I wasn't planning on posting this, but after seeing this thread it finally pushed me over the edge. I honestly don't understand the beef most of you have with the Freep. In short, I feel like they were just doing their job. Yes, they may have brought the wrath of the NCAA on our program, but don't forget that we are guilty of the violations. Why shoot the messenger? Shouldn't you be angry at the compliance department instead?
Most of the complaints I've seen have been that their story contained inaccuracies. It had some accusations that turned out to be false (mandatory activities), some that were excessive (practice time) and some that were 100% true (presence of QC staffers). To this I just have to say: Have you watched the news recently? This doesn't just happen to Michigan Football, this is what journalism is. I don't know the last time I've seen ANY news story that didn't take things out of context, or get some of the facts wrong. Rosenberg didn't witness this stuff firsthand. He did a bit of investigative reporting, and backed up his report with plenty of sources. Not everything panned out, but I still think he was sufficiently thorough. There was plenty of evidence to back it up:
In separate interviews, five players gave almost identical accounts of how the program is run, and a sixth player confirmed most of the descriptions.
Not to mention that some former players like Morgan Trent have come out and backed up the story. What more can you ask of a journalist? I'm not saying I believe the original story is true (I think it's a massive exaggeration), but I still feel that Rosenberg did an acceptable job in checking sources. To those not satisfied with this, I want to ask you "How was Rosenberg supposed to determine what was true and what was not?" Or should he have just kept quiet on a huge story like this, and not done his job?
Maybe I'm missing something huge here. If so, then please give me a reasonable explanation why I should hate the Free Press becase I just don't see one.
Perhaps it just comes down to Homerism, but I refuse to hate someone just because they attacked Michigan. Especially if it was justified and we were in the wrong.
At the end of the day, I don't think Rosenberg hates his alma mater, and I don't think he is on a quest to get Rodriguez fired. If you read the rest of his writings, he actually has a lot of support and optimism for RR and his system. It's not a crime to say something bad about Michigan, especially if it turns out to be true.
EDIT: Based on the responses below, I suppose my standards for responsible journalism are pretty low. I blame 24 hour cable news.
EDIT2: Just wanted to thanks to everyone for their responses before I'm banned. Although I still think a lot of you take things too far (like the tshirt idea), you've convinced me that the Freep did do a pretty terrible job in the fairness, thoroughness, and ethical(ness) department.
Sorry for not individually replying to all the comments below. I didn't expect to get such a response, and I've always been more of a reader of this board than a participant. To those who wanted me to step up and defend my initial position, I can't because you've changed my mind. Just like "everyone else does it" is not a defense for our violations, "everyone else in the media does it" is not a defense for failing to even mention the word "countable" in their story, presenting a biased one-sided piece, misrepresenting quotes from two freshmen, and failing to give the athletic department enough time to defend themselves.
Also, I'm sorry for posting a topic that could be considered "trolling". If I had bothered to look up most of the links presented below, I could have had my questions answered without angering everyone. I just saw the "Free Press Tshirt" thread and thought it was completely uncalled for. It seems the anger is justified.