Etiquette regarding the Free Press Boycott
I'm specifically not directly comparing the choice of not boycotting the free press with the discouraged behaviors.
I understand that these aren't straight apple-to-apple comparisons and that not boycotting the freep isn't as cut and dry as perhaps calling our Spartan brethren a more sisterly, make that little sisterly, version of their name, but I do think it falls into the same general category.
I'm merely stating that in those cases the board worked out an acceptable method of dealing with a volatile topic that regularly devolved otherwise salient discussion into repetitive and bitter arguing, which I think we can agree detracts from the discourse much more than the abovementioned 'humerous' infractions. The main point of the post was to just look at finding some form of acceptable protocol that people in general can agree upon so that the topic doesn't ceaselessly result in fruitless arguments that see an inordinate amount of vitriol spewed amongst people who are supposed to root for the same team. Especially when no one is changing their mind and they only end up more divided afterward.
I think Brian does care, he takes the time to painstakingly review and critique Free Press coverage, he took the time to write scathing indictments with regard to their initial and ongoing actions and provided a pretty clear statement as to how he wants people to use his site with regard to sending them traffic. I wouldn't take the absence of his comments here or the lack of a more Draconian-type ban on direct links as evidence that he doesn't care. If he got involved directly in every single heated discussion to decide/apply policy, this wouldn't be MGoBlog and he would only have time for maybe 1 post per week ;) Nobody wants that.
Without clicking on links?
he takes the time to painstakingly review and critique Free Press coverage
parameter and clicks.
Are you suggesting that b/c Brian reads the articles before picking them apart that he is a hypocrite?
I'm saying it appears that you are proving that he is not completely opposed to reading the Freep.
You are on pretty shaky ground if you want to argue that because Bryan reads the Free Press articles in order to lambast their content, ethics, motives and standards, that he in some small way supports it. Reading it for the purpose of tearing it apart hardly consitutes any form of indication that he in any small way supports reading it.
Plus, I am not advocating not reading it, I am advocating an agreed upon method of dealing with Free Press links so that we don't have to argue about how to deal with Free Press links.
Furthermore, the whole point of this argument isn't about reading the Free Press, the crux of what is being discussed has to do with revenue generating links coming from MGoBlog.
I will read the Free Press, I just won't do so in a way that provides them any benefit.
I'm just saying that I do not believe his feelings to be as strong as the NO FREEP LINX! community's are. That is all.
Do you want me to put in here again for you?
This may be the most inane argument in the history of MgoBlog.
I feel like I should be comparing someone to Hitler. It's beeng going on that long.
I read the original post, I read the repost in this thread. I actually read things on this blog. I'm just thinking that SOME PEOPLE may be more invested in the concept than Brian is. I may be mistaken, I didn't go ask him when I saw him at the Fish during the Northwestern series or anything, he hasn't emailed me on this particular topic.
My assertion is that he would far rather have a few Freep links than a bunch of howler monkeys wigging out on innocent people trying to talk about sports.
I'm not saying he does care as much as people on here, I'm simply saying that he made a pretty clear statement about how he feels.
You are also lumping me in with the EVERYONE MUST BOYCOTT folks, which I am not.
All I was trying to say is that it would be easy to avoid arguments if there were an agreed upon way to link.
It seems you are lumping ME in with howler monkeys as well. I don't believe I've ever commented one way or the other before today. It's just that this thread is so fucking ludicrous that I can't resist. Brian has proven he has the ability to smite anyone he chooses, in any way he chooses, at any time, be it changing your name, changing your points, or banning your ass entirely. I'm sure he could add a stylesheet that renders links to the Free Press unclickable, if he wanted to. I'm just boggled at the white knights rushing to defend him from the god-forsaken heretics.
that category, actually quite the opposite. I respect your views and you raise good points. You brought up howler monkeys, not me. No one I am referring to when I reciprocate use of the term is actually even on this thread. I'm not suggesting that Brian ban all links nor casting you or anyone else as heretics. You are reading 30 posts and ascribing comments from several other people to me, which isn't really fair.
I think we agree on how ludicrous the argument of boycott v no boycott is. Nowhere do I advocate either position, so i'm not really sure why you came after my comments specifically. All I suggested was finding a compromise in terms linking to the free press for the simple purpose of avoiding having the same argument over and over again. Is that really so bad?
Hey, watch it fella, there are a few women that frequent this site.
It's the ladies we need to watch out for. The women can take care of themselves.
Damn, I got nothin. No come back. And I thought a while about it.
I knew I was screwed with either word choice, but I really feared what I would get back if I used "ladies."
...that the Other Chris is...a woman, don't you?
Who says?
I figured it was a joke that she would appreciate.
BUT NOT GOOD ENOUGH. I MUST TRY HARDER NEXT TIME.
...too long and must die.
All I was trying to say is that it would be easy to avoid arguments if there were an agreed upon way to linkfor the Cliff Notes version of your posts. I really don't think we all have to post links in the same way. Again, if the Free Press bothers you, don't click on their links, and let others decide for themselves to what extent the web site bothers them and act accordingly.
I will read the Free Press, I just won't do so in a way that provides them any benefit.
This is hypocritical. The boycott of the Free Press is based on the notion that the Free Press did not and does not use any reasonable standard of journalistic ethics when targeting the Michigan football program. Such a boycott is arguably commendable because it exists as a form of protest against a malicious assault on the institution that we support. However, consuming content of another site while working to subvert their ability to make money off of their content is unethical.
Regardless of your opinion on the Freep, they do deserve to be compensated for their content by those who read it because they have monetized their content. Using a feature added solely for the convenience of the readers of their content to get around their ability to be compensated is wrong.
EDIT: This is a reply to mtzlblk. I have no idea why it is positioned here.
and please, just to qualify things i am not an ardent supporter of NO LINX from anyone, so I really don't want to become the poster child for it, but as a personal choice I don't. I need to clarify my position because you do raise a good point. I live in California and have no reason to read the Free Press other than what is linked to from here and specifically pertaining to M football. The only Free Press articles I have read are those specifically related to the accusations and the follow up to those accusations and perhaps 1-2 about Demar Dorsey. I would disagree that I owe them compensation for reading the articles they wrote to attack UM, simply because the point of the attack was to generate that compensation without regard for the truth. Not providing compensation for it is a means by which to say, I won't support yellow journalism and foster additional baseless reports attacking the M football program. I will however avail myself of the details of any additional attacks and will so act accordingly.
As a general rule, I think that people who produce original content have an inherent right to be compensated for their content if they assert that right. Furthermore, as the readers of the Freep's website are viewing the content that the Freep produces for free, there is no reason to subvert the financial arrangement that the Freep has with third-parties.
To look at this from a different perspective, if Brian ever wrote anything that I found objectionable because it was a) biased and b) offensive to my sensibilities, and I still wanted to read his content but not let him be compensated, I could download his webpage every day and thus stop him from receiving ad revenue for my consumption of his content. This would also be unethical.
Online media can only be viable if the means by which it brings in revenue are not subverted. This means that we should not subvert the revenue streams of online ventures on principle, even if you do not like the message brought by the online entity. If you wish to boycott the Freep, actually boycott it, rather than help to undermine the system by which online ventures, such as this blog, are able to exist.
In my mind it was not something nearly as innocuous or simple as a news outlet that wrote something objectionable b/c it was biased and offensive to my sensibilities, so to me your analogy isn't applicable.
Now, if Brian orchestrated an outright and protracted attack on the M football program and in doing so manufactured or exaggerated the facts, lied and ignored even the most basic level of journalistic standards or ethics AND continued that attack even after it was proven that his accusations were almost completely wrong, quite simply I would stop reading his blog.
Were it gets muddy is the difference between MGoBlog as a non-MSM outlet and the FP as being one of the major local MSM outlets. I wouldn't feel the need to read and analyze whatever mistruths he was perpetrating b/c a very small, focused set of people are exposed to it and therefore it wouldn't matter to me. His story would not get picked up nationally, would not needlessly slander the program to a wide audience and surely would not invite an investigation by the NCAA. The FP can and did. As long as their attack continues and their reporting is biased, I will forego clicking on any Free Press content and will vehemently urge others to do so. Insomuch as they publish additional articles attacking the M football program, I will find some way to apprise myself of the contents of that article and I will do so in a manner that does not provide any benefit to the party that is attacking my team.
You seem to find it easy to ignore the fact that the attacks from the FP were contrived for the sole purpose of generating the revenue in question. I find no ethical dilemna in 'subverting' that because this is much more than simply a 'message I didn't like', rather it is an all out attack on the program I love. If I do not know the substance (or lack thereof) of what the FP are writing, I cannot counter the lies and misinformation being spread to my alumni friends, alumni family, friends who are fans of Michigan or a rival team, so I will get the information and have no moral obligation to pay them for it.
Many of those people mentioned came to me shocked and outraged by what the Freep wrote originally and fortunately I was able to point them here where they got the whole story and now the vast majority of them ignore anything that the FP writes, with a good portion joining in the all out boycott. Very few of those people would have been aware of the real story otherwise.
I respect your decision and your views, your thoughts are well-formed and aptly communicated and the points you raise are certainly reasonable. I just don't happen to agree with them.
Without addressing the merits of the Freep boycott, I think it is wrong to only use printable links. If you choose to link to the content of a web-based business that employs ads, then they deserve the ad revenue that they would get from you reading their article. If you choose not to read their content, then that is your right. However, working to subvert their ability to make money off of their own content while consuming it is both wrong and hypocritical.
I agree with this and enjoyed your work on the recent Black Heart Gold Pants thread. That was some good clean American fun.
I can certainly see the 2 wrongs don't make a right. However, the Freep does offer printable links and could choose to discontinue them for any article of their choosing if they thought it wise. The Freep could also seriously address the legitimate criticisms and I'd bet most of the boycotters would be satisfied.
I don't want anyone fired. I do want some answers or an admission that the Free Press made an error. Instead the Free Press chooses to ignore fair complaints, which incites some to continue the boycott.
We are talking about a paper where you can buy a positive article about your company afterall, where the reader doesn't know it isn't a 'real' article.
It seems like freep.com has a relatively simple URL structure, where an article might be freep.com/article/20100531/etc. and the link to the print article is freep.com/print/article/20100531/etc. I know Drupal has a (built-in, plug-in?) Wordfilter project that allows for text replacement in posts, could that be set so that any links to freep.com/article automatically change to freep.com/print/article? I'm not sure if the text replacement works on a html level, so I don't know if the nofollow portion could also be added.
Then people that weren't aware of the issues many people on the site have with the freep (or don't care/disagree/etc.) wouldn't be negged (right? sorry, I'm new) just for posting a link, and people that do choose to post a link to the freep could follow Brian's suggestion/rule without any extra effort on their part.
Is football here yet?
Do you people not have better things to do?
I tried to follow JG2112's suggestion that I go play with my kids, but since I don't have any kids of my own, that ended somewhat poorly. Oops.