OT: Converting live Freep link ==> revenue-free print link

Submitted by bjk on
I have detected a contradiction in attitudes toward the newspaper in question. On the one hand, there is a widely-expressed alienation amounting to a boycott; on the other, whenever the paper in question is linked in posts, it seems to almost always be a revenue-generating live link, which assists this paper to profit from the controversy generated by its questionable journalistic practices. I have been somewhat torn; on the one hand, I definitely have no desire to aid and abet an ongoing journalistic assault on our school and team; on the other, I feel a need to see what the malefactors are up to, and perhaps a perverse desire to love to hate them. By now, I am getting truly tired of the tone of almost all the admittedly small sample of stories I've seen over there and am getting to where I have no need to see another one. But I had hoped that a general practice of linking only the revenue-free print links to those articles would have precipated down by now, but this has not been the case. Torn between hostility and curiosity myself, I have always felt torn about the situation presented by live links. Today, I finally connected to a live link in order to study the situation concerning print links, and I can propose the following simple edit in order to turn links that help our enemy into harmless print links for as long as the practice of posting live links goes on. For an example, I use the infamous article that was a virtual declaration of war: <http://www.freep.com/article/20090829/SPORTS06/90829021/1054/Michigan-f…; The first step will be to render it from a hyperlink to simple text. The way I do this is to right-click on the link, and then to click on "properties" in the resulting window. This will pull up a window with the link in a harmless text form which you can cut-and-paste into your browser target window. You may need to resize the "properties" box to show all of the link. Once you have the link positioned as a target url in your browser, edit as follows: <http://www.freep.com/print/article/20090829/SPORTS06/90829021/1054/Michigan-football-program-broke-rules--players-say/> This should be the result: <http://www.freep.com/print/article/20090829/SPORTS06/90829021/Michigan-…; You should be able to hit "enter" and arrive at the non-revenue-generating print version of the article. It is a whole hell of a lot less cluttered, as well. It's a pity this is necessary. The contrast at DetNews is night-and-day. As an example, there is this article by the aptly-named Angelique Chengelis, here, originally linked to this site in this thread. For this article, AC read the blogs, identified a dangerous and pernicious rumor, and took the initiative to phone RR's agent to squash the rumor herself. This is what journalism as a public service looks like -- exposing misinformation, not peddling it.

Seth9

February 4th, 2010 at 12:24 AM ^

If we're going to read their articles, they kind of deserve the revenue. Even if you argue that they're little more than a MSU fansite posing as a legitimate journalistic endeavor, they still should get the credit from us reading their site. If you don't want to give them revenue, don't read them. But don't try to consume their content and deny them their ad revenue.

bjk

February 4th, 2010 at 12:57 AM ^

The reason they are interesting is because they are trying to sabotauge our program. If they are going to use their status, which brings them the innocent trust of a captive audience, to advance ulterior goals such as career advancement, or sectarian goals such as giving a sports editor the power to select the new UM head coach, by way of unethical journalistic practices, then I think they are abusing their power and our social contract with them is voided. It amounts to saying, I wouldn't mind having that irritation gone. I'm sure those here who fear the paper has the power to interfere with recruitment or to cause an otherwise needless NCAA investigation for the sake of the paper's own self-promotion would say we can't afford to ignore what it is up to, hence the ambiguity of our situation. By trying to sabotauge what we hold dear, does the paper obligate us to subsidize it? Admittedly, some of what the paper does is hard to ignore, for the wrong reasons. But I am prepared to ignore it.

wolverine1987

February 4th, 2010 at 8:24 AM ^

In fact I check their sports site first in the morning. I read it for the same reason that I read the NY Times or the Wall St. Journal, even though I've been enraged periodically by something they've written, or despite any disagreements I may have with them editorially. I read the Freep sports section because I'm interested in Michigan sports, and they are a major source of that information, whether I like an article or not. Their sports editors do not like Rodriguez and obviously believe he is the wrong coach for us--I disagree. That doesn't stop me from enjoying an article about one of our games. To each his own, I understand those who won't read them and I'm fine with that. I read the Daily Beast every day, even though there is sure to be an article I think is completely misguided and wrong too. So neg away.