, it could well be the case that players who did not attend voluntary practices were denied playing time. However, that would not be a violation, because the coaches could correctly argue that they award players who put in extra work playing time. It would be a violation to threaten to kick a player off the team for failing to show up at these practices. The only consequence specified for failing to show up at voluntary practices was extra work at practice, according to the report, which makes sense when you consider that they would need to work harder if they were going to catch up to their teammates in terms of physique and skill level in order to play. As none of the consequences specified for failing to show up for voluntary practices broke NCAA rules, I fail to see how Rosenberg and Snyder can legitimately call these practices mandatory in the context of violating NCAA rules.

o The report failed to specify that any strength and conditioning sessions outside of practice hours can be considered voluntary, so long as missing the sessions do not jeopardize a player’s status as a member of the team. The same goes for 7-on-7 scrimmages and various other activities.

o The only alleged violation in the report that is specifically defined is the presence of quality-control staffers at 7-on-7 practices. None of the other specified practice violations are explained in a matter such as being irrefutably in opposition to existing NCAA practice rules.

o There is no reason given for allowing the former members of the Michigan football team to remain anonymous, especially when former team member Toney Clemons came forward publically with accusations. As the Michigan coaching staff lacks the ability to sanction former players, there is no reason to allow former players to function as anonymous sources.

o The distribution of current and former players is never specified. Also unspecified is whether any of the named interviewed players (including Stokes and Hawthorne) counted to the total number of 10 current and former players. Furthermore, the number of current players who are anonymous sources is never specified.

o On September 5, the Free Press released an article acknowledging that a 2006 survey showed that high level collegiate football players spend an average of 44.8 hours on football. Furthermore, it was noted in that article that there was big question surrounding whether hours beyond the 20-hour limit were considered mandatory or voluntary. The Free Press willfully ignored this in its initial coverage, waiting a week to release this story. Doing so was an unethical method of attempting to increase the ‘importance’ of the original story.

o The article entitled “MSU plays by the rules, says ex-players” should never have been published. It is impossible to compare a few interviews with ex-MSU players with an investigation that took months to complete. Including that article alongside the Michigan Practice investigation is highly unethical.

o The coverage of the online reaction to the Free Press investigation from the Michigan blogosphere amounted to little more than an ad hominem attack. Rather than address the validity of any points about the investigation made by the Michigan blogosphere, the Free Press published an article that was designed to make the entire forum of the complaints look ridiculous. For instance, it noted that the coverage from mgoblog regarding the investigation was entitled Jihad the Second, without explaining the satirical intent. Furthermore, it noted that a petition urging a boycott of the Free Press appeared in the same forum as petitions made about saving television shows. In doing so, the Free Press acknowledged that there is a sizable segment of Michigan fans who disbelieve their report without actually naming a single reason they have for doing so, something that is ethically dubious if the Free Press truly desires to make a balanced report about the online reaction to their investigation.

·  Concerns regarding the Free Press Coverage on Demar Dorsey

o The coverage of Demar Dorsey has failed to acknowledge the fact that recruiting players with his history in college football is commonplace.

o The coverage of Demar Dorsey has failed to acknowledge that Michigan State has taken players with similar histories (exp. Roderick Jenrette) onto their team. Furthermore, the Free Press has failed to report on any Michigan State recruits with similar criminal backgrounds in the past.

o I question the logic of the lack of any major coverage surrounding Glenn Winston’s return to the team after being released from prison and Demar Dorsey’s signing. It suggests that the Free Press considers that Mark Dantonio’s policy of giving second chances for violent offenses committed as adults is not overly objectionable, but Rich Rodriguez’s policy of giving second chances for non-violent offenses committed as minors is overly objectionable. This speaks to a double standard when comparing Michigan and Michigan State.

·  Examples of a Double Standard Regarding Michigan and Michigan State Employed by the Free Press

o The Free Press Practice Investigation Page includes 57 individual stories, most written over the course of the first couple weeks. The Free Press page on the Spartan altercation at Rather Hall includes 13 stories.

§ This is an issue because it shows that the Free Press considers a potential NCAA violation regarding Michigan practicing too much as more important than a large number of Michigan State football players being prosecuted for acts of violence.

§ It should be noted that certain stories concerning the Rather Hall altercation are omitted from the Rather Hall Coverage Page, such as an interview with Mark Dell Sr., an article that heavily features the father of Mark Dell Jr., one of the players charged with assault and battery. In the article, Dell Sr. claims that his son was innocent further claims that only a few of the charged players actually committed acts of violence. Later, Dell Jr. pled guilty to a count of misdemeanor assault and battery. The article can be found and purchased in the Free Press archive. At the time the article was released, no coverage was given regarding any statements made by any of the victims of the assaults.

o Feagin and Winston

§ When Justin Feagin was kicked off the Michigan football team for his involvement in a rather unclear situation involving an aborted cocaine deal that turned violent, the Free Press released an opinion article, written by Michael Rosenberg, one of the authors of the Free Press investigation into Michigan’s practice hours, stating that the Feagin incident was indicative of a lack of standards by the Michigan football team.

§ When Glenn Winston was released from prison and rejoined the Michigan State football team on the same day, the only mention of the occurrence by the Free Press was a brief article stating that Winston had rejoined the team.



Comments

M-Wolverine

February 13th, 2010 at 10:22 PM ^

I couldn't read it all, but go for it! Just make sure all your facts are rock solid and you keep personal bias out of it so it stands stark and irrefutable. Good luck and Godspeed.

Seth9

February 13th, 2010 at 10:44 PM ^

I am well aware that this will almost certainly be a pointless endeavor. Furthermore, I will likely not make any headway whatsoever on even getting people to respond to anything I write down. And I certainly am biased in this case, which will prove to be further problematic. In order to try to maintain a semblance of objectivity, I intend to attempt to solicit the views that any Michigan State fans have on this topic, as well as solicit the views of (supposedly) unbiased journalists. I have no intention of omitting anything relevant in the final incarnation of anything I write. Furthermore, I know that I'll likely have no luck getting useful perspectives from non-Michigan fans anyway, so this will likely turn out to be absolutely pointless. However, on the off chance that I have any success in getting an outside perspective on the situation and thus being able to write something worthwhile, then I'll be glad that I did it. So I'm going to try.

Mountaineers Fanatic

February 18th, 2010 at 9:39 PM ^

Of course you are biased, you are a fan are you not? But everything you have posted so far has been the truth. So bias or not, you have legit claims in your article and any good newspaper should feel compelled to set the record straight...and do so with facts of their own.

MGoViso

February 13th, 2010 at 10:40 PM ^

Even when discussing it with "us," I think you need to provide more comparison to coverage from other sources. This context is necessary in the same way that while a $500K house is expensive, if all the houses around it are of a similar price, then maybe it's fair. The flip side of course is that even if everybody murdered (note to TP: they don't), that wouldn't make it right. So comparing the Freep coverage to that of every other major media outlet in the state as well as a few prominent national sources is essential. This way even your contributors and idea-givers on here have a more full perspective.

Seth9

February 13th, 2010 at 10:52 PM ^

What I am currently trying to do is generate a list of things to analyze. That said, you are correct in saying that I still should have provided context for the things listed thus far. However, writing about the Free Press investigation in a comparison with other news sources is rather difficult, as most other news sources piggybacked off of the Free Press in the first place. However, with regard to all the other points, you are absolutely right.

Magnum P.I.

February 14th, 2010 at 2:08 AM ^

As someone with some experience teaching at the college level, let me say that you write really well, and your summary of points is quite good and logical. I'm impressed. Most of the complaints against the Freep have been pretty emotional, so this analytical approach is nice. I disagree with the above poster here, too, in that you need to compare the Freep's approach to in-state sports coverage to other media outlets'. It's definitely a worthwhile project to compare the Freep's coverage to some journalistic standard. I'm not familiar with theories of journalism, but if you use some theory of bias/ethics in journalism as a framework for a case study of the Freep in particular, that's a good paper. Good work so far, and I would really encourage you to send the final product to folks at the Freep (not as an "aha," but rather to see if they'd be willing to dialogue about this--they probably won't). Anyway, your points are good. Go for it.

Tater

February 14th, 2010 at 11:07 AM ^

The problem with coverage from other sources is that they often use the local coverage as their "research." For example, national outlets would read the trolling in the Freep or Mlive, in which one troll was writing half or more of the negative letters under different names, and then cite "fan unrest" in their pieces. Another example is that the commentators on shows like First Take, Around the Horn, or PTI use local coverage to help formulate their opinions on many stories. If they are discussing ARod that day, they scour the NY papers. Discussing Lebron James today? Read the Cleveland papers: and so on and so forth. Jonathan Chait had it about ninety percent right; uneven coverage affects the opinions of instate fence-sitters and casual fans. He did not, however, mention that the same coverage affects national opinions and therefore national coverage. Back to instate coverage: I think it is all biased. The freep is the worst, but mlive continues to prop up MSU and there are as many stories about MSU on mlive as there are UM. Even AnnArbor.com is losing their objectivity when covering Demar Dorsey and UM "standards." I guess the media are like sharks who smell blood when Michigan is in a down cycle. Instead of trying to pick them up like they do MSU, they are trying to step on Michigan and not let them back up. Hopefully, winning takes care of it.

noshesnot

February 13th, 2010 at 11:25 PM ^

From friends who are MSU fans, the Freep used to be known as "The Blue Wall" for its supposed biased coverage for Michigan. This thought has definitely toned down recently, and now it's more of a "They are covering U of M's faults instead of MSU's triumphs!" Expect some responses like that when searching for Spartan fan opinions. As far as the Freep's coverage of Michigan, much of it can be traced to the late, great Don Canham and his ability to be friendly and personable to newswriters and his ability to market a product. He created, virtually, NCAA sports marketing as we know it now, and therefore a market for Detroit papers to write good things about U of M. This was back when good letters to the editor = good and bad letters = bad. Now, any letter = good, and no letters = bad. The Freep has gone the way of Howard Stern, in a way, and shock value of writing generates "interest", be it good or bad. Good luck with this. I'm really interested to see your findings. As a side, it might be cool to track down some older sports reporters and see what it was like during the days of Bo and before the Internet was around, when newspapers became desperate.

Rasmus

February 14th, 2010 at 10:48 AM ^

It might help to learn something about journalism -- to get some perspective, and help you draw lines between opinion pieces and actual reporting. One place to start might be the Columbia Journalism Review. Read some of their rips for ideas on what to look for. [If you are a current U-M student, I believe journalism is part of Communication Studies these days.] I'm not sure that "bias" is the best framework for this -- one man's bias is another man's balance -- it's too subjective and ultimately political (in terms of U-M/MSU). I'd look more at how the lines between opinion and journalism have been broken down by phenomena like "he said, she said" reporting, which of course isn't journalism at all.

Mgoscottie

February 14th, 2010 at 10:48 AM ^

but keep in mind that michigan state is not on level with Michigan. You're probably from Michigan, but it's like comparing msu to central or something. Michigan will always garner more media attention. Not knocking the idea, just think to be successful you need to analyze more than just how many articles on something are written. Also, I don't remember when exactly, but Rosenberg did an article (I think I remember it being on Mvictors blog) where he just flat out said that he does not like Rich Rodriguez.

michelin

February 14th, 2010 at 1:36 PM ^

Great piece of writing... I am not sure I would even bother sending this to the Freep. Maybe send it to the NY Times sports editor...or, better yet, send it to somebody like Chait and ask where he thinks you should send it. Ask him also if you should write a briefer piece that is backed up by this more extensive document.

uminks

February 14th, 2010 at 10:42 PM ^

RR got hired. Some of the UM grad sport writers there are definitely anti-RR and will continue to write negative M stories. However, once RR turns the program around in 2011 then they will all be writing stories about how great RR is as a coach! Something most of us all already know. We just have to give him some time to rebuild the team. 2010 may be a .500 or slightly better year but by 2011 should be great! We may even run table in the b10 with OSU at home.

MaizeandBlue14

February 16th, 2010 at 8:55 AM ^

I think you should also mention that Michigan is a media powerhouse. Therefore, they are going to talk about us in the news way more then MSU. We are more likely to generate hits on there articles because of our close proximity to the newspaper and due to the large national audience. This could be a reason why there were so many more stories on the possible NCAA violations as compared to the dorm incident. This does not justify the Freep's report but it just allows you to analyze it better.

steelymax

February 16th, 2010 at 5:27 PM ^

... after week 3 of the 2009 college football season, Freep's sports page had an article headlined: "Spartans Show Character in Loss" (the loss being to ND, leaving Sparty at 1-2 including a loss to Central), and then the following week had an article headlined: "Wolverines Must Play Better..." after a victory over Indiana making the Wolverines 4-0 to start the season. Exhibit A: Positive coverage of MSU after a loss and 1-2 start. Exhibit B: Negative coverage of Michigan after a win and 4-0 start. Week 4 of the 2009 college football season. That was the last time I went to Freep's sports page.

Tamburlaine

February 16th, 2010 at 11:20 PM ^

One of the first things you mention is the Michigan Blogosphere being hit with an ad hominem attack. Outside of the retorts by Brian, just about the entire Michigan Blogosphere was guilty of the same thing. I think the most popular comeback to the Rosenberg stuff was "He is a douchebag"--not exactly the stuff that is going to make the Free stop and think about what they are doing. Next, and most important of all: How much do YOU know about Michigan practices, the players interviewed, and whether Michigan went overboard on practice times, them being monitored by coaches, and the practice logs? There's the catch-22 for fans who react as fans. The reporters spent a lot of time sniffing around, talking to people, being tipped off to what was going on--and guess what? They KNOW this stuff goes on everywhere, all the time. They just chose to expose it now. WRT Demar Dorsey: While I recoil in dusgust over the hypocrisy of the media coming after Rich Rod for recruiting hime, the media's take will be this: "Michigan portrays itself as above all this criminal tomfoolery and the Michigan Man is not the type of guy who has these problems--according to Michigan and Michigan fans--in other words, these are the times when the snobbery and all the blather about how the others recruit thugs and guys who don't go to class and skip church and put whoopee cushions on their profs'chairs bites Michigan in the ass. Michigan fans spend as much time blabbing about the pristine image of Michigan as they do breathing, so when the image takes a hit--boy, it's Katy bar the door. Is there a problem with all this stuff? You bet there is. But unless you are a Michigan fan, who gives a shit? Michigan news generates mega hits and readers and attention. And again--think of it as a chance to be even more snobbish by telling yourself, "Well, no one really cares about Michigan State. Michigan State could cure cancer and the Freep would say "Yeah, but Michigan INVENTED cancer" in their headline. And like someone elts said--what, exactly, is this "report" for? If you send it to a news agency or a magazine or something, well, I just wouldn't expect positive results.