Rosenberg. And Martin's "staff."
First, relax; there will be no need for anyone to click on a Freep link for this exercise.
In the thoroughly-predictable Freep coverage of the NCAA Notice of Inquiry, there were these paragraphs, in an article that has been updated:
********
"The inquiry notice is dated Friday, two days after Athletic Director Bill Martin surprised his staff by saying he would soon retire. Martin has declined interview requests since his announcement.
"U-M director of athletic media relations Bruce Madej was asked today if Martin’s retirement announcement was in any way connected to the impending notice of inquiry.
"'There is nothing that I know of that would make me believe his announcement was because of this,' Madej said."
********
Point One: Did Bill Martin really "surprise his staff" with his notice of retiring from the AD's office? It's a stretch, if not a deliberate farication, to characterize him as "soon" retiring, as the Freep article suggests; 10 months is not exactly 2-weeks' notice. (I was personally not at all surprised; I have expected, from back in the days when people were protesting the "luxury boxes," that this project, when completed, would be Martin's last official act. Appropriately and unsurprisingly so. it was a project that Martin was uniquely well-qualified to oversee. He is a phenomenal property developer in Ann Arbor. Without peer. It was his project, rightly so, and it was his to finish, and Bill Martin never otherwise thought he'd be the AD for almost ten years. He's a great property developer, and a good amateur athletics administrator, with the former being his lifelong passion, and the latter being an interest that his wealth allowed him.)
Point Two: How does Rosenberg know that Martin "surprised his staff" with the announcement of a retirement date? Did Rosenberg get an interview with someone within Martin's staff, when Martin hiself has not commented?
Point Three: Was Bruce Madej accurately quoted when he stated that "[T]here is nothing [he] kn[o]w of" to link the retirement to any NCAA investigation questions. Which, I take it, was an answer that was just grist for the Freep innuedno-mill. I have always liked the affable and reliable Bruce Madej. But was this a represntative statement, or just the one quote that Rosenberg liked, in the course of a ten-minute interview? The implication is that, oh yeah, baby, there is somethin' more to it, but Bruce Madej just has to say he doesn't "know of it." Which I think is reprehensible nonsense.
October 27th, 2009 at 6:35 PM ^
you making something out of nothing??? it might have been a surprise to the fact that he didn't wait until the season was over. mary sue coleman said in her statement that she had to convince him to stay through this year. so there were people that knew he was thinking of leaving.
rosenberg is just trying to stir the pot...
October 27th, 2009 at 8:02 PM ^
Can you imagine how excited the Freep would be if their big feature directly led to the downfall and retirement of the Michigan AD? Clean the dust off the shelf... here comes the Pulitzer!
I agree, the question was an attempt to stir the pot. The story had been going cold, and the paper wanted to stoke the fires for their front page.
October 27th, 2009 at 8:10 PM ^
But I am not trying to 'stir the pot.' I am interested in figuring out if, and to what extent, Rosenberg is merely fabricating. And who his sources are, if any.
In no way am I implying that Rosenberg has been accurate, or truthful, or fair. Just the opposite.
And in no way am I suggesting that there are any serious questions that need to be posed to Martin or Madej or anybody, other than Rosenberg.
It seems to me that a report implying that there might be a connection between the NCAA inquiry, and Bill Martin's long-anticipated retirement borders on 'fabrication.' By Rosenberg.
October 28th, 2009 at 10:07 AM ^
i never said that you were trying to stir the pot. it just gets annoying when people come on here trying to make something out of nothing, which in turns gets everyone fired up (example: secret meeting before the season).
no one knows who the sources are that the free press is using. there is just rumors of who they are. the only way this would have some what true is if martin would have steped down the day that the allegations came out.
October 28th, 2009 at 1:20 PM ^
We are to presume that Rosenberg had "sources" within Martin's staff, saying that they were "surprised" by the announcement. Which Rosenberg promptly used to imply that there was some connection between the Martin retirement and the NCAA investigation.
In the original August preseason Sunday-paper story, Rosenberg's claim was that his sources for the story required anonymity because they feared retribution. Which, I submit, is a lie, at least with respect to the former players. And we don't know whether all, or most of the sources were "former" players. I suspect just about all of Rosenberg's sources were former players. For whom a grant of anonymity was more journalistic malpractice.
Now, Rosenberg indicates AD-staff "surprise" at Martin's announcement, but doesn't even bother to justify the lack of, or anonymity of, his sources. (Why, the question would go, would anyone need anonymity for revealing their own personal reaction to a public event or public statement?)
So, again I charge; Rosenberg is lying, and/or committing journalistic malpractice.
October 28th, 2009 at 5:52 PM ^
to understand is that rosenberg is just trying to sell papers so he doesn't lose his job. the news paper industry is going uder fast. so rosenberg and other reporters out there are twisting everyting to genorate sales. and there is nothing that will sell more papers than controversy going on at michigan.
so until whoever in the AD or from where ever else realizes that feeding him info is doing more bad than good, we are going to keep getting shit like this.
October 27th, 2009 at 8:12 PM ^
Freep is going to ride this horse into the ground, and that includes getting everyone worked up over two basically unrelated events.
October 27th, 2009 at 11:51 PM ^
You say that people in Martin's staff were "surprised" by his retirement.
Can you say who was "surprised," and why? Why do they say they were surprised? Any connection to the NCAA investigation? (An important question since you, Rosenberg, linked the two things in an article.)
Surely, Mike Rosenberg, anyone who tells you that they were "surprised" by the timing of Martin's retirement letter isn't someone who needs anonymity. Their own reaction to a public announcement can't possibly be confidential, or "unauthorized," or made in the face of "fearing retribution" or any of the excuses you've supplied for your dubious anonymous sources in the past.
October 28th, 2009 at 6:19 AM ^
One positive of the NCAA investigation is that Rosenberg's details can't hide anymore. In example, when asked on the radio Rosenberg could not remember how many players were still on the team outside of the 2 freshman that he bamboozled. Well the NCAA will at least see if anyone on the team actually thinks a violation occurred and this could damage Rosenberg potentially. However, the other media in the state has refused to question the problems with the journalistic integrity of the FreePress.
October 28th, 2009 at 10:07 AM ^
The News (under a Joint Operating Agreement with the Freep) has done nothing to challenge the story; one wouldn't expect that they would, really.
Sportstalk Radio (to the extent that such a thing is a monolithic single-entity) has done nothing to challenge Rosenberg. Indeed, they seem to be in the posture of covering Rosenberg's back. I don't know if it is because they feel like they are part of the same club, or that they are social with Rosenberg (sharing press-pass access, seeing each other at events, etc.) or whether it is a concerted co-production, in which Rosenberg knows that access to radio and other media help his business, and they know that Rosenberg is a prime, cheap source of content for their programming.
National media just feeds off of Freep coverage, mostly, and that is a frightening concept. In this day and age, it is a simple matter for ESPN.com to link to a Freep story, doe their own lede that starts out, "The Detroit Free Press is reporting today that...", and maybe have one of their own guys in Chicago or New York make a call to Ann Arbor and get a quote from somebody to make it look not so totally like they aren't doing any real reporting at all.
Jon Chait's landmark criticism of Rosenberg's story was of course significant and important in every possible way, and is remarkable insofar as there is so little of that kind of criticism elsewhere. Perhaps we'd have to accord the same recognition to Frank Beckmann, although I'm not clear on all of what Beckmann has said on his WJR daily program about Rosenberg.
October 28th, 2009 at 9:31 AM ^
My question to anyone that claims to be a UM fan is why the hell would you read a paper that has continuously shown that they will ignore concrete facts and blatantly lie to try and make the program you love look bad?
The OP claims to be looking for answers. My suggestion is that if you are looking for the truth about anything related to UM the FREEP is NOT the place to go. Just sayin'
October 28th, 2009 at 10:15 AM ^
There is almost no aspect of Michigan football that one cannot find covered better, faster, and more completely on the 'net, most particularly at MGoBlog.
I don't subscribe to the Freep; I pretty much avoid buying the paper in any event. If a 'boycott' is what you want, then okay.
But I think it's important to actively challenge Rosenberg and Snyder and their editors.
October 28th, 2009 at 10:01 AM ^
to your third point: personally, it's really hard for me to imagine bruce madej saying "[T]here is nothing [he] kn[o]w of". now i'm no expert, but it sounds like inaccurate quoting to me.
October 28th, 2009 at 10:16 AM ^
If the gist of the conversation with Madej was along the lines of Bruce's saying, "No, Michael, we've expected this announcement would be coming for some time, and there's nothing I know of that connects it to the NCAA investigation..." Well, then, Rosenberg's Freep writing is some pretty horrible twisting.
October 28th, 2009 at 1:55 PM ^
i'm sorry, i didn't make myself clear. i was actually trying to be a smart ass.
but seriously, this whole media blip reeks of typical newspaper marketing. if there's nothing to report, let's MAKE things to report! that'll turn some heads!