It was August 31, 2009, when Jon Chait went online with his searing criticism of the Free Press' editors, for allowing Michael Rosenberg to play the role of self-appointed investigative reporter, when he had earlier played the role of opinion columnist with an anti-Rodriguez agenda.
MGoBlog was one of many online outlets which then linked to the Chait online-column, which bears re-reading:
Chait's main point at that time, in the immediate aftermath of the newspaper story, was not so much that Rosenberg had it all wrong. (That part was later determined through the exhaustive University/NCAA investigation, such that David Brandon now openly characterizes Rosenberg's original story as "false and misleading," and "crap." Jon Chait exposed Rosenberg's folly in some detail in his own later columns. Brian Cook did it here, in a series of blog posts.) Rather, Jon Chait's point was that basic ethics require somebody at the Free Press to choose -- are they going to trot out Rosenberg as an opinion columnist, advocating positions? Or is he going to be an investigative reporter?
The Free Press, even in the face of extreme criticism, has now flipped twice on that subject. Rosenberg was a columnist. Then, he unleashed himself on Stretchgate. Now, he has rotated himself back to columnist-advocate, with the predictable, inevitable column demanding of Dave Brandon, not just that Rich Rodriguez be fired, but that Jim Harbaugh, whom Rosenberg lovingly portrayed for another publication (Sports Illustrated, in October of 2010), be hired.
I won't quote Rosenberg, or link to the story. There's no longer any need. Rosenberg, and the Free Press, have together reached the level of ethical bankruptcy.