AD fails to invite Michigan Daily to Hoke's interview

Submitted by bdsisme on

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?

Prince Lover

February 3rd, 2014 at 2:09 PM ^

Think either BH or DB did anything wrong in any aspect in regards to this situation. And yes the football team and the Daily have butted heads in the past. But this shun is too much in the forefront. Shun them at the start of the season or something, but its too obvious and too petty to do it at the 1st possible presser after this situation arose, especially since nobody did anything wrong(from UM personnel wise, not regarding Gibbons).

GoBLUinTX

February 3rd, 2014 at 2:25 PM ^

know something was done wrong, and the MD was part of it.  At the very least they accepted and published what they knew to be stolen and lawfully confidential information.  What is more, their reporting doesn't indicate any attempt to first contact anybody at UM for comments and clarification before publishing their ambush.

mGrowOld

February 3rd, 2014 at 2:16 PM ^

Good lord could the athletic department fuck this damn thing up any worse?  First the evasive half-truth regarding Gibbon's absence from the bowl game, then the lack of getting out in front of the narrative and letting the story snowball and now the banning of media outlets that you think are being big ole meanies to the program.

Who's running this show anyways?  Richard Nixon?

mackbru

February 3rd, 2014 at 2:19 PM ^

Dick move by the AD. They always pull this sort of petulant crap, which always ends up making them look bad. M has never been big on transparency.

mGrowOld

February 3rd, 2014 at 2:42 PM ^

I guess we see that differently.  I dont have a "statute of limitations" when somebody tries to hurt something I care deeply about through lies and and deception.  I can't just let "bygones be bygones" - especially when the guy who orcherstrated the "hit" is still employed by them and still spews venom and malice towards Michigan each and every chance he gets.

LordGrantham

February 3rd, 2014 at 3:19 PM ^

One reasonable answer might be until the people responsible for maliciously targeting the program aren't employed there anymore, or until they've given adequate assurance that they can be trusted to report information accurately and reliably.

mGrowOld

February 3rd, 2014 at 3:12 PM ^

If the reporters who wrote the story are stil employed by them at that time then yes.

But I'm not too worried about that.  Working for a newspaper today is somewhat akin to working in the buggy manufacturing business circa 1910.  The paper itself won't be around much longer cause their revenue stream (classified & merchant ads) is dying fast.

 

LordGrantham

February 3rd, 2014 at 2:50 PM ^

I think from Brandon's perspective, the Freep probably aceelerated the process of removing someone that Brandon really didn't want to be coaching Michigan anyways.  Hell, he's probably thanking them for making his decision to fire RR a whole lot easier (fairly or unfairly).  That said, from an objective standpoint, I do agree with you that it seems bizarre.

BlueinOK

February 3rd, 2014 at 3:11 PM ^

Why is everyone assuming this is Brandon's call? Do you not realize there's this thing called a Public and Media Relations department? You know the guys who get paid to deal with all the Michigan athletics media requests? Just throwing Brandon under the bus on this is assuming he played a part in the Daily not being invited. MAYBE he did, but to assume it's all him is not right. 

And I think it's fine for the athletic department to limit who's at press conference and media events. Do you know how many other media members get turned down for this stuff? It's common in the business. Everyone is reading into this too much. 

 

TheNema

February 3rd, 2014 at 3:24 PM ^

This program is in very sleazy hands with David Brandon. I won't call Hoke sleazy but he certainly doesn't seem to have much spine when it comes to DB.

The sooner more people get over a stubborness they confuse with loyalty and admit that we need a new leader in the AD office, the better off we will ultimately be.

Soulfire21

February 3rd, 2014 at 3:30 PM ^

Do we know they weren't invited because of the articles they've written?  To me, it sounds like we're just making an assumption.  

Maybe it is an educated guess (and none of the invited media ran such scathing prints, though the Freep did call out U-M for 'hiding' over the incident), but I try not to be too hasty with my conclusions.

gwkrlghl

February 3rd, 2014 at 3:33 PM ^

but seriously - they crack down on the Daily but are still inviting the Freep? The newspaper who basically drags the University through the mud whenever possible to try to cling to their fading readership?

Farnn

February 3rd, 2014 at 3:33 PM ^

I just can't seem to get the energy to care about this Gibbons issue. Seems like people are making it a bigger story that it is and filling pages.

GoBluePhil

February 3rd, 2014 at 4:31 PM ^

For information that is none of their business. No criminal charges so FOIA cannot be filed. FERPA guidelines state no information can be divulged without the students permission. Gibbons would not give permission. So everyone needs to look in the mirror and ask themselves. Should any university violate the law to satisfy the publics curiosity? NO. It's not you fricken business. Get over it. Go stick your nose in your neighbors business and let this thing die. Hoke, Brandon, and everyone else at the university can not discuss it.

LB

February 3rd, 2014 at 4:44 PM ^

I have noticed my interest in football easing up. I have thought it was the sport and everything around it. I just realized the problem is this blog.

CooperLily21

February 3rd, 2014 at 5:02 PM ^

I have felt that same way but realize its the program sucking, not me getting older/wise or the blog.  IMO the state of the program is not good.  Maybe I'm just a negative guy but there are not many positives to look forward to going into the 2014-15 season if you ask me.

CooperLily21

February 3rd, 2014 at 4:59 PM ^

The most f-cked up part of the whole thing is that the writers at the Daily are F-CKING STUDENTS AT MICHIGAN!  Its like holding a college sporting event and not allowing the students access!  I don't know why but this is the last straw for me.  Maybe Dave Brandon didn't have any hand in this but I don't care.  He is overseeing a department that has made far too many wrong decisions the past several months and I've had it with him.  The day he is fired or leaves cannot come soon enough for this guy.

I mean, to leave kids studying journalism off the invite list for a school-related press conference?  AND to invite paid "professionals" with a history of slamming the school and program?!  I don't know what the f-ck is going on anymore.

Seriously, run for politics now, Brandon.  Lets get all of your skeletons of out that closet of yours.  If they are anything like the rumors, I'll have popcorn ready.

Zoltanrules

February 3rd, 2014 at 5:39 PM ^

The favoritism applied to the football program, and the AD that artificially insulates troubled athletes from investigation is no different at UM that at the schools we poke fun at.

There are a majority of UM athletes that are great kids that play by the rules and represent the university well. This is true at other schools as well.

I was one of the first to be irate at Jim Harbaugh's comments years ago but it did open my eyes.

If we are above the rest, we should be clamoring for DB to stop playing petty games , have more transparency, and restore John U Bacon's status.

Don Canham said," Never turn a one-day story into a two-day story". This will be a one month story if nothing changes.

 

I dumped the Dope

February 3rd, 2014 at 6:14 PM ^

The attention has suddenly shifted from "UM Botchedly Handles Gibbons Case" to "UM Ath Dept (or Ath Dir if you wish) At Public Odds with Michigan Daily"

Attention has been subtley diverted to another growing crisis/clash/etc.

Invite the Daily to the next presser (or a couple from now) and this will be a non headline any more.

GoBLUinTX

February 3rd, 2014 at 8:48 PM ^

They know the documents are confidential and as students of the University they could probably be held liable by the University for breaking student confidentiality.  Maybe even be held criminally liable.  Yep, pretty chickenshit of them.  

Not saying they did, but they could just make something up out of whole cloth, and then demand answers knowing full well the University can't comment.  Meanwhile they hide behind the veil of informant confidentiality themselves, a veil nobody must question because nobody should ever question freedom of the press.

Cold War

February 3rd, 2014 at 9:19 PM ^

Seems whatever law they would be breaking by showing the documents would also be broken just by writing the story and printing excerpts.

I doubt it was totally fabricated, but isn't it possible they were duped? They did say the documents didn't come from the university.

GoBLUinTX

February 3rd, 2014 at 9:36 PM ^

the documents didn't come from the University, they said words to the effect that they weren't provided by the University.

They may or may not be held liable, but why take the chance if you can still rake the muck without providing proof?

Cold War

February 3rd, 2014 at 9:53 PM ^

"The Michigan Daily did not obtain these documents from the University."

It also refers to them as "documents reviewed" implying they may not be in possession of them. Legal gymnastics I assume.

Former_DC_Buck

February 5th, 2014 at 8:13 AM ^

The Daily wouldn't be found liable for publishing the information as long as they a) didn't steal it themselves; or b) didn't ask someone else to steal it for them.  I published this same link a little earlier on the thread, but put it here again just for ease of access. 

I assume, like others here, that the reason they haven't published copies are there is something on the documents that would reveal their source.  

However, as you pointed out, they may not actually have copies and only saw the documents.  Again, it may be there is something that would indicate who the leaker is on the document and that might have been smart on the leaker's part to not give copies.