Lawsuit Against the Freep
August 30th, 2009 at 9:59 AM ^
What on earth are you talking about? 2 of the primary sources for this are Je'Ron Stokes and Bradon Hawthorne - two kids who unwittingly sat down for the press and provided detail about how far over the limit the program went, and did so without malice - they legitimately didn't realize they were tattling. You're going to sue because you don't like it?
August 30th, 2009 at 10:03 AM ^
And this is why in most programs around the nation do not let Freshman talk to the media! Or they are very well coached to talk about this and only this.
August 30th, 2009 at 11:09 AM ^
I am guessing this is in one of the discussions I missed while I was sleeping, but how did we find out Je'Ron Stokes and Brandon Hawthorne were the ones who talked to the Freep? And how do you not know that you are tattling?
August 30th, 2009 at 11:17 AM ^
how did we find out Je'Ron Stokes and Brandon Hawthorne were the ones who talked to the Freep?
Because they're directly quoted by name in the article.
And how do you not know that you are tattling?
When they talked about the number of hours that they put in, and which AD staff were present at off-season workouts, Rosenberg comments that they clearly weren't clear on NCAA rules. In other words, they made an un-prompted comment on how many hours they put in, not realizing it was incriminating.
Did you even read the article, or just the shit-fit here?
August 30th, 2009 at 11:19 AM ^
To be honest I hope he didn't read the article. We don't need the freep getting more hits. I hope you follow suit chitown.
August 30th, 2009 at 11:23 AM ^
Yeah, it's much better to get all your information on a situation directly from people on message boards. The never exaggerate and/or lie outright!
The fact is, a few hundred people deciding not to click on the Freep's website isn't going to hurt them in any real way. Millions of people read the website and buy the paper every day.
August 30th, 2009 at 11:24 AM ^
Yes, let's all just rail against an article that we didn't read!
August 30th, 2009 at 11:29 AM ^
I'm not implying that. I'm stating we should all stop reading freep.
August 30th, 2009 at 11:32 AM ^
You just said you hoped nobody had read the article. How can you comment on an article you've never read?
August 30th, 2009 at 11:32 AM ^
I read AN article, apparently not the same one.
August 30th, 2009 at 11:13 AM ^
nothing Stokes or Hawthorne said made it clear that the workouts weren't voluntary in their minds. The article states that they didn't know about the rules (which I find unlikely, since they all have to sign documents that they didn't practice for more than the maximum hours), but doesn't give any indication how the question about the rules was asked or answered.
August 30th, 2009 at 10:07 AM ^
I'm not a lawyer, but I am a reporter.
First things first: if you were to sue for defamation, libel, or slander, you'd likely lose. The standard, for libel at least (your most likely cause of action), would be to show that the program is somehow not public, that the story did more harm than good, and that they recklessly disregarded the facts. Further, you wouldn't likely have standing against the newspaper to sue.
I don't think the story was reckless - they have some facts, but definitely not enough to make the jump from "players worked more than was probably appropriate" to "OMGZZZ MAJOR RECRUITING VIOLAITION!!1!"
The Freep shouldn't be faulted for investigating something like this - that's what good newspapers do. What they should be faulted for is going to print with the central allegation of the story (i.e., that U-M coaches drove a practice regime that violated NCAA rules) being so thinly sourced directly. The violations claim is based on big inferences and insinuation, which I have a major professional issue with.
I've seen some talk on Twitter and these boards about trying to drive repercussions against the Freep, or, worse, a hope that the paper meets its demise.
Don't do that.
The paper's done hero's work reporting on Kwame and Conyers in the last year alone - it won a Pulitzer for chrissakes. I don't begrudge this reporting team for continue to look into it; I would encourage them to do so, because that's what good reporters do.
But nothing I've read leads me to believe that they'll find anything, and if they report another story that's so thinly sourced, then we've got to start raising serious questions about these reporters' ethics, as well as the professionalism of their editors.
August 30th, 2009 at 10:31 AM ^
You think Michigan is big enough to have this printed in a UK newspaper? I hear their libel law is lax enough that we stand a chance.[/sarcasm]
August 30th, 2009 at 10:37 AM ^
Bill$ Martin might have some spare change lying around to buy a UK paper.
Seriously, though, I had a thought: To the Daily sports editors reading (and I'm sure you are), you've got a golden opportunity here. First edition comes out a week from Tuesday - there's a major opportunity to get in touch with players and coaches to actually field out a great reaction here. If the players' reactions are along the lines of "this is bullshit," there's a great Michigan-versus-the-world story to write going into Game 1, and an even better one going into Game 2 about the mentality of the team.
Assuming for the moment that the story is mostly BS, I would imagine the players are circling the wagons around their coaches. And that's a much better story to write than what the Freep published today.
August 30th, 2009 at 10:35 AM ^
like there is absolute bias in the media and this is the worst I have ever seen.
To ask us not to be pissed at the freep because of kwame is an absolute ridiculous tie in. They are different departments and you are tying in corruption, money laundering, misuse of people and funds for personal gain..........and many more.
I am intimately involved with what went down with the insider of insiders for my info with the kwame case. You are way off base with your comparison.
One story was factually based while another uses innuendo to frame taking down a program out of a vendetta.
Lastly in DC you don't have to live with people who read this garbage and take in as fact on a daily basis. The fact that they use MSU like mother theresa is proof of what they want to see happen.
I am not asking anyone to be a homer slappy but this is agenda driven garbage that does nothing but hurts UM ........ the reporters alma mater. It also does nothing but help the editors alma mater.
By the way the heros work were done by journalists not the freep itself. The journalists will be fine if their work is good. This is about an agenda and money. The freep sold copies of kwames sexting for crying out loud.
August 30th, 2009 at 10:41 AM ^
1.The point is that canceling a subscription would be to inappropriately punish an entire organization (and its stellar politics coverage) for the sins of its sports page.
2. Worst bias evah? (See: Olbermann, Keith and Hannity, Sean) Note: that's bias in the "media," not bias in "reporting" - there's a difference.
3. Any journalist who feels obligated to help or compelled to hurt one school or another should quit. Expecting a reporter to protect their alma mater goes against everything a good journalist should stand for.
August 30th, 2009 at 10:44 AM ^
I'm unsure how you can claim an MSU bias in a sports department where multiple columnists are Michigan graduates. That would be like saying Rush Limbaugh has a liberal bias because he occasionally made derogatory remarks about how much Bush spent. Again, try to grasp this:
RichRod has been unwilling to form connections with and grant special access to reporters who have ties to the Daily in the way Lloyd was. Dantonio has openly courted Detroit media in an effort to one up Michigan. Like every press outlet in the world, access creates good press and a lack of it creates bad press... the News has been much more friendly to RichRod because they've been given more access thanks to everything becoming more merit based.
The Freep's sports department is a shit hole. Do you think you're the only person wanting to punch Drew Sharp in the face? I can go to RCMB and show you 100 threads begging the Free Press to keep "scUM guys like Sharp" from writing stories about State. Everyone in the city has an issue with the Free Press sports section because it takes the Jay Marioti controversy for the sake of strategy as editorial policy.
August 30th, 2009 at 11:44 AM ^
doesn't matter. In the end, the only thing that really matters to the Freep is attracting readers. Rosenberg is doing his job to meet this end. But keep in mind there are other MUCH less inflammatory ways Rosenberg could've gone about alerting people in power of these violations. Alas, he chose to drop a bomb with front page news.
August 30th, 2009 at 10:07 AM ^
I read the entire article and the "facts" as stated are most probably "true". So, no lawsuit.
But, saying that your started something at 7 am and didn't finish until 5 or 6 pm, does not mean you worked constantly for that period (as implied by the article).
Also, the NCAA "rules" are obviously a total and complete farce. If they truly wanted to put limits on time spent, they would prohibit any "voluntary" activities.
(Sorry for all the " ". Felt they were necessary.)
August 30th, 2009 at 10:11 AM ^
For being an idiot?
August 30th, 2009 at 10:29 AM ^
Can we sue the overreactions on this board?
August 30th, 2009 at 10:54 AM ^
want to sue Joe Schad and ESPN since they're confirming some of this stuff.
Seriously though, as an ND fan, I'm sort of torn on this. On one hand, every team in the country stretches these type of rules. On the other, there must be very few (if any) that are taking it to the extreme Rodriguez has apparently taken it. And I can't help but feel that your extra time in the weight room and practice field gives you an advantage over my team.
What this all says about how your players, alums, athletic dept. people, etc. feel about your coach is another story, one I wouldn't know much about.
August 30th, 2009 at 11:07 AM ^
By "confirming" do you mean
- "doing their own investigative reporting and coming to the same independent conclusion"
or
- "calling up the Free Press to talk about the report, then calling pretty much the same sources and hearing the same stuff verbatim?"
The "confirmation" is probably much closer to the latter than former. It's not hard to take a stab in the dark at their sources. Hmmm, let's see, who's been trashing the program in the past year or so? Does his name rhyme with "Bustin Joren" or maybe "Barson Cutler?" Anyone go to Ball State lately who made himself look like an idiot upon departure and carries a grudge? The Freep threw two of the freshmen under the bus - how hard could it be for ESPN to give them a ring and ask "hey, your name is in the paper here, did you say that stuff to a Free Press reporter?" "Yes sir, I did." WOOO ESPN HAS CONFIRMED!!
August 30th, 2009 at 11:09 AM ^
Sweet jesus. So you really think a professional journalist's idea of "confirmation" is calling the writer of the original article and saying "Sup, brah... this true?"
People, I don't like it any more than you do but for the love of God let's at least try to keep our sanity.
August 30th, 2009 at 11:41 AM ^
In 12 hours? Yes. How much of their own digging can they do in 12 hours? Good lord, the team hasn't even held any activities they can observe, which we know to be true because people at the Pio-Inkster game reported that Michigan players were there, unless that was mandatory too.
August 30th, 2009 at 11:45 AM ^
I'm going to go out on a limb here and make a massive, massive guess and say Schad probably has a contact the team and contacts on many major teams.
I know, it's a huge leap to think that maybe the primary college football reporter for the largest sports network in the world might know a Michigan player, but hey I'm a crazy man.
August 30th, 2009 at 11:25 AM ^
- "calling up the Free Press to talk about the report, then calling pretty much the same sources and hearing the same stuff verbatim?"
Aside from your stubborn desire for that to be the case, how do you know it's true?
August 30th, 2009 at 11:44 AM ^
That's an extreme example, which I thought would be clear in the next sentence by pointing out that the truth lies closer to one than the other, rather than the truth is one or the other.
How can anyone assume ESPN can claim "confirmation" based on anything resembling a fully independent investigation of their own?
August 30th, 2009 at 11:46 AM ^
All ESPN ever claimed was that Joe Schad called a current player and he confirmed that the stuff in the story was true and said it was never reported.
August 30th, 2009 at 11:53 AM ^
Which gives that about the same credibility level as the Freep article, whatever that is. Anonymous sources and little to no contact with school representatives. I get the value of anonymous sources to journalism, but the obvious tradeoff when you do that is that, exactly as we've been doing, people question them.
I just don't see it as terribly "independent" confirmation when nobody can tell whether or not your source is the same as the one in the original story. At the very least they might mention that before they throw the lead weight of "ESPN has confirmed" on the story.
August 30th, 2009 at 11:57 AM ^
You can cast doubt all you want, as long you take the time to acknowledge that you're probably wrong. ESPN did go to a school official who said they keep detailed records, etc. And they went to a player on the team who confirmed that the story was "generally accurate" and a player not on the team (who sounded like Threet, fwiw) who said it was accurate and then added some accusations.
August 30th, 2009 at 10:57 AM ^
Yeah I don't think suing would be the correct course of action. Like those above have said, there wouldn't be much of a case for it. You also have to take into consideration their 1st amendment rights to publish publicly what they want.
I hate to say it, but what if they were right and Michigan had gone over hours? Who else would report it? Michigan is not above the [NCAA] law and if they were going over hours, there would be a legitimate concern.
That said, yes the article has some slant to it. I myself can't really take everything they say without a grain of salt. I just can't imagine that the players they asked were ones that didn't leave citing "loss of family values".
August 30th, 2009 at 11:07 AM ^
Guys, its all a vast left-wing conpsiracy headed by ACORN and the New York times. They're out to get that bastion of anti-capitalist sentiment in Ann Arbor. I fear for my country because I love it. *tear* [/Glenn Beck]
August 30th, 2009 at 11:17 AM ^
death panels
August 30th, 2009 at 11:14 AM ^
The reason there's 100,000+ asses in the seats for every game is cause we love the team and it is (historically) great.And to maintain greatness you get the best players (which are often from places in Florida that are far worse than Detroit) and work them like dogs. I want the best for each and every one of them -- those who stay will be champions. But they are here for football, not for an "education."
The Freep story seems completely true and reasonable -- RR is working his guys like dogs. He (and I) want Michigan to be like the Canes of the 80s. If you don't, fair enough. But you will not win a national championship that way.
If any good comes from this it will be Michigan leading the way in getting us all to call "student athletes" "athlete students."
Go Blue!
August 30th, 2009 at 11:55 AM ^
"I really hope the author of this mgoboard is not a Michigan grad"
You may find yourself disappointed.
August 30th, 2009 at 11:34 AM ^
if PromoteRichRod was still on this site we'd have a chance. Because he went to law school. At Michigan!
August 30th, 2009 at 11:43 AM ^
I'm a lawyer and suing for 'defacement' sounds pretty awesome. I'll start drafting the complaint.
August 30th, 2009 at 2:03 PM ^
Best tort ever!
What would the elements be? I'm thinking something like:
1) Intent
2) IN THEE FASE
3) Injury
August 30th, 2009 at 11:46 AM ^
Gremlin, I think you need to stop and think for a moment. You posted this stupid thread about suing the FP, and then the Freep relayer thread. Just take a deep breath.
August 30th, 2009 at 11:48 AM ^
And did so without waiting to see whether maybe the story is correct. Talk about jumping to conclusions.
August 30th, 2009 at 11:49 AM ^
Unless there was such a thing as "fan" standing in court
August 30th, 2009 at 1:00 PM ^
wow man get a grip
