Fairness -- From Mark Snyder at the Free Press?!?

Submitted by Section 1 on

You just never know.

Our old friend at the Free Press, Mark Snyder, writes about Troy Woolfolk's apearance at the Big Ten Media Days and comes away with... a brief, fair writeup of the day's story.

Will wonders never cease.

[No link provided.]

Basically, to save the curious from a dangerous click on Freep.com, Snyder reports the story as one in which Woolfolk noticed that the coaching staff has been so emphatic with players, telling them that they must understand the voluntary practices really are voluntary (which means, like, you don't have to show up if you don't want to), that it has perhaps undermined the old attitude that players had a team expectation that they be there, ready to go for every 'voluntary' practice.

There was of course the hint of self-serving self-congratulating confidence about the NCAA investigation, but none of the muckraking kind of leering that one might have expected given Woolfolk's first, and then soon withdrawn, remarks.

I dunno, maybe Troy-son-of-Butch Woolfolk gets a minor pass from the Adorers and Chroniclers of Michigan Football History at the Freep. But I'll be darned if I can find one single bit of unfairness in Mark Snyder's take on Wolf-gate. It's actually one of the fairest and most sensible takes on the whole situation, having taken a deep breath after Day One of the crisis.

Shalom Lansky

August 4th, 2010 at 2:01 PM ^

Often times the most damaging portion of the Freep's articles are negative headlines that don't match the tone of the article, even if Snyder hates Michigan I'd imagine he can't be too pleased with negative headlines that don't match the content of his articles, especially b/c most readers don't realize that the author of an article doesn't write the headline; like the link yesterday (since fixed) that said "Expansion Won't Hurt MSU-OSU" rivalry, when the article was actually about UM-OSU.

Troy Woolfolk? Son-of-a-Butch!

Raoul

August 4th, 2010 at 3:24 PM ^

I don't know that the headline of this story--"New approach keeping some Wolverine players from practice"--is inherently "negative" but I found it misleading. On first reading the headline, I thought some players had been barred from practice for some reason.

A more accurate headline might be: "Under new approach, some Wolverine players skipping voluntary workouts"

Seth9

August 4th, 2010 at 2:03 PM ^

Why are you not posting a link? If you go to their site and read their articles then you obviously don't support the boycott, so why don't you link to them?

Section 1

August 4th, 2010 at 2:19 PM ^

I'm kind of an agnostic on the Freep-link controversy.  I am comfortable following Brain Cook's lead.

As for me personally boycotting the Freep, I sincerely hope that I have done more harm to the standing and reputation of the Free Press by reading it selectively, and crticizing it selectively, than anything I might have accomplished via an online boycott.

But back to this article.  I kind of told everybody what Snyder wrote.  So I've actually given everyone who reads this a sort of a substantive reason not to go to Freep.com, if for instance they heard that Snyder wrote about Woolfolk's comments (uh-oh!) and had a morbid curiosity about what a disaster that might be.

Seth9

August 4th, 2010 at 3:15 PM ^

Once again, your post has been based in your 'warfare' narrative on the Freep. I find this narrative objectionable (apologies for linking to myself, but I did not want to write all of that up again) because I feel that it serves only to make a significant part of our fanbase look ridiculous to other schools, which in turn leads most non-Michigan fans to not take us seriously when talking about poor ethics of the Freep and its baseless practice investigation and articles.

Don

August 4th, 2010 at 2:38 PM ^

I wonder if TF took the wrong message from that message.

The correct, albeit unspoken, message is: practices may not be mandatory, but neither is starting.

blueblueblue

August 4th, 2010 at 2:40 PM ^

Dont be a free-rider: if your are going to enjoy the content, the fair thing to do is click.

Otherwise, enact a true boycott - don't talk about content generated by the Freep at all.  

Here's the real link.

RayIsaac91

August 4th, 2010 at 4:15 PM ^

The Freep has chosen this business model. The model consists of posting information available to everyone without retaining much control of how it is used after consumption. They could choose to charge to read their content via pay per view or subscription. They don't or more likely, can't.

Consumers are part of the economic equation as well as suppliers. The Freep is by default relying on their consumers to operate "ethically". Win some, lose some. The Freep chooses to operate in a business (internet ad revenue) where things are not so well defined at the moment. The consumer has hand.

I know this isn't justification for "for actively working to subvert the Freep's revenue streams", but it is the other side of the coin. The other day you were arguing that it was ok for the Freep to cross ethical lines and publish the crap they did because, you know, they were just doing it for the money (page hits).

Caveat venditor.

 

 

 

 

Seth9

August 4th, 2010 at 5:01 PM ^

First of all, I'm going to address your last point because it is utterly and completely baseless. First of all, here's the link to the thread you are referencing, on which I said the following (this is one of a number of posts I made there):

I said that they engaged in unethical practices in an attempt to save their dying business. I fail to see how this is a defense. If I worked for the Freep, I would consider it to be a major accusation and would be highly offended by it.

I also said that we look ridiculous when we spew out rhetoric that makes it look like the media establishment is out to get us out of spite, jealousy, bias, etc. and as such that rhetoric does a disservice to our community. If this is an objectionable viewpoint, then I'm inclined to conclude that we are ridiculous and don't deserve to be taken seriously.

Your comment:

I know this isn't justification for "for actively working to subvert the Freep's revenue streams", but it is the other side of the coin. The other day you were arguing that it was ok for the Freep to cross ethical lines and publish the crap they did because, you know, they were just doing it for the money (page hits).

Emphasis added.

Your willful ignorance of what I actually wrote is in the vein of a Drew Sharp column.

-

As for your general point, you yourself admit that there is no justification for subverting the Freep's revenue streams. The reason I object to using print links is twofold. First of all, if we objects to the ethics used by the Freep and follows up this objection by dealing with them unethically, then our position is hopelessly undermined. Second of all, even if we consider the Freep Sports Section to be little more than a public relations and propaganda machine for MSU, then they are still entitled to revenue if we consume their content. Ad revenue is a major revenue source for web-based media outlets and working to subvert that stream of revenue is inherently damaging to the industry as a whole, something that we should all find quite undesirable. True, using print links is a very small issue, but it's the principle of the thing that draws my ire.

RayIsaac91

August 4th, 2010 at 8:01 PM ^

You also wrote:

The Free Press also knows that publishing articles that are critical of an unpopular coach will allow for more readers and that publishing articles that "reveal misdeeds" of an elite national program will produce more readers, so they do it when they have the chance. This is not a war, of sorts, but the Freep doing what they can to survive and not really caring who they attack along the way.

Here you admit the Freep published what they did to get money. The Freep is using capitalism as its ethics code and you accept that.   People who link to print articles or do not link at all are following the same code of ethics. You should accept that as well.

All I stated was that the Freep has accepted the current web media model and with that comes the risk that consumers will "steal" content.

You can go screw yourself for the Drew Sharp reference. I mean that in the nicest way possible.

Seth9

August 4th, 2010 at 11:50 PM ^

My quote that you used here also fails to show any approval for their actions and ethics. If a writer for the Freep read about my opinions on their journalistic standards, they would be very offended. You attempted to brand me as a Freep apologist when I am anything but and read my statements and then claimed that my views were the exact opposite of what I'd written. I am not going to apologize for the Drew Sharp reference as you thoroughly earned it.

RayIsaac91

August 5th, 2010 at 1:20 AM ^

I never said you approved or disapproved. You accepted the Freep's actions and justified those actions by saying it was for their very survival.

I don't know why you can't accept people not linking or using a print link.

With your overdeveloped sense of fairness, don't you think the Freep should report their hit stats without the additional amount of hits generated by their unethical journalism?

Good night, go blue.

 

 

Seth9

August 5th, 2010 at 2:33 AM ^

#1:

I never said you approved or disapproved. You accepted the Freep's actions and justified those actions by saying it was for their very survival.

First of all, you did say I approved:

 

The other day you were arguing that it was ok for the Freep to cross ethical lines and publish the crap they did because, you know, they were just doing it for the money (page hits).

Unless you meant that saying something was OK is not tantamount to approving of a practice, then you stated that I approved of the Freep crossing ethical lines. I do not. I think the Freep's Sports Section has crossed so many ethical lines that I no longer consider them to be a legitimately objective and stand up journalistic endeavor. I have ceased looking to the Freep for sports news on a regular basis (which I used to do) and I take pretty much everything they say with a grain of salt. In fact, pretty much the only time I ever go to their site nowadays is when threads like these pop up or a friend mentions an article there and wants to discuss it. This is because the actions they have taken are not justified from a journalistic standpoint, as the editorial staff of the Free Press has by and large sacrificed their integrity for the sake of turning a profit in the short term.

#2: Just because the Freep has sacrificed its journalistic integrity does not mean that when I read their articles, they do not deserve compensation. The Freep is producing a product and when I consume it, they deserve to be paid, especially considering it costs me absolutely nothing to click on a link to their article. I apply the same principle for any site (that doesn't attempt to steal information from me or give me a virus or anything like that), whether it be TMZ or The New York Times because even if the site spews out utterly worthless crap, it still deserves compensation because I am consuming their utterly worthless crap.

#3: I'm going to assume your question is rhetorical and address what I believe is the heart of the issue (if I'm wrong, feel free to correct me), namely that the perception is that the Freep has greatly benefitted from their lack of ethics and has suffered minimal consequences. This, I feel, is untrue. While the Freep certainly benefits in the short term by breaking ethical lines and engaging in sensationalism, they are sacrificing their integrity, which will cause them to lose the public trust (and thus their readership) in the long term. They are hardly alone in the media world, as many newspapers and other traditional media outlets are engaging in similar practices in an attempt to stay afloat financially. The problem is that by doing this, mainstream media outlets in general have begun to lose the public trust, which has contributed to their ongoing downfall (after all, the Freep only prints a paper on Thursdays and Sundays). Another thing the Freep lost is any degree of amicability with the Michigan Athletic Department, which will detract from their ability to cover Michigan sports in the long run, which will wind up hurting them financially.

In short, the Freep is suffering consequences for their unethical behavior. As such, we do not need to engage in unethical behavior ourselves in order to accomplish some form of justice here and I feel that doing so only serves to make us look petty and leads others to trivialize our views on the Freep.

Section 1

August 4th, 2010 at 3:24 PM ^

I'm a frequent critic of the Free Press, of Rosenberg, of Snyder.  Et cetera.  And I say so.  I usually try to be very specific, and try to detail and support those criticisms.

This was one occasion on which I think Snyder did a fair summary of the day's events.  And in this case Snyder even put a slant on the story that no one had really exposed.  And so I said so.  I gave credit where credit is due.

After all, this story generated about a half a dozen threads of one kind or another in the course of the latest news cycle.

I, and other Free Press critics have been accused of being part of the tinfoil-hat brigade.  This blows that accusation away.  I don't criticize the Free Press for imaginary slights.  I don't criticize the Free Press for silly reasons.  I try hard to keep my criticisms of the Free Press focused on important things.  I think Brian Cook agrees with most of what I've posted about the Free Press.  I agree with most of what Brian has written about the Free Press.  And on this occasion, to end the "tinfoil hat" meme, I've credited Mark Snyder for some fair-minded writing.

Sgt. Wolverine

August 4th, 2010 at 3:03 PM ^

is that you portray the column entirely through your own lens, and you thus make the discussion based not on the actual story, but on your interpretation of the story.  That's not really a good way to foster a discussion.  If you want to post a column for discussion, post a link -- a print/nofollow link, to ease your conscience -- so everybody can read it themselves and post informed comments; otherwise, don't bother.

Sgt. Wolverine

August 4th, 2010 at 3:42 PM ^

If you're going to post your analysis of a column, then you should provide access to the original column along with your analysis; that's just responsible behavior.  Otherwise you're effectively asking everybody to take your word for it.

Section 1

August 4th, 2010 at 4:06 PM ^

Many members of MGoBlog don't like Free Press links.  So I don't post them.  That rule, such as it is, isn't my idea but it doesn't bother me very much.  I don't want to help the Free Press, but I also don't think much of any boycott.  "Boycott" was never my idea, either.

I suppose, if I had it to do all over again, I might have quoted enough of Snyder's writing, so as to provide the relevant substance, word-for-word, without violating fair-use copyright constraints.

But hell, I didn't misquote Snyder.  I didn't quote him at all.  People can take my word for it, yes, but they certainly know where to go if they don't choose to take my word for it, and if they want to read Snyder himself.

If people want to "boycott" the Freep.com website, that's fine with me.  I have no wish to do anything to help the Free Press.  I will say this; it my personal opinion that MGoBlog better-serves our football program if we provide a large-scale platform for serious-minded criticism and rebuttal of the Freep sportswriters' routine (noting today's exceptional entry) mugging of Rich Rodriguez, rather than organinizing a "boycott" of the Free Press.  

Sgt. Wolverine

August 4th, 2010 at 5:28 PM ^

If people dislike Free Press links, it's very likely they also dislike Free Press stories.  So if you're going to lend your sympathies to that crowd, then don't post anything about the stories in the first place.  Otherwise, don't try to hang around in the middle, avoiding links to take on the appearance of not helping the Free Press but still discussing stories and thus sending traffic there anyway.  Just pick one -- provide complete resources in the post or don't post it at all.

wildbackdunesman

August 4th, 2010 at 3:26 PM ^

It is easy to do your job properly when the Freep has been called out and suffered a little bit in the pocket book when comparing the online hits and paper subscription to the Detroit News.

The damage is already done.  Rodriguez has certainly brought some of this on himself, but today at lunch I had to hear about how Rod is the dirtiest coach in America and far worse than Lane Kiffin with a sighting of all of the articles and headlines of the Free Press from recruiting thugs, to getting twice as much practice time as other teams, to real estate fraud, to cheating with grades.  Most people don't even bother to fully read the Freep articles let alone cross reference a counter view point.

Section 1

August 4th, 2010 at 3:33 PM ^

And I agree with your sentiments.  Much, much damage has been done, and it will take a very long time to undo it.

And I do think that the MGoBlog demographic might not have the best appreciation for how badly swayed most of the sports-consuming public has been, thanks to the Free Press.  The MGoBlog demographic is much better-informed, of course.  But it is rather extreme, how badly prejudiced much of the public is against Rich Rodriguez, thanks to the press.

Fer cryin' out loud, a college football insider like Kirk Herbstreit (OSU class of whatever) is less prejudiced against Rich Rodriguez, by virtue of being better-informed, than a very significant number of Schembechler-era Michigan alumni.

wildbackdunesman

August 4th, 2010 at 3:47 PM ^

I actually heard of a study that most people online just read the headlines of the news article and read a few sentences.  It was something along the lines of people spend about 15 seconds glossing over an article and the headline is the grabber of what the persons remembers.

This is what a main part of what is driving the perception of our program and the perception nationally is that we are among the dirtiest if not the dirtiest.  I think we all need to realize the perception even if we don't agree with it.  We have to make it better and I don't know how to accomplish that.

 

 

P.S. My head wanted to explode today when I heard how Rod drove away all of the talented Carr players by swearing at them in practice and overworking them, good kids like Boren, Manningham and Mallett.  That no good coach would ever swear at kids.  It doesn't matter that the victim of this Rod cussing - Boren was hypocritically featured in an ESPN article for being a great practicing player at OSU for swearing at his teammates and hitting players late....because it adds much needed intensity.

Section 1

August 4th, 2010 at 4:15 PM ^

The Boren story was one of the earliest motivators in my history of hatred and astonishment with the press' treatment of Rich Rodriguez.

That the "family values" thing was somehow turned against Rich Rodriguez is one of the weirdest things in the annals of sportswriting.  Here is Mike Boren -- one of the foulest-mouthed raging jerkaholics in mid-Ohio -- drafting a press release for his son Justin, whom he is pulling out of the University of Michigan and shouting "family values" on the way out.

And all along, it had been the Detroit Freaking Free Press that had reported, in happier days of Carr, that the then-freshman Justin said that his dad yelled at him so severely at hafltimes in his Pickerington North games "that [he] thought they might call the cops."

Them are some Boren family values.