Great aritcle by Chait about Dorsey controversy
This is a really good article about the controversy of Michigan offering Dorsey a scholarship because of his past run-ins with the law. If you read between the lines he takes a few shot at Drew Sharpe and the Freep. Thought?
Alright time for links: http://michigan.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=1049065
February 6th, 2010 at 1:27 PM ^
In honor of Saturday morning!
February 6th, 2010 at 1:49 PM ^
This is just disturbing.
February 6th, 2010 at 2:12 PM ^
That ain't right.
February 7th, 2010 at 4:29 PM ^
WHAT THE HELL DID I JUST WATCH
February 6th, 2010 at 1:26 PM ^
It's what UM graduates do best. Unfortunately, Sparty are immune to logical argumentation.
February 6th, 2010 at 1:36 PM ^
This was posted already in a few threads and Brian referenced it and even quoted it on the main page. But yes, good article
February 6th, 2010 at 1:41 PM ^
pretty well-respected professional national journalist, and his takedown of Rosenberg and the Freep carries far more weight in journalistic circles than the aggregate bleating that all of us do here.
February 6th, 2010 at 2:05 PM ^
Agree. But Chait's role in all of this has always fascinated me. He has brilliantly deconstructed the Fr--p bias against Michigan, but then he goes to work everyday as a biased journalist himself. In an earlier critique of the Fr--p he even said that the bias displayed by the Fr--p was very rare for the mainstream media. Really??
February 6th, 2010 at 2:07 PM ^
Reflexivity, not an impossible-to-achieve purity, is what's at issue.
It's what Brian talks about when he talks about the meaninglessness of "agenda" as a category when you're judging the quality or suitability of writing.
February 6th, 2010 at 2:43 PM ^
He's not claiming to be unbiased. He's stating that it's unethical to present opinion and bias as "investigative journalism." There's always gray area with this, but Chait is an essayist, opinion writer, and (now) blogger. So are Rosenberg and Sharp. Chait doesn't pretend like he's doing objective, fact-finding reporting. The Freep does. The New Republic has an overt political agenda. The Freep has a covert, disingenuous political agenda in the case of their coverage of U-M.
February 7th, 2010 at 6:25 AM ^
Opinion purporting to be objective journalism = dishonest, wrong.
Opinion purporting to be opinion = acceptable = Chait.
You = don't know what you're talking about.
February 6th, 2010 at 2:06 PM ^
I don't even care, this is just hilarious:
"(hey gang, let's pile into the Mystery Machine and unmask the villain!"
February 6th, 2010 at 2:31 PM ^
That is exactly the way to discuss the goings on at the Freep, Michigan, and with Rodriguez.
It's either a non-story, or a story EVERY time any university recruits a player with a checkered past.
February 6th, 2010 at 2:49 PM ^
You don't really need to "read between the lines" to determine his stance on the Freep's biased journalism. In fact, I'm not sure how he could have put it more bluntly.
February 6th, 2010 at 3:59 PM ^
Chait is hammering the Free Press.
OF COURSE the Day 2 story on Dorsey was "a model of probity." Within the four corners of the story.
The question is, why was it a Front-page-plus-full-inside-page story? Why has Dorsey gotten this scrutiny? The fake answer is, "because this raises important questions about Rich Rodriguez's stewardship of Michigan football." When in fact there isn't a single unusual or questionable aspect to Rodriguez's judgment. No team is without disciplinary issues. Michigan has no more, and no fewer, than what might be expected, and Rodriguez's handling of all such issues has been thoroughly within not only routine standards but also the exceptional standards of Michigan.
So then there can only be the REAL reason for the story -- Free Press antipathy for Rodriguez.
I think Jon Chait has been doing a superb job of chronicling that antipathy.
Remember too, that the Detroit Free Press is notable for its pro-Democrat and notoriously liberal editorial biases. Chait, like the Free Press, writes from a liberal/progressive political advocacy position. So Chait is not preserving any political connections. Chait is very much cutting against the grain of his own political allies, including disagreeing mightily with fellow alumni of the Michigan Daily -- Rosenbrg and Snyder.
Kudos, and mega-dittoes, Jon Chait. Keep up the good work.
February 6th, 2010 at 3:02 PM ^
Liked it,but I would like to know whose pulling the puppets strings?
February 6th, 2010 at 3:49 PM ^
Assuming that the controversy-brewing is good for "clicks" and advertisements, then we the consumers/audience are ultimately the puppet masters, though we may not know that we hold the strings or how to begin to work them.
February 6th, 2010 at 7:38 PM ^
I don't think it takes much reading between the lines to know that Chait is "laying one on" the laziest newspaper "reporters" in the world. Chait calls the freep, Rosenpuke, and Dull to task in no uncertain terms. Most of all, he understands that the unfair coverage is bad for UM and good for MSU because it causes the public to have an inaccurate opinion of both schools.
February 6th, 2010 at 7:15 PM ^
Bravo, Chait! Yet another thoughtful and well-structured analysis.
Chait is elucidating yet another example of a glaringly obvious anti-RR agenda from the Freep. The larger scope of his argument strikes at the heart of journalistic integrity (or lack thereof) itself. A basic tenet of journalism is that it is bigger than a journalist. The duty of a journalist is simple: to deliver unalloyed truth, and let the audience decide. What the Freep has done here is to not only attempt to color the opinion of the reader in what it passes off as "news", but has done so so regularly as to make its intentions and agenda glaringly obvious. This is not only violation of trust of its readership, but a blatant violation of this basic journalistic code.
The worst part is that the Freep is a repeat offender. Chait had a great article last fall decrying what Rosenberg passed off as "journalism" for his story on the NCAA violations:
http://michigan.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=982287
It is ridiculous that the editors at the Freep allow this type of nonsense to go on. It is no surprise that, with papers like the Freep, print journalism is a dying industry.