AD fails to invite Michigan Daily to Hoke's interview
Hoke had a sit-down with reporters today. Invitations were extended to the Freep, Detroit News, MLive, Scout, Rivals, buttttt
Surprise! The Daily was not invited to Hoke's pow wow with reporters.
— Zach Helfand (@zhelfand) February 3, 2014
Shocked [ed: \s] @MattSlovin and I weren't invited to this little reporter get-together. Doesn't sound like much was said. h/t @Mark__Snyder
— Adam Rubenfire (@arubenfire) February 3, 2014
I wonder what that is about?
February 3rd, 2014 at 1:17 PM ^
February 3rd, 2014 at 1:19 PM ^
The Daily is not always granted access to the program. I remember this being a regular complaint of our football writers when I was there.
February 3rd, 2014 at 6:52 PM ^
The Daily isn't always invited. That said, we just don't know whether DB or HR deliberately excluded them because of the coverage of the Gibbons matter. Brandon and Hoke may not wanted the press conference be hijacked by the Gibbons fiasco.
February 3rd, 2014 at 1:19 PM ^
But I can see Michigan wanting to avoid questions that might require Hoke to consult with a lawyer before he answers. If there's one thing I've learned about FERPA in the last week, it's that there is a lot of confusion about what it does and does not require.
February 3rd, 2014 at 1:24 PM ^
Why would the Daily be more likely to ask questions requiring legal advice than other news sources? Other than perhaps the Daily is the only outlet actually willing to ask difficult questions.
February 3rd, 2014 at 1:28 PM ^
...on the Gibbons story. It seems very doubtful that they'd be willing to settle for talking about recruiting and spring practice like the other outlets likely would be/apparently more-or-less were.
February 3rd, 2014 at 2:13 PM ^
some of their opinion pieces thinly disguised as journalism, I'm inclined to believe they would have reduced the Q&A to a one sided mud slinging contest.
February 3rd, 2014 at 6:28 PM ^
Having read the interview and with the benefit of hindsight, I'm not sure that it makes sense to exclude The Daily. The one thing I'll point to is that the The Daily's legal expert (whom they presumably believe) made an assertion re: the boundaries of FERPA that was quite shaky. There may not be much point in talking to The Daily if they are going to press ahead as if Michigan must reveal everything the expert seems to think they can given that he is very arguably not correct in his anaylsis. There would be no point in having Hoke involved in a legal debate.
February 3rd, 2014 at 1:23 PM ^
it makes the Daily seem MORE credible by freezing them out. It makes it look like Brandon & Hoke are afraid of actually answering questions from them. If the Daily is full of ****, then just answer their questions.
February 3rd, 2014 at 2:51 PM ^
...if the Daily is the one and only organization that has illegally-obtained documents, and Brandon and Hoke are determined to not to answer any specific questions about certain documents that only the Daily has. The one way to do that is to ban the Daily. Mark Snyder and others can ask all of the questions they might like, but they don't have the documents.
That puts a bit of a finer point on it, don't you think?
There must be something odd about the documents that the Daily has, that they won't copy them and link .pdf's on the website. Either the offeror/leaker knows that a copy will expose somebody, or else there is something else that the Daily can't or won't redact.
I think the Daily has a lot of questions to answer, along with Brandon, Hoke and most especially the University.
February 3rd, 2014 at 3:51 PM ^
We don't know if they are "freezing out" the Daily or not. The Daily doesn't get the greatest access to the program in general. The football beat guys often have to rely on press-conference quotes to fill their stories. Now and then they'll get permission to talk to one or two guys to write a human-interest piece (the ones that appear in the Football Saturday editions) but they will rarely ever get much access to the coaching staff.
Now if someone like Angelique or Chris Balas were to get denied, that would be curious.
February 3rd, 2014 at 1:23 PM ^
Not good from a PR sense, but I'd probably not read too much into it.
February 3rd, 2014 at 2:01 PM ^
When Brandon is involved you can usually read something into it.
February 3rd, 2014 at 1:26 PM ^
make them sit at the kids' table in the press box with John U. Bacon next season.
Serious question: is the Daily routinely invited to all of these events? I assume so, but don't really know. How much control does the athletic department assert over the Daily's access?
EDIT: Thanks jmblue. There were no replies when I started my post, but you answered it.
February 3rd, 2014 at 1:30 PM ^
February 3rd, 2014 at 2:49 PM ^
February 3rd, 2014 at 3:13 PM ^
February 3rd, 2014 at 3:27 PM ^
I'm not on Facebook either. I am only on MGoBlog. And LinkedIn.
February 3rd, 2014 at 3:32 PM ^
February 4th, 2014 at 8:01 AM ^
but it has too many features.
February 3rd, 2014 at 9:05 PM ^
February 3rd, 2014 at 1:33 PM ^
The program can invite who it wants. I don't see the big deal here.
February 3rd, 2014 at 1:45 PM ^
I can be mean to my grandmother if I want, too. It doesn't mean that I should.
February 3rd, 2014 at 1:51 PM ^
Yes, I realize that. The obvious implication of my post was that I don't really think they should be getting criticized for it, at least not without a clearer motive.
February 3rd, 2014 at 2:52 PM ^
I don't blame the Daily for thinking it is a big deal; I think it is.
February 3rd, 2014 at 1:30 PM ^
I can understand that the AD's office probably wants to field as few questions as possible on a story that they have refused to discuss (and asked of someone who is not disposed to do so), but I also see where specifically singling out the Daily at least looks patently retaliatory (and there might very be a hint of this, but I won't presume). That being said, as someone mentioned, I also remember instances where the Daily was not granted access to the program regarding specific issues / events, so it would not be the first time this has happened. I think the terrible nature of the incident reported makes this seem like a worse PR move than it would otherwise be.
February 3rd, 2014 at 1:33 PM ^
was a statement at the front end of the event stating: "we're not going to discuss Gibbons, so please don't ask."
I agree that not inviting them, regardless of how good of a reason they had, makes them look worse than if they'd just suck it up and deal with the situation rather than avoid it.
February 3rd, 2014 at 3:06 PM ^
The program would be more likely to avoid Gibbons questions on signing day if they had given the Daily an opportunity to ask the questions at this event.
February 3rd, 2014 at 1:31 PM ^
This isn't a case of someone "writing something bad about the program." The Daily is printing the results of an illegal FERPA leak, possibly creating legal liability for the university.
That's their right, of course, but they shouldn't be surprised if they find their access restricted.
February 3rd, 2014 at 3:10 PM ^
From what I have read FERPA has a specifc exception for cases like Gibbons.
February 3rd, 2014 at 3:29 PM ^
...is incorrect.
FERPA has an exception for "forcible sex offenses". The University's finding involved consent, not force.
It's an absolutely critical difference--one that in Michigan is at the very heart of the definition of the crime of "criminal sexual assault". The University prohibits behavior that is not a crime in the state of Michigan.
February 3rd, 2014 at 3:58 PM ^
but that seems odd given the nature of what Gibbons supposedly did. If the girl was too drunk to legally consent then under the law then shouldn't it be considered forcible?
February 3rd, 2014 at 4:07 PM ^
The Michigan statute requires "force or coercion", then goes on to list cicrumstances where that requirement is waived, including intoxication of the victim without the victim's consent.
You spike their drink and don't tell them, it's a crime. They get drunk on their own, it's not, unless you used force or coercion.
February 3rd, 2014 at 5:51 PM ^
“so severe as to create a hostile, offensive or abusive environment,”
February 3rd, 2014 at 5:45 PM ^
...FERPA also has an exception for "nonforcible sex offenses" but the only offenses included in the category are statutory rape and incest.
Otherwise, the only exceptions are for "crimes of violence", which are defined to include "forcible sex offenses".
February 3rd, 2014 at 1:35 PM ^
Not inviting the people who ask the hardest questions really doesn't show well when the spector of coverup and misinformation is in the air. Just stupid on their part, especially when enough former Daily writers are in the national media now and this is bound to get spread.
February 3rd, 2014 at 1:38 PM ^
Kudos to Brandon for doing that. That will teach these kids to publish a story missing truths and facts.
February 3rd, 2014 at 2:28 PM ^
They are looking at long and fruitful years with the Freep.
February 3rd, 2014 at 3:12 PM ^
And if any were missing isn't that because the University is hiding behind a FERPA regulation that specifically exempts a Gibbons type situation from its privacy rules in the first place?
February 3rd, 2014 at 3:25 PM ^
FERPA specifically doesn't exempt a Gibbons-type situation. Read the statute yourself instead of relying on the Daily's poor legal opinion.
February 3rd, 2014 at 4:03 PM ^
and I have read parts of the staute, but that doesn't really help as the University has not released the specifics of their findings.
How are we supposed to know how to apply the statute when we don't know the specific factual findings that statute is to be applied to?
I frankly don't have a dog in this fight and I haven't really made up mind either way on the University's response. This is a tricky situation involving complex and evolving federal rules and regulations.
That being said, it is always the cover up or even the perceived cover up that looks the worst and so I don't blame media and others being suspicious of the school's handling of this matter.
February 3rd, 2014 at 4:13 PM ^
My takeaway is that the way FERPA is currently worded, we should expect schools to invoke it in pretty much any disciplinary situation unless the particular code violation fell clearly within the definition of a violent crime (or statutory rape or incest) or the student was actually found guilty of such a crime. No school is going to make use of their right to release information in any case where there's any doubt whatsoever--why should they? They'd be opening themselves up to some pretty substantial liability. It's bad enough that the information leaked, but to do it willfully and then have a court later determine that it was a violation?
February 3rd, 2014 at 4:18 PM ^
February 3rd, 2014 at 6:59 PM ^
what the Daily has reported is fantasy, they have yet to rise even to the Dan Rather level of reporting to substantiate their claims.
Further, they want UM to respond to questions they can't answer based upon alleged documents that are supposed to remain confidential and have been obtained illegally. In other words, the Daily is wanting UM to give credence to a breech of privacy. Would you feel so strongly about UM confirming what is / was once confidential if it were in regard to the name of the alleged victim?
February 3rd, 2014 at 1:43 PM ^
Totally not punishment, you guys.
February 3rd, 2014 at 1:44 PM ^
February 3rd, 2014 at 1:44 PM ^
February 3rd, 2014 at 1:48 PM ^
Hire a plane to fly in circles over 420 Maynard St. towing a banner reading "GO DAILY!"