The Fall of Rosenberg? - He's not fired, sorry.
I am just finishing up reading War as They Knew It: Woody Hayes, Bo Schembechler, and America in a time of Unrest, and I can't help but wonder what the hell happened to Rosenberg. His book is phenomenal. The minute details, the descriptions of both coaches. Everything about this book screams that he is an outstanding writer, but he chooses to not employ his talents anymore. Did this change solely when Rodriguez was hired? Or was it something else?
Anyway, I am substitute teaching today and don't have to teach a class until 11:30, so discussion about the book is also welcome. The book is excellent if you haven't read it yet.
Hopes dashed...
I was hoping this would be something like "Freep has to lay-off writing staff". Oh well, no such luck today. As far as the book, I believe I own it, but I haven't been interested in reading it because of its author. On your recommendation, I think I will give it another chance.
that the "fall of Rosenberg" was in the literal sense and that he fell down a flight of stairs.
I was hoping he fell off the face of the earth.
the book was interesting, but it was also kind of a failure if you think about what was supposed to be the key narrative (the interrelation of football with vietnam). there was no story from that angle with woody (conservative coach on conservative campus) and bo proved to be fairly apolitical at that point in his life so the story didnt get going at u-m either. all rosenberg was left with was a retelling of the ten year war, which is a great story, but not what his book was supposed to be about
I agree with that, it seemed like he really tried to, but Bo was uninvolved in the political arena in Ann Arbor, and Woody just didn't really do anything out of the ordinary, aside from a few speeches. It seems like he thought it was a good idea, and got too overinvested to change the storyline.
Which did turn in it into a re-telling of the Ten Year War, which was totally fine with me. I enjoyed it quite thoroughly.
A little disappointed here -- I was hoping this thread was about Rosenberg getting fired or something.
At any rate, as far as why Rosenberg is such a dick now ... I recall Brian saying that the editor of the Freep sports section is an MSU grad, and theorizing that he may be the driving force behind the anti-UM bias there. Rosenberg may have just played along with his editor's agenda to help his career (which seems to be working perfectly -- nothing advances a journalist's career like sheer unadulterated douchebaggery).
Just thinking out loud though ... what the hell do I know.
I thought the guy was canned, and get to see that the OP loves his book. WTF?
Yeah, screw books!
Why did you neg the op for the post?
was misleading. However, now that he included that Rosenberg wasn't fired, I'll reverse the neg.
Don't get me wrong, the dude is raging jackass now. That's my point, it seems like he used to be decent, and now he is a clown.
What happened to Rosenberg?
Answer: Rich Rod was hired and he hates that he is not from the Bo legacy. He has hated RR since the day he got here and seems to be doing everything possible to get him out of AA.
and he turned into a douchebag.
Bo-->Don Nehlen-->Rich Rod. And BOOM
Haven't read the book but heard good things about it. Would have a hard time enjoying it at this point knowing what Rosenberg has done to RR. Shame he is apparently so obsessed with his vendetta - done a lot of unnecessary and unwarranted damage.
A person changes when he starts punching dolphins.
Or, here's a thought - perhaps Rosenberg actually did his job and uncovered some management/institutional issues here at Michigan. And - I can respect the guy for that alone. The practice-gate facts were ambiguous (as they usually are): RR believed he was doing right. Rosenberg et al. believed he was not doing right. Both were right to some extent. Rosenberg et al took a non-scientific approach to construing the facts. But a more scientific approach (done by the NCAA) agreed with them to a certain extent (Roensberg et al conducted investigative journalism, which is not scientific). RR was generally a nice, upstanding guy about the whole thing; Rosenberg et al. at times seemed to be dicks (though that comes from our perspective). Rosenberg just did his job, which always is, as much as we may lament it, fundamentally opinion-based, fundamentally biased, fundamentally non-scientific, fundamentally interest-driven (interest that may be positive or negative). We just don't like it when it is biased against our side. We do not like it when UM is made an example of. No one on the receiving end ever does.
I thank the OP for the reocmmendation on the book, I will read it with no judgment about the author's ability to tell an engaging, interpretive, revisionist, judgment-driven story. I simply may like his bias more in the Bo/Woody story than in the more recent one.
I'll take my negs now.
The problem with Rosenberg is that he *didn't* do his job. If he would have written a story saying that Michigan did some illegal stretching and some grad assistants wrongly took part in some drills, he would have been doing his job. We might not have liked it, but he would have been right.
HOWEVA, that report doesn't make national headlines and lead SportsCenter. Blatently ignoring the rulebook in order to claim Michigan more than doubled the allowable practice hours, starting every week with a violation, gets national headlines. Claiming this is the biggest violation since the Ed Martin scandal makes it the biggest topic on ESPN.
Don't forget that he shamelessly mislead 2 true freshmen into giving him a quote he could use in his article (since all of his other "sources" were anonymous), and then still took what they said out of context so he could spin it his way.
Jesus Christ this shit pisses me off so much, I gotta stop thinking about this stuff at work.
I'm not defending Rosenberg, I really don't care that much about his work or the fact that he seems to have Michigan fans butt hurt at him.
But........."shamelessly mislead?" (sic)
Do you have a transcript of the conversation between Rosenberg and Stokes / Hawthorne? Do you have the actual words that Rosenberg used when asking those players about practicing? If you don't, how can you possibly claim they were "misled?"
if they practiced too many hours, which, by the way, the NCAA seems to agree with, then Rosenberg had the right to ask, and Stokes / Hawthorne gave the correct answer.
...actually read this blog's content?
Misrepresenting quotes from two freshmen. Even leaving aside the questionable ethics of asking players questions about a piece you're planning without disclosing the unusual focus of the piece, the quotes from Hawthorne and Stokes are flat misrepresentations of what they said. At no point did they say any of the activities were "required," and in fact literally everything they list can and likely will fall under the NCAA definition of a noncountable hour. The problem with quoting the freshmen is not that they were not briefed on the agenda of the piece but that quotes were blatantly misrepresented.
Well, here is the ACTUAL story. I'm not really sure Rosenberg NEEDS to tell the players "HEY WE ARE WORKING ON A STORY ABOUT PRACTICE TIME," further, I don't see the "MISREPRESENTATIONS" in this section, but hey, if you need to be offended, go for it:
At the school’s news media day, the Free Press asked freshman Brandin Hawthorne what winter conditioning was like. Hawthorne, a linebacker from Pahokee, Fla., enrolled in January.
“It’s crazy,” said Hawthorne, who was not complaining about his coaches and was apparently unaware of the time-limit rules. “I work out at 8. We’ll work out from, like, 8 to 10:30. We come back later, have one-on-ones, seven-on-sevens, a little passing. Then I’ll go watch a little film.”
The Free Press also asked freshman receiver Je’Ron Stokes about Michigan’s off-season program. Stokes, from Philadelphia, arrived at the Ann Arbor campus in June.
“Hooooo!” Stokes said. “A typical week is working from 8 a.m. in the morning to 6 or 7 at night, Monday through Saturday.”
And that was starting in June?
“Yes, sir,” Stokes said. “We do the weight room at least three times a week, and seven-on-sevens and one-on-ones. Speed and agility on the other days. Every day we have something new to get ready for the season. The coaches have done a great job of stressing the importance of getting us ready for the big season that we’re about to have.”
Stokes was not complaining. Like Hawthorne, he apparently was unaware of the rules.
Further up the article Rosenberg states that players were "expected" to take part in training. Of course. Expected. NOT REQUIRED.
Listen, the NCAA agrees with Rosenberg, you can get upset about it if you want. They said what they said.
...are you YELLING AT ME? I never said I was offended by what you said, I just think you're wrongheaded. As my son says, whatev.
I am having trouble finding anything "blatantly misrepresented." Plus, if we require journalists to disclose their interests to all interviewees (especially adults), they would uncover very little. Such a requirement is absurd. Such a notion also is based on the assumption that journalists know what they are uncovering BEFORE they uncover it, before they gain additional insights through interviews.
Honestly, if I were a journalist and players made such comments to me about having to commit such vast hours, I would look deeper also. And I would guess that I would be quite restricted as to where I could look, who I could talk to. I would be met by closed doors. Thus I could choose to ignore the story or to produce it based on the evidence I had. I would go with the latter, as did the Freep guys. And the NCAA proved that their weak, biased evidence was actually sound. That is difficult to argue with. To point the finger of blame at the Freep guys rather than the AD is to evidence a myopic take on cause->effect relationships.
they didn't look deeper, that is the issue. It is their job to know what they are printing, especially when it involvesan accusation of an infraction to a rule.
Take your pick:
1. They looked up and understood the rule that they were accusing M of breaking and deliberatly ignored including anything about countable v. non-countable hours that would provide some context to the quotes being twisted/inflated.
2. They didn't bother to even research the rules they were accusing Michigan of breaking. So their accusations are completely baseless.
The first is journalistic malpractice, the second clearly a complete lack of journalistic ability.
1. They wrote a story about Michigan exceeding practice time limits. It is true - we did.
2. They mentioned improper personel being at voluntary workouts - also true.
People seem to want to concentrate on the Free Press' motivations (which I admit seem sketchy) rather than admit what the facts are: what they alleged about the program was true.
I did indeed spell "misled" incorrectly. Thank you for the correction.
That is all.
It's not about a "non-scientific" approach, it's about correct or incorrect. The article was ill-informed and ignored the basic research required for context, and it's incorrect to allege that Michigan more than doubled their countable hours. Blowing smoke about reader bias is irrelevant; the facts remain that Rosenberg did not do the job of a good newspaper writer when constructing that article - that job being reporting the facts in a non-biased fashion.
If you're ignorant about the actual story, that's your choice, but don't come here pretending to be the voice of reason or some sort of martyr that is preaching to the irrational Michigan fanbase.
So yes, I did neg you.
Well, let's be honest here, we're all out of context.
Just like without the proper context of plays, formations, responsibilities, and experience in football, trying to figure out what football player is a BUST is usually a hopeless exercise....
....the people who actually know something about journalism think Rosenberg's done a good job with his investigative journalism re: Michigan football:
Other first-place writing awards went to:
• Michael Rosenberg, Mark Snyder, Jim Schaefer and Shawn Windsor for the sustained coverage of a single sports event for "Investigating Michigan football."
...something about journalism and he wasn't impressed. That the piece won a "Michigan Journalism Award" from the Michigan AP is hardly prima facie evidence that the work was quality investigative journalism.
It appears that you believe that Rosenberg, et al did the University community a great service for uncovering the practicegate small change. The wild variances between what the Freep alleged and what the NCAA found in its investigation inform my fundamental disagreement with your stance.
You're wrong - I don't believe a great service was done, because I don't believe that football players should have to worry about practice / school limits. Most of them are there to play ........ football. We may as well be honest about it.
And in regards to the variances..................
If I'm charged with 1st degree DWI, and the judge downgrades the charge to 2nd degree DWI, but the jury convicts me of 3rd degree DWI................
..........I'm still guilty of DWI. It doesn't mean the prosecutor didn't do their job. It means we got the truth (however that shakes out). The same thing is happening with Rosenberg / Freep / NCAA - after all, if Michigan didn't break any rules, the NCAA wouldn't be involved and RR wouldn't have changed his practice routines now would he?
If someone charges me with murder, and then it turns out that I only get convicted of some sort of assault (say I punched the guy and knocked him unconscious in an argument), most would not consider that good "journalism". In addition, if there was sufficient damage done to my reputation, many would consider that bad "journalism"... particularly if the reporter could have just walked over and checked the guy's pulse to see if he was alive.
This is certainly a contrived analogy, but I think it fits better than your contrived analogy.
Tell me, how could the Freep and the NCAA possibly have found the same things? Did the Freep have the same access that the NCAA had? Would we want journalists to require such access before reporting a story? It is not surprising that the original story seemed more sensationalized than the NCAA's findings (one is a newspaper article based on flimsy evidence, the other an official report based on a more scientific approach). The Freep work was done by journalists with an agenda (selling papers). If you read the stories, you will find that they were up-front about being limited in their access to data (records, personnel).
And statements like "It appears that you believe that Rosenberg, et al did the University community a great service" are just ridiculous and add nothing to the conversation. I dont believe that myself or any others of like mind think that Rosenberg et al's work was not flawed. I (and maybe others) just think that their work was simply the work of journalists, biased and flawed like all investigative journalism is, and that pointing the finger of blame at them for being biased and flawed is redundant and short-sighted. The lack of institutional control was to blame, whether such is universal to all programs or occurs only at Michigan. If the former is the state of affairs, Michigan is going to take the fall for the other programs, which of course sucks.
If the end justifies the means for you, that's fine, I disagree. The fact is, they didn't ask for any access, this article was printed days after they were given a tip from information they trumped up, there was no request made for information and absolutely no attempt at doing even basic research. Instead they rushed to print with half-baked accusations that turned out to be true.
In my opinion the terms 'biased' and 'flawed' are inadequate in this case.
If it were simply biased, then it would be an article about a widespread problem that used M as an example to show that there is rampant abuse in the system. They have easy and constant access to athletes at any program or even other sports at UM, they could have broadened the scope with even a single day of follow up. Instead, they wrote an article that holds UM up as the only abuser and smeared them as having a blatant disregard for student welfare. That is not the case as the NCAA investagation determined.
Flawed would mean that they included something about countable v. non-countable but were unclear about the definition, or perhaps that they shouldn't have applied such a convenient double-standard in granting anonymity to biased sources for fear of repercussion while openly attributing the quotes from current players without regard for their standing on the team. that is 'flawed'
More apt terms would be 'deliberate', 'smear campaign', 'muck-raking', 'agenda focused'. In my opinion, the terms you use are too apologetic for something that was not just a little off on facts or ethics, they do not adequately describe using your position as a journalist to mount an all out attack on a program and coach.
I dont have anything to add to what is becoming the proverbial "dead horse." We simply have irreconcilable perspectives. I am fine with that.
'Instead they rushed to print with half-baked accusations that turned out to be true.'
Meant to say '.....turned out NOT to be true'
they are voted on by a few attendees at a conference and not really based on any kind of comittee or review. This has been covered by this blog and a frequent poster who actually works in and knows something about journalism debunked these awards as meaningless. Search the site, it is in the forum somewhere.
I can also cite several journalists that work at 'real' publications like the Economist that actually read the article and call them out on their lack of journalistic standards and ethics.
In the end, if you don't support RR you are going to see what you want to see and believe what you want to believe, regardless of reality.
I am actually going to look at the whole picture and form my own opinion based on what I see and the results on the field. I include in my opinion the higher team GPA, the community involvement, the obvious regard he has for his players, the discispline he has shown thus far in dealing with players that cross the line, his dedication to the Mealer family, etc., etc. Remember that one of your beloved 'infractions' was for enforcing attendance to class a little too vigorously, which as far as infractions go, I'll take it.
In my opinion, his character is pretty well established and as a legacy alumus and lifelong fan that values the integrity of the program as much as anything else, I am convinced that it is in good hands in that respect and no half-assed, slanted piece of hack writing is going to change until there is a shred of evidence to the contrary.
As for the results on the field, for me the jury is still out. Rome wasn't built in a day and I am not obtuse enough to think that RR needs 'X wins this year or else', and fortunately neither is David Brandon. The next season or two will determine his fate at Michigan, but it will be determined by what happens on the field and not by smear tactics or disgruntled fans with an agenda.
Here is a thought, why not support RR and his efforts over the next 1.5 years and do what you can to see that the on the field results put M back in contention for a MNC for the first time since 1997, rather than join up with cowardly journalists and mouth-breathing fans of other teams in trying to tear the program down?
Uh, I support Rich Rodriguez, I have from day one, I want him to win, I expect he will. Evidently you don't hang out in these parts during the season because I get callouses on my fingers defending this guy and the development of this team, instead of calling guys BUSTS and UNACCEPTABLE and OMG FIRE THIS WV JERK.
"Joining up with cowardly journalists?" Get a damned grip, man. Rosenberg's been proven partially right by the fact there is an NCAA investigation, and Brandon and RR admitted they needed to change things at their March/April presser. That is an e-fact. Ignore what you will, RR admitted to breaking rules in that presser. That does NOT mean I don't support the guy, because I do.
I have no say over whether he's fired or not, so there is nothing I can "do."
I just really don't find whining about Rosenberg to be of much use, because he did what he did. Move on.
If by partially right, you mean that they employed hyperbole to accuse M of exceeding practice time by something close to 20 hours, only to find out that it was a misappropriation of stretching time that constituted a 5% overage, then yes, you are correct they were partially right. The NCAA admits on their own website that the rules are arcane and difficult to interpret and that many D1 program run afoul of them. So should we fix that? Yes, of course. Should we act like it is some major transgression and some sort of dark blotch on an otherwise tainted M history? no.
I have a grip and I will not forget nor forgive a delieberate attack on the M program. Not now, not ever. We disagree, I think they should be held accountable for their shoddy work, you don't. You think it is ok to publish baseless exposes as long as there is some shred of something that is only true in the fractional sense, I don't.
By your logic, you would think it is okay to forgive a newspaper that rushes to press with a loosely researched expose accusing the CEO of a large corporation of massive investor fraud, only to find out in the subsequent investigation that there was no massive fraud and that perhaps the data plan on his mobile bill shouldn't be something he can expense according to some arcane accounting rule that the FTC admits that many companies often misinterpret. Should he pay back the $30.00 per month he previously expensed? Yes. Should he discontinue expensing his data plan in the future? Yes. Is he a fraudulant scumbag that lacks any shred of character that deserves to be removed from his position? Certainly not. Now consider that the journalist and editor involved have previously and publicly indicated a bias against the current CEO and ask yourself if you really think what they did was okay? I don't and I think they should be called out for their journalistic malpractice whenever, wherever possible. I think that they should at least be accountable to the extent that their integrity as journalists should be questioned at every opportunity and I don't think their shoddy work should be swept under the rug and forgiven or forgotten.
My apologies if i categorized you unfairly as one of the the anti-RR minions. My bad. It is just that the vast majority of the Rosenberg apologists fall into that camp. You have to forgive me and let it go, because it was my bias and shoddy research/sourcing that led to the baseless accusation and you are on record as being okay with that ;)
You and I are both Michigan football fans, as well as Rich Rod fans. Let's agree on what brings us together as fans - the rest is just background noise.
Wait - I don't mean it negatively. You have your opinions, and they deserve respect. I get what you're saying, I understand. Let's look for a 10-win 2010 season so we can have a little positivity.
No offense taken and I actually respect your position as well.
We just see things differently with regard to this. [handshake]
10 wins would make me very happy.
you may have missed it when i said it in the other thread: i used to help run that contest. it's nothing more than "flashiest headline"/grabs interest in a contest where people scramble to read 20 articles and decided which is the best in approximately 30 mins
that award isn't exactly a Nobel
I'm not sure what science has to do with it, beyond the simple math of counting up hours, or perhaps the application of even the most rudimentary method of verifiying facts before you print them, or perhaps doing a cursory amount of research into the rules you are accusing someone of breaking....or even adjusting the scope of your article to include other programs which would have greatly enhanced the impact of the article by showing that this is an issue endemic to the conference/football/NCAA athletics. All of which is basic practice in any journalistic pursuit. This isn't a case of not doing a few things that you may or may not do when publishing an expose in a newspaper, it is a case of deliberately ignoring even the most basic of journalistic standards in conjunction with a complete disregard for any form of ethical integrity, simply because it would have detracted from the real goal of the 'article', which was clearly to smear RR and his staff. That is reprehensible and the end does not justify the means when you consider the methodology (or lack thereof) and that aside from a 5% overage in practice time, the accusation made were completely off-base. This applies no matter whether the target be a political figure, a CEO at a major corporation, Jim Tressel, etc. Muck-raking is muck-raking.
Columns are opinion based, articles are not. This wasn't presented as 'one man's opinion' in Rosenbergs column, it was printed as an accusatory news article based purpotedly on facts, which warrants the application of journalistic practice and ethics. Rosenberg did NOT 'just do his job', he wrote and printed a hit job to further his publicly acknowledged agenda. He deliberately manipulated and exaggerated information, employed quotes from current players completely out of context and used biased and anonymous sources to support his claims, deliberately omitted any data/source that would mitigate his position or broaden the issue to any other programs, as well as any contextual information that would serve to shed light on the nature of any potential infractions.
Question, if the Free Press was sooooo worried about repercussions to the sources that they granted anonymity, why did they so easily throw the players whose quotes were attributed to them under the bus without any worry as to their fate?
Even if you want to take a scientific approach to this, what they did would be the equivalent of a scientific journal printing an story based on flimsy, unfounded heresy from biased sources that a premiere research lab was using shoddy methodology in their research and thus call into question any results they have produced, spurring a big investigation. At the conclusion of that investigation, it turns out that none of the original accusations were true and that some other minor infractions may have occured that wouldn't really call into question the labs results.
If you can be an apologist for Rosenberg & Co. in this case, then you must be okay with anybody printing whatever kind of biased, agenda driven piece that they want to without fear of recrimination. At that point, the only difference between a traditional newspaper/news source and the Enquirer is the subject matter that they choose to dredge/make up. Do you really want to end up there?
I, for one, was elated by the latest subscriber and impression numbers for the Free Press as being much lower. I can only hope that the demise of paper that, at least parts of it, shows so little regard for actual journalism cannot come soon enough and I will dance on its grave when it goes under.
agree with your assessment on the Freep, I would like to take time to complement your avatar. Good choice.
Edit: For blueblueblue.
Thanks man. I will take this time to say that a couple of times I sat next to your avatar (or the real life version), and thus it always brings back fond memories of being so close to such exquisiteness. She is as hot in real life as anyone might imagine (perhaps you already know this).
i thought it was photoshopped M stuff and some random model.
She was/is a UM student. That photo is from some organization that had students from various big schools working as models. I think it was a competition. I can't think of the name of the org/web site right now - perhaps someone else remembers.....?
Shaweet.
Tempe 12. Her name is Rachel.
If I get a chance to read it free, I will, but I will not put a penny in Rosenpuke's pocket. I don't click on any of his stories anywhere, nor do I even click on anything the freep does unless I am careless in not checking a link before I click.
And I would imagine that reading the reviews of the book on Amazon is still a lot of fun unless Rosenpuke had them removed.
I guess if one's job is to misrepresent himself to 18 year-old college students to gather information for an "unbiased" story whose sole purpose is to perpetrate a personal attack on the head football coach of the University of Michigan, then Rosenpuke was "doing his job."
Sadly, I don't think this was Rosenberg's job. Rosenberg's job is to adhere to journalistic standards and ethics, including representing himself honestly and writing the truth in an unbiased manner. He failed miserably on both counts.
Saying that Rosenberg was "doing his job" is like saying that Pee Wee Herman was "doing his job" as a comedian when he was caught jerking off in a movie theater. He could say he was doing it for art, but all that was really involved was self-gratification. I'm sure Rosenpuke still feels very gratified.