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 1:16 PM ^
Hoke defended his personal integrity and character, says it's why he got into coaching.
— Nick Baumgardner (@nickbaumgardner) February 3, 2014
That's nice and all, but you'd wish that character would also move you to tell Dave Brandon to shove it when he proposes not giving the Daily a seat at the table.
February 3rd, 2014 at 1:19 PM ^
a) Why would Hoke do that? "Screw you, Dave. I'm not doing a press conference unless the outlet that's smearing our program is there!"
b) Who says Hoke has/had a choice in who attends the event?
February 3rd, 2014 at 2:16 PM ^
I wouldn't characterize the Daily's reporting as smearing the program. I actually thought they were very careful to avoid injecting personal opinions into those articles.
EDIT: Until now, I never saw their editorial entitled "a shameful review," which does seem much closer to a smear piece.
February 3rd, 2014 at 1:24 PM ^
Your logic is he didn't invite them because they're "smearing" the program? You can say that with a straight face when the Freep is there?
February 3rd, 2014 at 8:53 PM ^
February 3rd, 2014 at 1:22 PM ^
Because I oftentimes tell my boss who should come to meetings.
February 3rd, 2014 at 7:18 PM ^
Maybe they just had coffee and no juice boxes?
February 3rd, 2014 at 1:33 PM ^
Yes, telling your boss - the guy who stood by you after a 7-6 season - to "shove it" sounds like a plan.
February 3rd, 2014 at 3:27 PM ^
give you any hope whatsoever that he'd be so assertive with Brandon, or even assume it was his place to decide? Like the guy--and he wasn't around when the incident happened, is undoubtedly following orders now--but not holding my breath.
February 3rd, 2014 at 1:16 PM ^
I can't say that I blame Brandon for not inviting them. Freedom of the press allows them to cover and write what they want (within limits), but they don't need inside access if they're going to provide negative press for the program.
February 3rd, 2014 at 1:22 PM ^
And yet the Detroit Free Press WAS invited? The paper who cheerfully employs writers with an obvious agenda to hurt the program at all costs. A paper who willingly published half-truths and rumors in a vendetta against a former coach & the program as a whole.
To me it's the AD just bullying the Daily cause he can. If they had any real stones the paper with the absolute intent and means to harm our program would've been banned years ago.
February 3rd, 2014 at 1:34 PM ^
but it's especially disgusting when the fishwrap that employs Drew Sharp does receive an invitation.
February 3rd, 2014 at 3:58 PM ^
February 3rd, 2014 at 1:51 PM ^
was supported by some in the AD to paint RR in a negative light.
February 3rd, 2014 at 1:56 PM ^
February 3rd, 2014 at 8:00 PM ^
if there was a big story about Gannett News and not inviting the Free Press to a press conference. The Athletic Department is (supposed to be) part of the University as is the Daily. I don't see how the Athletic Department should even have the option of excluding the Daily. It certainly gives the appearance of intimidation and a ship that no longer feels limited by the University itself.
February 3rd, 2014 at 1:23 PM ^
The idea of the 4th Estate is to keep the powerful accountable. The Daily reported on a relevant news event that put the University in a compromising light. That's what the press is supposed to do. The University has a responsibility to be accountable for what it does, and to punish a media source for reporting facts is undermining the role that the press should play. UM doesn't HAVE to invite any media source, but excluding the Daily just makes it look worse.
February 3rd, 2014 at 5:00 PM ^
"The media" is the powerful. The majority of major media outlets were bought by corporate conglomerations and the need to feed 24 hour news coverage outweighs fair and balanced reporting. There was a day and age I would have supported your comment completely, now, the media has done their own work to undermine the role they should play.
February 3rd, 2014 at 5:39 PM ^
My statements were normative--what the media "should" be doing. Sadly, the media has utterly failed to hold up its mission in recent years. That does not, however, change the appropriate role that I hope one day it will again take on, or that some other institution will assume (perhaps a sort of citizen-reporter class ala Twitter?).
As far as the media being powerful, you're right, though the Daily would probably be considered less powerful in its own right than other outlets.
February 3rd, 2014 at 5:56 PM ^
Just like with my wife. It isn't until later that we realize we actually agree.
February 3rd, 2014 at 1:24 PM ^
You don't think that makes us look bad though?
Because this sends the message of: "Write anything bad about us and good luck getting inside access."
This doesn't exactly scream: "We didn't do anything wrong. Nothing to see here."
February 3rd, 2014 at 1:31 PM ^
Other papers have just as much of an interest in getting "the scoop," too. It's not like they're stonewalling the press altogether.
IIRC, Michigan did snub the Free Press for a while after the whole Stretchgate thing. The iciness there seems to have faded away over the past few years.
February 3rd, 2014 at 2:44 PM ^
Of course, since 2009, we have an entirely new generation of sutdent-athletes at Michigan. A lot of them probably couldn't recite the details of the Rosenberg/Snyder debacle. I think a lot of them, wittningly or not, would talk to Snyder now, since he is Mark Snyder of the Detroit Free Press who is the main beat-reporter for the region's largest-circulation newspaper.
Politically smart people like Dave Brandon know better, and Brandon, to his great credit in my view, has made no secret about his open contempt for the Free Press and Rosenberg and Snyder. Brandon's disdain for Drew Sharp may be a little better disguised.
Brandon has done these things. (A) He banned John U. Bacon from Schembechler Hall for the most part, and assigned him to the back row in the press box. At least I presume Brandon did that. It is the sort of thing that I cannot imagine Bruce Madej doing. (B) He has all but ignored Mark Snyder. Brandon has given exclusives to the lovely and talented Angelique Chengelis, as well as AP stringer Larry Lage. Brandon has doled out small perks and favors to a lot of media folks. But nothing to the Free or Snyder. (C) And now Brandon apparently fired a little warning shot across the bow of the Daily. It's very true that this sort of action was never taken with the Free Press; it is pretty remarkable in this case.
It may be assured that Brandon and Athletic Department people know more ab out this than we do. The Daily, in publishing the story might well have adhered to journalistic standards. But also violated the rights of Brendan Gibbons.
We can all agree on the important policy reasons for, say, not naming sexual assault vicitms. To do so would damage the system in which we want such victims to come forward without fear of public humiliation.
Now, just think about the student conflict resolution procedures at Michigan. It isn't designed to asses guilt or innocence, but to resolve conflict and foster a certain atmosphere on campus. As such, ALL of the participants in that system ought to be presumed innocent and their confidences kept private.
It would not surprise me at all if Dave Brandon's calculus in all of this activity today was, I know that banning the Daily is pretty much of an indefensible position on our part in the Athletic Deparment. Well, I don't give a damn about that. They hurt Gibbons unfairly in this mess, and I am going to make a symbolic statement on that. I'll take the hit; I don't care.
February 3rd, 2014 at 3:22 PM ^
February 3rd, 2014 at 7:27 PM ^
Two people know if Gibbons assualted anyone, and you aren't one of them.
February 3rd, 2014 at 8:07 PM ^
sexual assault would be virtually impossible to prove---always a "he said she said" scenario. Since making false allegations are apparently so common (and fun), I am sure the complainant must be overjoyed with how this has all played out with her life.
February 3rd, 2014 at 8:12 PM ^
Two people know if Gibbons assualted anyone, and they disagree.
(I'm not necessarily disagreeing with this, either. I just don't think "know" is a relevant standard here.)
February 3rd, 2014 at 3:24 PM ^
the clear evidence--whether Gibbons was guilty of a jailable offense--that he and Lewan behaved abominably toward a UM woman and athlete?
Just need to tease out the inferences with you to their full extent, Section One.
There are really two factions here, procedural nuances aside--people who think that what Gibbons did sucks; people whose preference is to help protect the U, the team, and a certain kind of male privilege, whether someone happens to get hurt or not. It's pretty clear who the leading voices for the latter have turned out to be.
February 3rd, 2014 at 3:50 PM ^
There are the people who think that everyone enjoys a presumption of innocence; and that abandoning substantive and procedural due process rights under the law equals an abandonment of anyone's right to declare "guilt," as so much of the world is now doing in this case.
Moreover, in the vauge and squishy procedures of the OSCR, because there are so few personal protections, they are supposed to be private. Gibbons has been the vicitm of a ghastly violation of that privacy in this case.
I have written nothing that would betray me as some sort of Micihgan fan-boy for whom the team the team the team can do no wrong. I have said nothing in particular offering any blanket defense of anybody at the university, from Hoke to Brandon to MSC to the lower-level administrators.
Far from it; I think that there is much explaining to do in this case. The only way in which I have been a real MGoContrarian is that I have done everything I can to call attention to the political nature of the recent Title IX sexual harassment eforcement rubric as a result of top-down policy initiatives coming from the White House.
The University's own position confirms it. You can bet your life that the University is going to proclaim to the heavens that before 2013, they had nothing to go on, and no proper basis to expel Gibbons. But the new policy made it happen. That's in large part self-protection by the University. But it casts an intense light on the recent policy change.
February 3rd, 2014 at 4:41 PM ^
around any of the other alternatives. Since I see where I fall in your eyes, I'll know how to view everything you post from here on out.
February 3rd, 2014 at 6:24 PM ^
Despite the "rights" laid out here, the way the Gibbons' OSCR case supposedly went down was he was sent a letter from the Daily Report:
An additional OSCR document signed by Vander Velde and dated Nov. 20, 2013, stated that it was determined by the University that a preponderance of evidence supports “a finding that the Respondent engaged in unwanted or unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature, committed without valid consent, and that conduct was so severe as to create a hostile, offensive, or abusive environment.”
So basically you have been found to have violated these rules, now you can appeal. There are two sets of words here that are key: "preponderance of evidence" and "valid consent".
If you read the policy "valid consent" is defined here, and includes:
"Consent cannot be validly given by a person who is incapacitated. For purposes of this policy, the issue is whether the Respondent knew, or should have known, that the activity in question was not consensual."
If you go back a read the police report in the washtenaw watchdog, her story and his of course differ. He says it was consensual. She says she said no at least once. His interview included some discussion about how he would behave if they were dating after they had sex, and several sentences were completely redacted right in this section. What he did say in the police report was he was aware she was drunk.
What we do know here is he said he believed it was consensual and stated she never said stop, he admited in the police report that she knew he was drunk, she stated that he did not have consent.
So, from the definition of "valid consent" above, it could have been determined that he violated the University code, whether what happened legally could have been prosecuted in court as a rape.
The thing is: we don't know the evidence they reviewed, and the specific act they found a preponderance of evidence against him. We also don't know how vigorously he defended himself. After a hearing and a review, he possibly may have agreed to sign the document with the understanding that it would be confidential.
What we do know, is the information the Daily published was legally confidential, and should not have been leaked to the press.
So, having published confidential information, and then the opinion piece, I guess I can understand how the Daily may not have been invited to the briefing. Personally, I think keeping your enemies closer is the smart move here, but if the Daily gets the back corner of the pressbox for a bit - so be it.
Oh, and there are some people on this blog, I hope never ever serve on a jury.
February 3rd, 2014 at 7:48 PM ^
February 3rd, 2014 at 8:23 PM ^
I don't understand why I am the only one upvoting maizenbluenc right now.
February 3rd, 2014 at 3:36 PM ^
What is Angelique's "talent"? She is a PR arm of the program.
February 3rd, 2014 at 3:39 PM ^
I always refer to her as "the lovely and talented," it is an in-joke. Long story.
February 3rd, 2014 at 3:49 PM ^
Fine. But she is not talented. Like almost all beat writers in sports today, she cares about her relationship with the team 100x more than her relationship with readers.
This is why the establishment would fear the Daily: Those kids are writing FOR jobs. People like Angelique are writing to KEEP jobs.
February 3rd, 2014 at 3:52 PM ^
On that.
February 3rd, 2014 at 1:44 PM ^
Good lord. Your opinion is different than mine, INTERNET MESSAGE BOARD POSTER! NOW I AM REALLY ANGRY!
Seriously, they published a story and the guy in question didn't get charged. It was made out to be this shocking thing, that in the end was either a case of misplaced blame on Gibbons or something that happened years ago and was covered up.
No matter what you believe, the police certainly didn't think there was enough there to charge Gibbons, yet the public media made him a villian and now his rep is tarnished forever.
You think that doesn't warrant the Brandon pimp hand? You have some learning to do, young buck.
February 3rd, 2014 at 1:53 PM ^
Okay dude:
1) I am not angry at all. I was just asking him a question.
2) No, I don't think it warrants the "Brandon pimp hand". The Daily is trying to report on a story a lot of people are interested in. I don't think they have an agenda. Like the guy above me said, if the program doesn't want people there with an agenda, why the hell is the Freep there?
3) Really? "Young buck"? I'm not the only college kid that posts here and I assure you there are some younger than me. I'm not gonna listen to someone on here because "they're older than me".
February 3rd, 2014 at 6:00 PM ^
<blockquote>No matter what you believe, the police certainly didn't think there was enough there to charge Gibbons, yet the public media made him a villian and now his rep is tarnished forever.</blockquote>
Tell it, Yeezus. Al Capone was only a tax cheat. All this Gibbons smoke doesn't mean fire.
February 3rd, 2014 at 1:40 PM ^
I strongly disagree. It sends a message that the public didn't deserve to know about it, and more importantly, it sends a message that the university will punish anyone who writes negative things about them, thereby undermining the faith in any reporters who do show that they're willing to simply be program mouthpieces.
It's also incredibly petty.
Journalists weren't granted access to the program simply because the university wants to be nice to them. The press plays a major role in promoting the program in addition to its de facto position as the public's representative. The Daily isn't going to go away, and the writers for the Daily have a tendency to end up in important media positions afterwards. And while the Daily is for-profit, it's barely--the effective damage to the Daily in granting "competitors" one day of news cycle isn't the same as strong-arming the Freep, because the bottom line is way way down the students' list of priorities. Effectively all the program has done is increase the faith the public can have in the Daily, and decreased the apparent integrity of the program.
February 3rd, 2014 at 1:52 PM ^
Aren't you assuming that the Daily was specifically targeted here because of what they wrote? What if they weren't invited for other reasons or if they're just not normally invited to this kind of thing (which one poster has already suggested)?
February 3rd, 2014 at 2:25 PM ^
John U Bacon
Bacon has seen his access cut significantly since his two books. IIRC his press pass now seats him back by the hot dogs (not that it's totally a bad thing).
February 3rd, 2014 at 2:34 PM ^
After banishing him to the nosebleeds for two years, they actually yanked Bacon's credential entirely before the 2013 season.
February 3rd, 2014 at 2:39 PM ^
which means DB is perfectly suited to a career in politics. Being able to blame the press for bad news is a necessary requirement for holding public office.
February 3rd, 2014 at 3:19 PM ^
leaves me with very little faith left in Brandon. Especially when Bacon, while establishing an important independent voice, wears his love for Michigan so conspicuously on his sleeve.
February 3rd, 2014 at 8:16 PM ^
February 3rd, 2014 at 2:51 PM ^
It almost is like when the AD told the daily not to report the story originally or they would lose all access. It's a petty power play to try to control whats said about the AD and it looks just as petty as it is.
February 3rd, 2014 at 6:44 PM ^
the Daily stating it had asked anybody to comment about the story before they ambushed them last week. As I recall they ambushed them with stolen confidential material and then asked UM to comment. I'm not sure I'd be interested in giving more ammunition to a party that had just declared war on me.
February 3rd, 2014 at 3:33 PM ^
What a corporate shill you sound like. Looks like we have our own lackey-in-training with Magnus, who'd kiss all the butt he had to if someone would make him an "official journalist."
Pathetic.