Today's lesson in Freepology.
Newspapers can engage in "smears," and they can merely "campaign." The Detroit Free Press, led by Michael Rosenberg and followed by Michigan beat-writer Mark Snyder, as well as its columnists and staff writers, and defended by its publisher Paul Anger, have engaged in "smears" of Rich Rodriguez and the Michigan football program in the past, most notably the splashy front-page headlines of one year ago. "Smears" in the form of allegations that were shown, upon investigation, to have been "wildly exaggerated if not flatly incorrect."
Today's lesson in Freepology is about the difference between a "smear," composed of inaccurate or mistaken information, and a "campaign" of one-sided information, designed to create an impression.
And so today, we have the Sunday Free Press, which is the flagship weekly print edition of our local fish-wrapper. And on the front page of the sports section above the fold, we see featured the months-old news that six staff memebers within the Michigan Athletic Department had letters of reprimand placed in their personnel files for matters having to do with the NCAA investigation.
What was "news" for the Freep was that it had successfully utilized the Michigan Freedom of Information Act to obtain copies of those letters. This week, or earlier, The Freep obtained those letters. It is clear, that the FOIA response from the University was completed many days ago. But the Freep held onto the documents, so as to make splashy headlines in the Sunday edition. This is what we call a "campaign." It wasn't and isn't really news at all. It is old information. Everybody knew about the letters of reprimand months ago. And the details of the letters themselves can't really be news in the eyes of the Free Press, or else they would have published them on Monday, or Tuesday, or whenever they got ahold of the copies via FOIA. The Free Press wouldn't sit on important, time-sensitive news. Would it?
No, the Free Press did this; on Thursday or Friday, in connection with a another print-edition, the Free Press let loose with the copy of the letters involving Alex Herron, the GA who was dismissed for lying to NCAA investigators. As teaser. They saved the letters pertaining to Rodriguez, Barwis, and the others for Sunday. Wehn, in the Sunday edition, they'd have the most print space, with the most impact, for the most readers.
It is, after all, better for the campaign against Rodriguez, to put the old-news copies of letters into the Sunday edition, even if it isn't news.
This concludes today's lesson in Freepology.
August 22nd, 2010 at 12:13 PM ^
Let's hope these aren't daily lessons.
August 22nd, 2010 at 4:55 PM ^
They get numbered.
August 22nd, 2010 at 12:16 PM ^
Holy Christ, GTF OVER IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
they are trying to sell more newspapers. End of 'story.'
August 22nd, 2010 at 12:17 PM ^
August 22nd, 2010 at 12:19 PM ^
It's a system thing. Wish I could fix it.
August 22nd, 2010 at 12:33 PM ^
August 22nd, 2010 at 12:38 PM ^
I'm on a laptop with FF. Same problem.
August 22nd, 2010 at 1:16 PM ^
Paragraph indents now working...
August 22nd, 2010 at 12:17 PM ^
use them.
August 22nd, 2010 at 12:18 PM ^
i feel sorry for the multi-billion dollar university cuz it can't defend itself.
sheesh.
August 22nd, 2010 at 12:19 PM ^
The Ethics of Journalism... or the Freep approach to reporting news.
August 22nd, 2010 at 12:19 PM ^
What happened, happened. Get over it and stop harping on it.
August 22nd, 2010 at 1:24 PM ^
I got the impression the OP was trying to convey that what happened is still happening. Either way, it is very telling.
August 22nd, 2010 at 12:19 PM ^
August 22nd, 2010 at 4:08 PM ^
I guess I was just operating under the assumption that worthwhile fisks from any user lose their punch if they are in the middle of posts like these. I suppose you could post the usual disclaimer about assumptions here.
August 22nd, 2010 at 12:21 PM ^
sorry not interested!
August 22nd, 2010 at 12:24 PM ^
I don't know if you're old enough to remember the old Billy Crystal and Christopher Guest sketches on SNL. They played two characters, Willie and Frankie, who are closet masochists. Here's an example of their conversations:
Willie: You know what I really hate?
Frankie: What?
Willie: When I take one of them - uh -
Frankie: Six-inch replicas of the Empire State Building?
Willie: Yeah! And I start jamming it up my nose. Boy, that smarts.
Frankie: I know! I hate it when I do that.
Whenever I read about someone who actually gets the Freep, reads it, and complains about the abuse of the U-M, I wonder which one they are: Willie or Frankie?
August 22nd, 2010 at 12:27 PM ^
At this point I take UM-related Freep news the way I would hearing it from my most annoying Spartan colleagues. I try to ignore it the best I can- just win baby.
August 22nd, 2010 at 12:41 PM ^
Made me LOL. GTF over it.
August 22nd, 2010 at 12:38 PM ^
Uh I knew exactly which editions of my paper during the year sold the most or had the most eyeballs on them
Damn straight I made sure stuff was in there to make it worth it and scheduled feature and investigative news stories to coincide with those editions.
The argument is whether or not this stuff clears the bar of interesting, etc. But, the practice of saving a story so it hits the most eyeballs is not unethical, not uncommon. I guess if you delayed something that was time sensitive that could help the public interest--like a food safety story--until your 'sweeps weeks' editions, that would be something I'd call unethical.
But the basic concept of what you're accusing this publication of doing really isnt a bad thing. You're just hurt they're manipulating a story about MICH for the best selling edition of the week. Whatever, I havent given a shit about the paper in at least 10 years, and try as you might make me by constantly writing about this issue, you arent changing my mind to care at all about the newspaper in either direction.
You need the season to start as much as the rest of us.
August 22nd, 2010 at 2:32 PM ^
crafting the timing of a story to maximize the damage/exposure to a particular individual IS unethical.
If they run the whole story, with all the letters published on the same day, that is slimy, but not technically unethical, but to target the coach for which you have a professed and historic dislike is not just business as usual.
Newspapers are not supposed to be tools used by journalist to perpetuate personal vendettas.
On a bigger picture level, it is such a weak story to devote any space at all to, much less multiple days and high exposure sunday print edition space. It is absolutely clear evidence that they are STILL trying to use the paper to damage the coach and the program.
August 22nd, 2010 at 12:39 PM ^
I appreciate the time you took to author this piece and you make a lot of good points, but you're preaching to the converted here. We all get that the Freep is junk and most of us have moved on to other things (starting QB anyone?). If you want to "educate" people and reach the masses, submit this in the editorial section of the Freep. Whether they publish it or not is another question.
August 22nd, 2010 at 12:49 PM ^
And read jamiemac's post just above yours. He's right too. The MGoBlog demographic is attuned to the depradations of the Free Press. Highly attuned.
I can tell you who'd be the FIRST to say that I am "preaching to the choir" at MGoBlog; it would be the Free Press columnists. They figure that MGoBlog is purely composed of Michigan fan-boys who criticize the Free Press only because it is criticizing their coach. Naturally, they sort of ignore the fact that while we aren't getting paid by MGoBlog, they ARE getting paid by the Detroit Free Press.
We may soon see if the Free Press is willing to publish a Sunday op-ed in this regard. It's a good idea, especially with the anniversary of their story coming up on August 30.
August 22nd, 2010 at 12:52 PM ^
If they publish what you originally posted, it would be the first decent article that paper has had in years. Good luck and let us know if you get through.
August 22nd, 2010 at 12:55 PM ^
Stop lumping all of us together. We aren't the Borg. I have no major problems with the Freep and I can think for myself...thank you very much.
August 22nd, 2010 at 12:39 PM ^
Because nobody would care, and it would not sell a single newspaper.
August 22nd, 2010 at 12:40 PM ^
...that "we hate the Free Press so much that we'd rather not have it discussed here at all..."
See, I'm fine with anybody who wants to boycott the Free Press.
And I'm fine with anybody who personally chooses to read the Free Press and who can criticize the paper's many errors and biases.
I have a serious problem with anyone who thinks that the Free Press' campaign against Head Coach Rich Rodriguez is true, or even harmless.
The campaign has cost our Athletic Department tons of money, in the form of responding to the NCAA investigation. It has been a distraction to our coaching staff. It has upset a lot of our players, including JeRon Stokes and Brandin Hawthorne. We have paid a monstrous cost in terms of our national reputation. And, as we have seen, by implication with some high-profile recruits, it may even be an impediment to our attracting the very best in outstate talent who don't understand the details of the NCAA allegations in Case Number M-324.
Those are all very big issues. And what isntitution(s) are there, to stand up to the Free Press? Radio? Television? Other print? What, other than the blogosphere?
Damn, I just hope that Coach Rodriguez and his staff from West Virgina have some better friends and supporters within the Athletic Department than some of you.
I'd like to hear what Brian Cook (who may rightly and satsfactorily say that he'd personally prefer to steer clear of regular Free Press fiskings in his main blog content) says about my contributions.
August 22nd, 2010 at 12:46 PM ^
Are you unable to fix the graphs in your OP? I have some mod powers, I could try and fix it if you want? Sounded upthread that the paragraph breaks didnt catch and I know sometimes posters cant edit their stuff onces somebody comments on it. Let me know if you need me to hack in.
As for your comment, it just gets old. And, I dont want you known as the dude who cant stop talking about the Freep. You are a much cooler poster than that. Some of us literally ignore the freep as if its not there. I like it that way. But, I personally prefer it when you start a thread on this topic, like you did here, and think some of your longer pieces should be developed more and be put in the diaries. E-pinion
August 22nd, 2010 at 12:51 PM ^
In the html version that I see on "edit," I have even put in double-spaces. I don't know if you will see it the same way.
Have at it on my behalf. I'd appreciate it.
August 22nd, 2010 at 12:53 PM ^
I'd fix it but I'm not entirely sure where I need to put in the indentions.
Instead of hitting enter on the raw html, copy and paste this:
</p><p>
Hitting enter doesn't do anything in raw html.
August 22nd, 2010 at 1:01 PM ^
I didnt see you upthread. Had I known a real mod was around.......
I dont know whats going on here. He actually has graph breaks in his OP.
Honestly, its a short enough piece that I was able to follow and didnt think anything of it. But, I felt bad that somebody said it was hard to read and Sec 1 was like whoa where are the graphs I put in
August 22nd, 2010 at 1:01 PM ^
And, I have to say; your meta-suggestion as to this as a Diary topic is right. In hindsight, I have to say, I sort of wish that I had made this a diary-post.
August 22nd, 2010 at 1:06 PM ^
You should notice that pretty much all the Freep's insider coverage of practice has been nothing more than lifting shiat from the BTN cameras and their tweets.
Somebody doesnt have the access they once did.....maybe watch this the rest of August or during the season or something. Could be an interesting subject matter to pursue.
August 22nd, 2010 at 12:47 PM ^
whose fault is it when someone doesn't do their job satisfactorily? every one of those UM employees made their bed and now the FREEP is reporting them having to sleep in it.
August 22nd, 2010 at 1:07 PM ^
The Free Press story was concocted by Rosenberg, without ever once interviewing any of the responsible parties.
And, the NCAA investigation would have never been initiated, but for Michael Rosenberg's story.
August 22nd, 2010 at 1:53 PM ^
this doesn't change the fact that the M AD committed violations in the eyes on the NCAA and had almost a half dozen employees with their heads up their asses w/ regard to the situation.
the story was overbowl, under researched and poorly understood by the writers. but make no mistake, the people responsible for the violations work at 1000 S. State St, Ann Arbor, MI 48198. Or at least, they used to.
August 22nd, 2010 at 2:09 PM ^
I, for one, am glad to make sure that we do what little we can to call out the Free Press for their continued bias and I personally I don't support taking a 'reporters will be reporters' approach to their transgressions. When they start reporting in an unbiased manner, THEN I will ignore them.
As Section 1 indicated, they have materially damaged the program and players, they continue to do so, or at least attempt to do so and I don't think it is okay to just sit and take it. Today it is just trying to trump up some negative coverage from nothing, but if we give them carte blanche to continue to write whatever they want without regard for any journalistic standards, what is next? What is the next BIG LIE they will turn into a giant mess? I think it better to do whatever possible to take the shovel out of their hands.
We respect your decision to ignore it, please respect our decision to not ignore it. If it bothers you, it is SO EASY to NOT click on a thread with a title as clear is this one and to just pass on by. There is lots of other stuff to read and you don't add anything by posting 'get over it'. I will not let it go until they stop.
Personally, I am getting close to taking it to the next level and gathering a list of their advertisers so we can start to hit them where it would actually make a difference, if possible.
August 22nd, 2010 at 2:31 PM ^
It's probably true that most MGoBlog readers aren't pleased with the Freep's unfair coverage of Michigan football. You might not be reaching many "undecideds" here.
As well, it's not hard to imagine the Freep's approach being all about link whoring. I don't believe that, and I'd still like to know for sure if there's more to the story, but I can understand the view.
But...
"And, as we have seen, by implication with some high-profile recruits, it may even be an impediment to our attracting the very best in outstate talent who don't understand the details of the NCAA allegations in Case Number M-324."
That's why their shenanigans matter. While all this is taking place we have, in the background:
* ... pompous jacka$$es like Mr. Smith of Clarkston (echoing Ms. Susan Brown of wherever from the WXYZ interview last year) leaving their critical-thinking skills behind (maybe in Ann Arbor several years ago) and falling in line with the Freep. These people vote, you know ($).
* ... lazy @#$%ers like Matt Hayes of The Sporting News (just one of many examples) who are taking that hard-hitting reporting at face value, neglecting to do any research of their own, and multiplying the bu11$h1t. How many times have you read "... accusations of a decline in Family Values..." or something to that effect in the national press? (Aside: In past years someone like Toney Clemons would be assumed to be a washout by most of the national press. Now? He's a @#$%ing all-star who was misused by a nincompoop coach. It's still early with Toney, but he's certainly getting the benefit of the doubt, isn't he?) Great for recruiting... @#$%ing great.
* ... a constipated, square-jawed coach in East Lansing who's getting all the breaks.
Sorry -- if the Freep wants to play fair they can revisit the thuggery that took place at MSU last year. Doing so would generate plenty of link-clicking. For some reason they're not taking the opportunity.
August 22nd, 2010 at 12:42 PM ^
Section 1 - You need to make the transition from writing for yourself to writing for others. When you next come up an idea for another 'lesson', ask yourself, 'Who am I really writing this for?' And give an honest answer. If the answer is something like 'The Mgoblog community needs to know this' or 'The Mgoblog community should think this way', then you are writing it for yourself. These posts are really about legitimating the enormous mental and perhaps physical investments you have made into your hate of the Freep.
I suggest you take the advice given to many a jilted lover - write a letter expressing your thoughts, your theories of wrong doing - but then put it away, and then later throw it away. Because these writings are for the writer, not the reader.
August 22nd, 2010 at 2:20 PM ^
on this board that ARE interested?
I love in California and can't/don't follow the Free Press at all, but am VERy interested in their continued campaign against bthe program, which is clearly evident in the nearly 100% negative bias?
I understand you not being interested and am fine with that. I'm not saying you HAVE to care, but why are you so invested in trying to supress any interest or discussion of it on the board? If you really don't care what they write and it doesn't matter, just don't click on the thread, it is so simple.
I hardly think a topic that has received so much front page attention, ire, etc., that has caused so much difficulty for the coach and the players, is something you can categorize as off-topic. If we were still talking about the article from last year, maybe, but this is ANOTHER example of an obvious bias.
I would say that you are letting your own opinion of Rodriguez influnece your opinion and cause you to be a litle too apologetic toward an insitution that is going waaay out of bounds to attack the M program and the coach in particular.
August 22nd, 2010 at 5:27 PM ^
I, too love(live) in California. Free Press does have a website, If you are curious or desire to follow along.
I do not always like his comments, but i can see his point of view.
August 23rd, 2010 at 3:22 AM ^
in some respects, plus, I simply don't have the time, nor the inclination, to read or follow Free Press content and I'm certainly not going to drop them ad revenue by clicking on their site, not that I delude myself into thinking this has a material impact on their bottom line.
I am happy enough for someone like section 1 to let me know when and what they print that is negative and to keep me informed that their campaign against the Michigan football continues apace.
Discussing it here and placing it within the context of their entire body of 'work' over the last year allows me a comprehensive and informed viewpoint when I deal with opposing fans who want to give me shizzle, RR detractors and those of their ilk (they all tend to follow similar lines of logic).
Sooo many times in CA I get to hear negative stuff about Michigan and Rich Rodriguez that is simply a parroting of the Free Press headlines or some other publication that has picked up on the drivel the write, and it is very helpful for me to have seen it here first and be able to respond intelligently and with some understanding of the truth, rather than look at them and go 'huh, they wrote what?'
August 22nd, 2010 at 12:45 PM ^
more next week if things hold to form...Something like -ONE YEAR LATER...
August 22nd, 2010 at 1:09 PM ^
Maybe you and I can agree on that much.
August 22nd, 2010 at 12:50 PM ^
The Freep gets to me as well sometimes, but once the team starts winning the jihad will seem even more petty than it does now.
August 22nd, 2010 at 12:53 PM ^
<eye roll>
August 22nd, 2010 at 1:12 PM ^
I'm imagining a dimly-lit room with meticulously highlighted copies of the Free Press Sports section strewn about, computer opened to MGoBlog on a desk, maybe a chalk board covered in conspiracy theory flow charts against the wall...
August 22nd, 2010 at 1:23 PM ^
Some are of the view, "We get it, we know; the Free Press is a slimy operation, and we know that they've been out to get Rodriguez for their own fun and profit."
To those people, I say, "I understand, we mostly agree; our only dispute is over how to make MGoBlog the best kind of discussion board."
Then there are those who say, "I respect the Free Press; it is an important newspaper, doing its job. Criticisms of the Free Press aren't warranted."
To those people I say, you have got to be fucking kidding.
Which group are you in?
August 22nd, 2010 at 1:34 PM ^
WTF Section 1. Why can't there be a middle group. Do I think the Freep is 'slimy' and trying to 'get Rodriguez for their own fun'? Umm, no. That is insane. But do I think someone can't critic the paper in a fair way? (note, a 'fair way' is NOT what you do every other damn day on mgoboard...) That is just as insane as the first position.
Why can't someone just think the Freep is a newspaper with it's own set of flaws and move on with their life? No one thing is life is perfect, the paper was both good and bad qualities.. This isn't an epic battle of good vs evil here where you are with MICHIGAN or hell bend to destory the entire town of Ann Arbor.