Freep fires another shot across the bow . . .
I was on my way to an uneasy truce with the free press but just when you thought you were out, they pull you back in. . .
Page 4A - Detroit's Top Ten Stories of 2009
"U-M ALLEGATIONS: Rich Rod under scrutiny
In August, a Free Press investigation quoted current and former University of Michigan football players as saying coach Rich Rodriguez worked them beyond NCAA limits. An internal investigation launched, and the NCAA joined in, even announcing a few weeks later that they'd found enough smoke to keep looking for fire.
The response to the Free Press investigation was loud and hurtful from Rich Rod supporters -- but the invective died down dramatically as the Wolverines' losses mounted on the field."
Give me a break. Trying to give this non-story, piece of crap 'journalism' this kind of spotlight is ridiculous.
Loud and hurtful indeed.
December 27th, 2009 at 11:44 AM ^
it was a top story in metro detroit at the time....
December 27th, 2009 at 11:53 AM ^
This is no different than a Kirby vacuum cleaner salesman sticking his foot in your door and throwing a clump of dirt on your rug and telling you your rug is dirty.
This is only a story because the Freep dedicated the space for it and no other reason.
Not a "top" story by any measure, certainly not a Detroit story.
December 29th, 2009 at 2:16 AM ^
That's exactly what it was.
December 27th, 2009 at 11:56 AM ^
Saint Dantonio continues to run perfect program.
All MSU football players get 4.0 GPAs and are models of gallantry and good conduct.
December 27th, 2009 at 1:26 PM ^
so this is mostly a technical question: Is the MSU crime-blotter and East Lansing criminal courts not a "Local Story" by whatever unspoken definition the Freep and Jim Shaefer placed on "Local"?
Kind of funny; contrast the Freep's own, self-manufactured story that was and is and never will be criminal in nature, and which may not result in any serious finding of any major misconduct or major violation of any kind... Contrast that with seven or nine or eleven or however many MSU players actually arraigned, in a Lansing District Court, on charges that might result in felony convictions.
I'm serious here; is the explanation that "Lansing isn't a local story, but Ann Arbor is..."?
December 27th, 2009 at 12:12 PM ^
was in giving the freep a second chance. Just don't read it at all. It's really simple, especially with the net and TV (local news).
I'm in Philly and have never read the local paper, because I get news elsewhere.
December 27th, 2009 at 12:20 PM ^
instead worry about when our West Virginia coaches start doing better than West Virginia's West Virginia coaches.
December 27th, 2009 at 12:26 PM ^
really?
December 27th, 2009 at 12:27 PM ^
An outsider's opinion:
I never stepped foot in Michigan before coming to UofM in 2002. I thought people were overrating the shitty factor of Detroit. I was wrong.
While the Detroit suburbs are some of the best suburbs of a major city in this country, Detroit is a major shit hole. I have a theory that anyone who continues to add to that giant ball of shit in Detroit is also a shit head. Therefore, Freep employees = shitheads.
December 27th, 2009 at 12:35 PM ^
As another outsider who had never been to Michigan before 2004, I think you're unbelievably ignorant. Detroit is a city, rich in culture and history, which has fallen on very tough times. Anyone who's spent any meaningful amount of time in that city would understand how much its citizens care about it.
December 27th, 2009 at 12:55 PM ^
Knowing it's rich in culture and it's citizens care about it is not mutually exclusive from it being a shitty city in it's current state. See Football, Notre Dame for a example we ridicule all the time.
December 27th, 2009 at 1:32 PM ^
Look I'll agree I was overly harsh and the ending was meant as a joke (ala Team America - dicks, pussies, and assholes). A bad one I guess.
But to say Detroit is rich in culture and history is absolutely true. It doesn't change the nation's view that Detroit itself is in a total state of crap right now (again, NOT the suburbs):
- Bailout of GM
- Tons of abandoned buildings in city limits
- Biggest fall in RE value
- Consistently one of the three "most dangerous cities"
- Huge racial segregation factor
- 1950: 4th largest US City; 2000: 11th largest city (loss of one million people)
- Only one of two cities to experience a major "white flight" in the past 50 years (other being Miami)
One point that comes out of this - a lot of UMich grads DON'T go to Detroit after graduation. I believe NY and IL (Chicago) are the top destinations. So, in return the support for UofM in Detroit is much lower than say, MSU. Which, in my opinion, is why the Freep takes its shots at UMich seemingly every opportunity it can. It's not hard to deduct that conclusion.
December 27th, 2009 at 1:50 PM ^
You're right, a lot of Michigan grads don't go to Detroit after graduation, but there are those of us who do--and who furthermore are committed to rebuilding the city.
The aftershocks of Michigan's greater problems--broadly the "end" of manufacturing as a significant industry in the state--have further set back the city, but we haven't lost hope.
I would argue that a key to the future success/rebound of Detroit and the state of Michigan as a whole is the ability to retain smart, young people and find them secure jobs where their talents and creativity can be utilized. This is an issue President Emeritus Duderstadt thinks/talks/writes a lot about.
December 27th, 2009 at 2:02 PM ^
Agreed 100%.
The problem with the change in Detroit is that it's going to take more than just intelligent in-state talent taking jobs there to turn it around.
Detroit is obviously much bigger than a suburb or a sub-set of a city that can be revitalized through gentrification of young, well-off, intelligent people (for example, the Lincoln Park / Bucktown neighborhoods of Chicago that have turned around).
And while cities like Miami have turned around over the past two decades, Detroit lacks the general qualities that made Miami attractive again (namely - warm weather year round, South Beach, and improved safety).
I think what it will ultimately take is a few genius minds that believe in Detroit and start businesses there. I'm not talking Mom and Pop shops either - it'd have to be large scale (not the scale of a Google per se, but companies that employ thousands of people is a must).
It can be turned around, but it's going to take a while.
December 27th, 2009 at 2:21 PM ^
Two of my best friends realllly think about the logistics of turning Detroit around (they have been known to bring copies of Detroit's city charter to the bar, trying to construct what feasibly and legally could be done to restore a decent tax base for the city to operate from.)
I love Detroit but usually continue drinking/tune out as they do this, however from what I gather the problem with starting businesses in the city as things stand currently is the infrastructure (economic and otherwise) just isn't there. It would be a bold (yet risky) move to open/relocate a business to Detroit, and given the past couple years, minimizing risk = the goal.
Baby steps--once a few businesses (even smaller ones) set up shop and really establish roots, perhaps it will be a message to other larger companies that Detroit is awesome and that it's safe and potentially profitable for them to do the same.
December 27th, 2009 at 2:59 PM ^
1. Stop electing populist mayors who are anti-business and anti-suburban. They have taken a step in the right direction by electing Bing.
2. Get some actual accountability regarding the city's finances and hire people who are qualified to handle them. End the patronage system. This is a problem for many big cities, but in Detroit's case it's horrendous. I believe Bing is committed to changing this.
3. This is highly controversial, but it needs to be done. Consolidate neighborhoods. Around one-third (!) of Detroit's 139 square miles now consist of abandoned property. Many neighborhoods, especially on the east side, have become massively depopulated, but the city is still obligated to provide services (schools, police, garbage collection, snow removal, etc.) to the few residents that are there. This is stretching the city's budget to the breaking point. Somehow the city needs to get the few people who remain in these areas to move elsewhere, to more intact neighborhoods (which would, in turn, benefit from the population gain). Turn the depopulated areas into parkland or possibly industrial zones. The city could, in the long run, save a ton of money by not having to provide services to so many far-flung areas, and it could strengthen its support for the intact neighborhoods. This would likely make the city safer to live in.
4. Expand mass transit. Detroit is the only of the 25 largest metropolitan areas in the U.S. to not have a regional mass transit system. That's ridiculous. How much nicer would it be if you could go from the State Fairgrounds to the Cultural Center to downtown without having to drive?
December 27th, 2009 at 2:25 PM ^
but I think some of the problems you reference, particularly its state of segregation and history of white flight, have to be seen as problems of the metropolitan area as a whole.
To the argument that the Freep's current state of horribleness is motivated by the lack of U of M grads in the city: I think the reasoning there is kind of dubious. It assumes 1) that State grads make up a significantly larger proportion of the central city's population and 2) that the Freep relies on the central city population for a predominant chunk of its readership. I'm too lazy to research either of these assumptions, but I'm not willing to take either as given.
December 27th, 2009 at 2:42 PM ^
I agree with a lot of this, but I think you're mistaken about support for U-M being lower than that for MSU in the Detroit area. From my experience as a lifelong SE Michigan resident, most people around here who don't have family ties to MSU root for U-M. (In other parts of the state, such as around Lansing and Grand Rapids, it seems to be reversed.) As for why the Free Press likes to take shots at us, my understanding is that it has something to do with a member of their editorial board having ties to a guy (Jim Stapleton?) with an ax to grind with our athletic deparetment.
December 27th, 2009 at 3:05 PM ^
I'm not sure about motive. It may be personal; it may be that Rosenberg has deep ties to the old regime; it may be that Stapleton has his own well-worn greivances; it may be somewhat political in that Stapleton is essentially a Democrat politician (as a Granholm-installed EMU Regent) and the Freep is essentially a Democrat paper; Stapelton used to be a member (alumni rep?) of what we used to call our Board in Control of Intercollegiate Athletics, but he isnt' now; Stapleton also has his own consulting business that does I-don't-know-what.
So it is complicated. As to "motive," I am not sure if any single explanation suffices. I suspect not. I agree that there are plenty of questions. This is such an interesting story for serious observers of Michigan sports, you'd think that our local sports radio would investigate. But of course that's not what those guys do, either. They are simply in the business of churning out day after day of routine trashtalk about whatever happens to be above the fold on the sports page or on the front page of whatever disreputable paper everyone happens to pick up.
For my own part, I try not to go too far off on speculation as to "motive," except insofar as the evidence clearly demonstrates.
My complaint with the Freep is its methods. And on that subject, the Freep has plenty to answer for.
December 27th, 2009 at 3:09 PM ^
The reason that the freep writes such ridiculous anti-UM stories and headlines is simple. It is worth mentioning that the headlines are often more ridiculous than the stories/articles, and that serves as greater evidence to my point. People don't care about MSU. UM fans, like us, care about it now, but that is only because we want to prove something, and we've sucked lately. The truth is that nobody cares about MSU football.
The newspaper is trying to make money. They need money badly, and that takes precedence over ethics and integrity. So they write ridiculous things about UM because people will click on it. I think it is silly to assume their anti-UM agenda, which does exist, has any motivation other than survival/greed. If people cared about MSU football, they'd write more negative stories about them too.
December 27th, 2009 at 3:23 PM ^
Any random sampling of Freep.com's "Most Viewed" and "Most Commented" stories shows it; even minor stories about Michigan get huge numbers of hits. Major stories about Detroit, about the auto industry (the Freep used to have some of the best autmomotive writers in the country), about state government; they all rotuinely can't compare to the kind of spirited web traffic driven by Michigan football stories.
The Freep knows how it works; they write a negative story about Michigan. Then, some of the Michigan faithful complain, then the trolls jump in, the argument starts, and you end up with 20 pages of comments, all generating web revenue. Nothing like that happens if you are reporting on the City of Detroit's budget, or teacher contract negotiations, or shipping-ballast water discharges in the Great Lakes.
December 27th, 2009 at 12:50 PM ^
The idea, however joking, that Freep employees suck because they sully themselves with the actual city of Detroit, unlike noble outer-ring suburbanites, is absent of win.
December 27th, 2009 at 12:32 PM ^
Calling a story that they created the "top story of the year" definitely shows a lack of ethics. Hopefully, the freep will cease operations soon and make way for ethical and accurate journalism.
December 27th, 2009 at 6:22 PM ^
that their story listing the top stories of the year wasn't itself listed as a top story of the year.
December 27th, 2009 at 6:46 PM ^
The former student was identified only as being an alumnus, who was "familiar with football operations."
However, being fearful of retaliation from the Free Press' writers, editors, publishers, and their families, we cannot reveal his identity, in accordance with ethical guidelines at MGoBlog.
December 27th, 2009 at 12:35 PM ^
...they are desperate to sell newspapers, stay in business, and continue to collect paychecks as long as possible. Hopefully they shall soon be gone.
December 27th, 2009 at 1:02 PM ^
Generally I live by the motto of "if the topic doesn't interest you, then don't click on it." And, I don't care about the FreeP Jihad, so I don't usually click on these topics.
But, I'm a little bored, so I will express my confusion as to why people continue to post stuff about the FreeP. I don't pretend to have the "power" to tell people what to post, but I just dont get it ... For example, I haven't clicked a FreeP link since their story broke, and I never intend to.
Conversely, if you like their sports coverage or whatever, then feel free to click on it - but why are you outraged when they slander UM? You should know by now that it's it's part of their M.O., and by clicking on their links you accept the risk that you'll end up reading some of that bullshit.
December 27th, 2009 at 1:03 PM ^
"Shot across the bow" is the wrong phrase. More like "kicking someone when they're down," or "rubbing salt in the wound."
December 27th, 2009 at 3:16 PM ^
"pea-shooter across the bow"
"rubbing salt on a non-existent wound"
There is no wound. There is no story, and there was no story. They made a serious accusation based on little evidence, followed that up by being dishonest about the nature of the evidence they did acquire, and continue to talk about the original hack-job because nothing is happening now or in the future as a result of their work.
December 27th, 2009 at 1:59 PM ^
And here's the thing; the Free Press is trying as hard as it can to steer the story in yet another direction. That is, "The Reaction." And there are several reasons for it.
First and foremost, the Free Press realizes that it has made a serious and inexplicable mistake with respect to its grants of anonymity in the August story. The Freep extended anonymity to a handful of "former" players and their families(?), but it did not grant any anonymity, clearly, to Brandin Hawthorn and Je'Ron Stokes. And that, Mr. Rosenberg, would be, uh, why? Why on Earth would somebody like a Justin Boren (the Freep won't let on if he was one of the sources) for fear of "retaliation from coaches," but Michigan's own two freshman wouldn't? Don't think about it too hard. There's absolutely no explaining it. (Well, maybe it could be explained, if Rosenberg would admit that all of his undisclosed interiews with former players were stilted toward, "Can you help me prove some wrongdoing?" and the interviews with Hawthorn and Stokes were blind-side questions in which neither player inteded to imply any wrong doing at all. One of the great things about all of this has been the collective "We've got your backs!" from Michgan coaches and fans to young Brandin and Je'Ron. Hopefully, neither one will ever again talk to a Free Press reporter. I don't know why any player would ever talk to another Free Press reporter.) If you press Rosenberg about it, at a public q-and-a, as I have, what you get is, "Well, we should have written at the time that anonymity was granted, in part, out of fear of 'public' retaliation." In other words, Rosenberg thinks that his sources needed anonymity out of fear not just from coaches but also from people like us. (Incidentally, Rosenberg, when challenged on the Free Press's own ethical guidelines, which have been changed since this story got started, has said that his "former player" sources asked for anonymity, but Stokes and Hawthorn didn't. It would seem like a kind of a weird inquiry or a request when talking about sports, but Rosenberg had to give that answer because that is, or was, a requirement of the Free Press's ethical guidelines. When you ask him about Toney Clemons, who seems to say he never aksed for anonymity and who seems to have outed himself, along with casting doubt on the original story, Rosenberg has no comment.)
As we know, Freep Publisher Paul Anger complained bitterly in a column of his own a week later, in which he crowed about Mike Rosenberg getting vague death threats via e-mail. He quoted from a couple of them which left me thinking at the time, "I really wish no Michigan fan had done somehting like that." (Although is there a public figure anywhere who hasn't gotten some kind of vaguely threatening e-mail? The Pope? Billy Graham? Barack Obama? Jim Tressel? Mitch Albom? Paul Anger?) And now, I have nothing but cold-heartedness for what the Free Press has done. Read the Freep's own monitored(?) Comments pages. It is nothing but thousands and thousands of hate-messages aimed at Rich Rodriguez, all accusing RR of the things that the Freep never had the guts, AND NEVER HAD THE EVIDENCE, to accuse him of formally. Go to the Freep website and treat yourself to one of the thousands of messages accusing Michigan of cheating, recruiting violations, academic violations, criminal activity -- you name it. And those are the MONITORED comment pages.
The other thing about the August story is that it fades with each passing news cycle, and the Freep's justification for any continuting attention for the story is that the story has spawned "reaction" from Michigan fans. (If you are a Michigan fan, it seems, you are somehow automatically disqualified from commentary.) The Freep seems to think that its story still has legs because of the reaction. Here's Jim Schaefer, on this Top Ten Local Story of 2009: "The response to the Free Press investigation was loud and hurtful from Rich Rod supporters - but the invective died down dramatically as the Wolverines' losses mounted on the field." It's hard to plumb the stupidity of that remark. First, it comes from Jim Schaefer, who was part of the reporting team on this very story, after national writers pointed out that it was journalistic malpractice for the Freep to have allowed an anti-Rodriguez columnist like Rosenberg do an "investigation" like this. (The Freep subsequently assigned Jim Schaefer to the story AFTER the Rosenberg-conflict criticism.)
So let's be clear; there are some bad guys here at the Free Press. And let's name them; Michael Rosenberg, Mark Snyder, Jim Schaefer and Paul Anger. And let's also be clear that few people outside of the Michigan blogoshphere are taking on the Free Press. The writers at the Detroit News and at Ann Arbor.com certainly haven't defended the Free Press; but they've done virtually nothing to really question the methods.
If there is a big story from August it is this; the Free Press has probably never seen the kind of blowback as with this story. You get the distinct impression, if you talk to the Free Press staff, that they are unused to large numbers of people in their home market doing counter-reporting on their stories. And, of course, the Freep's fear of the digital world that is overtaking it, is palpable. This story plays on all of the Freep's worst fears; that there are other sources on a big moneymaking topic (the University of Michigan and college football) that can report faster, and better, and more completely than the Freep. Which is clearly the case, with MGoBlog.
So here's to you, Free Press; and here's to you, Rosenberg, Snyder, Shaefer, Anger: Here's hoping that 2010 is the year of your nightmares. The worst year in the fading life of the Free Press.
December 27th, 2009 at 1:16 PM ^
[Double-post; not sure how that happened.]
December 27th, 2009 at 1:33 PM ^
The post was so long it wanted to be in two boxes instead of one.
December 27th, 2009 at 1:22 PM ^
I think the key point is this: they had to use this statement
but the invective died down dramatically as the Wolverines' losses mounted on the field.instead of this statement
but the invective died down dramatically as further investigation corroborated the initial accusations.While people stopped cussing them out, there still isn't anybody who doesn't believe the investigation was an awful piece of journalism.
December 27th, 2009 at 3:27 PM ^
Because he is simply wrong. The August story (to the enormous dismay of Rosenberg and Snyder, no doubt) faded as soon as the season started, and Michigan reeled off four stright wins. After that, before Michigan lost a game, only we cognoscenti were still talking about the story.
[Edit.--I should say, I agree with the point that you were making, GCS. Well said.]
LET'S NOT FORGET: Mark Snyder started off this football season by predicting that Michigan would lose to Western Michigan, and then lose to Notre Dame. Imagine if that had been the case. We might now be looking for a new head coach. Not because we need a new head coach, but because nobody could have withstood the combination of "Scandal"(alleged, per Freep)/Western loss/Notre Dame loss. Rich Rodriguez and our Wolverines shut the story down in September, by winning. It did not just fade because the team lost in October and November. (This is more of the Free Press mythmaking; again, the Free Press's larger campaign is to try to convince its readers that anyone who criticizes their "investigation" is just a Michigan fan-boy, and not a serious observer. That's the most insulting fallout from the August story.)
So as usual, the Free Press is pretty much comprehensively wrong. They seem to be in the business of making up their own stories as they go along.
Indeed, it should not be overlooked, and needs to be said again; the Free Press story was designed, intended, and carefully crafted to cause Rich Rodriguez the maximum amount of chaos and distraction at the time that he could least affoord it -- the beginning of this year. The Freep raced through its month of reporting without getting any of the background documents, and without taking the time to talk to the Compliance Services Office, and without giving anybody a chance to examine, and respond to, the allegations. This was a deliberate act of malice on the part of the Free Press.
December 27th, 2009 at 2:27 PM ^
On September 1, 2009, Jim Schaefer (the author of the Free Press' Top Local Stories of 2009) sent a Freedom of Information Act Request to the Univerisity's FOIA Coordinator. Remember, that is AFTER the Free Press ran its August "investigation" (with one day's notice to Rodriguez, Barwis, Martin, Coleman, et al.)
And on that date, Shaefer asked for:
"Any and all reports, memos, forms or other documents regarding the football team produced by anyone in Compliance Director Judy Van Horn's office from Jan. 1 2006 to present, whether that material was kept internally, sent to football personnel or to the NCAA."
As I read this and other FOIA requests from the Freep staff to the University, they were essentially saying, "Okay, our story is done, based on interviews we did and which will remain secret. Now, give us all of the relevant public documents."
Transparently, they were trying to keep their story secret until the Sunday paper was published in late August. Only after that, did they approach anybody for a real investigation. The Free Press' goal was to get something out, before the season started. They ony had a month to do all of their interviews; the start of the whole story, I have no doubt, was a leaked copy of the July, 2009 Auditors' report that had specifically found no violations on the part of any team, but did note that the football team had not turned in its CARA report forms. This was a story that was created because a reporter (Rosenberg) thought that he could make something out of the Auditor's report. And rather than reporting that first, and then going about the business of interviewing people about CARA, Rosenberg took the 'gotcha' route. He went all over the country, to all the guys he could find with axes to grind with Rodriguez, and got quotes from them. And then, to make it look not-so-contrived, he got his butchered quotes from the innocent Stokes and Hawthorn.
December 27th, 2009 at 3:20 PM ^
The response to the Free Press investigation was loud and hurtful from Rich Rod supporters -- but the invective died down dramatically as the Wolverines' losses mounted on the field.Well let's see. The "investigation" was published during the summer, before the season started. If Michigan fans are humans without the ability to time-travel, then their vocal outrage over the Freep's biased witch hunt can be expected to diminish with time, based on the lack of need for repeating criticisms. We know that Michigan started the season with 4 wins; we can logically deduce that all of the losses took place AFTER these 4 wins. If losses mounted with time, then we can infer that the losses will coincide with a reduction in vocalized anger. Or, in simpler terms, the Freep sportswriters are backstabbing, intellectually dishonest weasels. I wish nothing but failure for that joke of a newspaper.
December 27th, 2009 at 3:33 PM ^
your style says it all.
December 28th, 2009 at 9:56 PM ^
How hilarious is it, that the moment that the Freep publishes its Top Ten Local stories of the year, one of the biggest (The attempt on Flight 253) hits the front pages of every newspaper in the world.
Timing is everything for the Free Press.
December 28th, 2009 at 11:16 PM ^
it just doesn't matter.