Etiquette regarding the Free Press Boycott

Submitted by chitownblue2 on
I know that many on this board are angry with the Free Press, and many have vowed not to read it again, starting a "boycott" of the paper. I'd suggest, for the general readability of the board, that if this is a stance you've taken, you need not reiterate it everytime someone mentions the Free Press, links an article, or refers to a writer. You have chosen to ignore the paper - we'll respect that. Respect the choice of others to do what they want as well. Recently, a thread about Dontrelle Willis was completely hijacked and the OP pointlessly negged because he linked to a Free Press article - can't people have enough respect for the decisions others make to just let it go? Watching legitimate topics of conversation get stymied or ignored because of the "YOU LINKED TO THE FREEP!!!!" brigade is nearly as tiresome as Rosenberg's columns. If you choose not to read or link to the paper, fine - but please respect the point of view of people who don't choose to do so as well. ***EDIT*** I'm not going to change what I wrote, as people have already responded, and I don't want to invalidate things they wrote, but I do want to revise: I intend this more as a "proposal" - as I realize I've been as strident, as recently as today, about making fun of the vocal proponents of the boycott. What I'm saying is this: rather than yelling at posters for posting a FREEP link, and then having me, or someone else, make fun of the boycott, how about the boycotters understand that not everyone agrees with with, and I'll respect your decision to read what ever paper you want.
MGoBoard
Other

wildbackdunesman

May 31st, 2010 at 11:47 AM ^

Yes and above you were acting as if people were trying to tell you that you can't read the Free Press.  Some people merely don't want their favorite website to be churning up a profit for a paper that was dishonest and refused to comment on the criticism of that dishonesty.

People should tolerate each others view points on this issue, including a post that reads: "please don't post links that generate a profit for the Free Press."

Joined: 07/16/2008

MGoPoints: 30390

chitownblue2

May 31st, 2010 at 4:39 PM ^

I understand that. My complain is the behavior where a new poster is negged, and the first 8 responses in his thread are "DON'T LINK THE FREE PRESS". It's silly, and makes the blog unreadable.

Furthermore, you understand that LINKS don't generate a cent of revenue. CLICKS do. If you don't want to support the Free Press, don't click the link.

Joined: 06/03/2009

MGoPoints: 7178

chunkums

May 31st, 2010 at 11:51 AM ^

So "the actual rules set forth by the owner of the blog" supersedes thinking for yourself?  Not the greatest logic there.

Fixed.

Dude, it's a freaking blog written by a Michigan fan just like us.  Brian is very well-researched and is usually a reasonable guy, but his word is not infallible.

Joined: 06/30/2008

MGoPoints: 29028

GCS

May 30th, 2010 at 11:57 PM ^

If you link to a Free Press article it should be the print page and it should be nofollowed.

That does seem a little bit different from "never link to any Freep articles here."

Joined: 06/30/2008

MGoPoints: 857

aaamichfan

May 31st, 2010 at 12:02 AM ^

It's about the revenue. 

 

This thread is all about someone who posted a direct link to a Tigers article yesterday that was not to the print page. Therefore, anyone who clicked on it gave revenue to the Freep. That is what Brian wants to avoid happening. Not a very tough concept to grasp.

Joined: 10/23/2009

MGoPoints: 14362

majoturc

May 31st, 2010 at 12:54 AM ^

I'm not "pro Freep" by any means (I have never read the paper or the site regularly, to be honest), but I get the feeling that the quoted block you're pulling from Brian isn't so much a rule for this site as it is Brian's opinion on how a Michigan fan should be acting towards that paper right now. There's no "must" language; he says "should." There's no rule in this board's terms of service, as far as I know. I think you're reading something that isn't actually there when you try to take that quote and read it as if it's a rule for this message board. Though Brian has expressed his disdain for the Freep and generating any revenue from them, it's just his opinion, it doesn't seem to be an actual and explicit rule, until he makes it one.

That being said, what chitown is saying has always been a personal pet peeve of mine about this message board in general, going beyond just the arguments over the Freep. I've seen way too many potentially interesting discussions shut down before they could even get going because posters decided to turn the thread into a joke, start debates about the source of a link, or admonish the original poster for redundancy no matter how long ago the most recent post on the topic popped up. I guess that's the price you pay for having a pos/neg system where everyone thinks they're a mod, and that seems to reward posters more for cracking jokes than it does for generating quality content.

Joined: 03/25/2009

MGoPoints: 22

wildbackdunesman

May 30th, 2010 at 11:57 PM ^

A thread shouldn't be "hijacked," but I do support a vocal (read: effective) boycott of the Freep.  The Free Press used dishonest reporting tactics and refused to comment on fair criticisms.  The only way the Freep will change is if it hits them in the pocket book.

If you can't trust the Freep to fairly report on the things that you know about, how can you trust them to fairly report on the things that you don't know about?

P.S. The Free Press has had several complaints about its fairness and accuracy outside of UofM football.  I seem to remember one of the complaints is that you can buy positive articles (not ads) about your company...

Edit: Most people out there do not realize that the Free Press has been accused of being unethical in its coverage or the hours or in general.  Therefore, you need a vocal presence. 

Joined: 07/16/2008

MGoPoints: 30390

robpollard

May 31st, 2010 at 12:54 AM ^

I fully agree that posters who link to the Freep shouldn't be negbanged out of existence, but as noted elsewhere, I think posters should be reminded of the general boycott, part. b/c they may not know.  It's there for a reason - the Freep's unethical actions, along with their weird general animus towards UM.

Latest example: I was over my parent's today for a BBQ and they had the Sunday paper laying around.  I flipped through the sports section (which was painfully thin, per usual), and found this quote in their "Press clippings" section:

"Barry Petchesky, Deadspin, on Michigan's self-imposed sanctions: "Their response to their admitted NCAA violations is to basically say 'we won't do it any more.' Um, that's not punishing yourself.  That's just them stopping cheating." http://www.daylife.com/quote/06nK3BS45ka7W?q=Sports

You don't include a quote from freaking Deadspin in your "press" clippings section if you didn't want to take yet another uninformed shot at Michigan.  It shows how low the paper has sunk. I'm not glad about this, as I subscribed to it for over 10 years before I stopped.  Not b/c of 'practice-gate'; I cancelled 6 months prior. It was b/c the paper has become so largely devoid of interesting content, and slapdash, that I couldn't justify paying for it.  They still have a few good columinsts, and thank goodness for their reporting on the corruption of Kwame Kilpatrick two years ago, but the paper is just a general embarrassment now as a day-to-day product.

Newspapers are increasingly getting what little revenue they can from online.  Posters who link to ad-supported parts of the Freep, IMHO, should be reminded they are supporting an organization that has willfully misrespresented their work (see Brian's and Chait's posts this week) in an effort to get page clicks for a non-scandal "scandal."  If they have a interesting report on D Willis and you can't find it anywhere else and you want to talk about on a Michigan blog, I think it makes sense for us to - w/o being d*cks about it - remind people that linking to the Freep is strongly discouraged, and it's discouraged for very good reason.  This is why I don't think we should just "let it go." 

Joined: 06/03/2009

MGoPoints: 14013

MGoShoe

May 31st, 2010 at 10:08 AM ^

...the key to the whole situation:

I think it makes sense for us to - w/o being d*cks about it - remind people that linking to the Freep is strongly discouraged...

It's pretty clear that the proprietor of MGoBlog doesn't want his site to support the Freep in any way, shape or form.  It's also clear that the point system and the way he and his mods police this board (lightly, but with a firm hand when required) are designed to allow the free flow of ideas.  There are few hard and fast rules (no politics, no religion, no stupid redoings of our rivals' names), but there is one overriding guideline that I've gleaned from my time here: don't be a jerk. 

Now the line between effective sarcasm/snarkiness and jerkitude is admittedly fine and I can't say I've never crossed it, but sometimes folks here seem anxious to jump across it and the drop of a hat (or a Freep link).

I respect chitownblue2's perspective that adherence to the Freep boycott shouldn't be mandatory among the MGoBlogerati.  On the other hand, I can't say that I agree with his statement above:

if [the boycott] is a stance you've taken, you need not reiterate it everytime someone mentions the Free Press, links an article, or refers to a writer.

As aaamichfan notes, Brian has stated this:

If you link to a Free Press article it should be the print page and it should be nofollowed.

That seems pretty clear to me.  If someone links to the Freep, they should be reminded about the print page convention.  Just don't be a d*ck about it.

Joined: 04/23/2009

MGoPoints: 20734

mtzlblk

June 1st, 2010 at 3:13 PM ^

Tolerance should go both ways though.

Any time anyone shows any ire toward the Free Press on this site, there are those that ceaselessly feel the need to chime in with their opinion that this anger is either misguided, or blatantly prejudiced and therefore simply unreasonable. They then typically go on to accuse anyone who expresses outrage at the paper of failing to maintain any level of objectivity and practicing wanton homerism in exercising their contempt. The same people couch their own statements and viewpoints as unbiased, rationale and honest by comparison.

Quite simply, that is going to piss a lot of people off.

It is, I think, a reasonable statement to say that the prevailing opinion on MGoBlog is that the Free Press and the reporters in question are deserving of our acrimony for going 'above an beyond' in attacking the football program and employing dishonest means by which to do so. People here should be able to vent their anger and frustration without their views being trivialized as nothing more than blind faith.

The irony of the situation is that I think in the majority of cases those wishing to fetter or re-direct the animosity focused on the Free Press have only served to galvanize and intensify that animosity.

Furthermore, as mentioned above, this is Brian's blog and while I don't think it specifically a policy of his to prohibit linking to the Free Press, he does make a clear suggestion as to the acceptable manner for doing so. It isn't fair to use his blog and the traffic/discussion it generates to send traffic to a site that in no uncertain terms he does not wish to support.

That said, anyone linking directly should be reminded politely to perhaps link in another manner or not at all.

Joined: 01/20/2009

MGoPoints: 5049

chitownblue2

June 1st, 2010 at 3:38 PM ^

I think I acknowledged in my post that I've been guilty of "showing ire" against the Free Press boycotters, and that such behavior would stop. I just the issue has become one that can make many threads unreadable with off-topic ("boycott or no?") politicizing.

Joined: 06/03/2009

MGoPoints: 7178

mtzlblk

June 1st, 2010 at 4:02 PM ^

I sort of just think we need to get some sort of accepted way of dealing with them so we don't need to argue about how to deal with them. I feel differently than you about the boycott, but certainly am with you on the needless time spent on trying to convince each other to boycott/not boycott. 

You're considerable more venerable on here than I, if you are a mod, maybe there could just be some sort of pow wow where the standard practice is:

Link to the Free Press X way. If someone doesn't do it X way, they can be politely reminded that X way is good form, Y way is bad form on this board and we can all get on with more important things like conspiracy theories and running David Brandon's comments backwards to look for hidden messages ;)

Joined: 01/20/2009

MGoPoints: 5049

CPS

June 1st, 2010 at 4:21 PM ^

This insistence on having an "agreed upon way" to link to the freep makes little sense. This is not a subject of communal agreement, but rather respect for those that don't give a shit about the boycott and vice versa. Communal agreement is fine for things that make the board readable. Posting freep links, in and of itself, does not contribute to making the board unreadable. It's the inevitable rabble afterwards that does, which goes to the heart of the issue - get rid of the fucking rabble, respect others' opinions about the boycott, and make the personal decision to click or not click the link.

It's as bad as me eating a burger and a vegan coming up and getting in my face about it. Dude, it's my choice to eat cow even if it's offensive to you, and it's your choice to eat lettuce for lunch even if I would rather kill myself.  We don't need to have an agreed-upon menu.

Joined: 10/20/2008

MGoPoints: -405

mtzlblk

June 1st, 2010 at 4:30 PM ^

have been established to deal with other issues that generate the same result.

I don't advocate one way or the other in terms of boycott, I just think that for both sides it would be beneficial to have a standard.

Bryan & Co simply discuss it and say this is what can be done, this is how it is done, if someone deviates for innocent reasons, gentle reminders are in order.  Continued or blatant abuse will be dealt with accordingly.

I care less about the how and what than I do about just making it go away. There is precedent for doing this on this board.

Joined: 01/20/2009

MGoPoints: 5049

CPS

June 1st, 2010 at 4:36 PM ^

I care less about the how and what than I do about just making it go away. There is precedent for doing this on this board.

Making what go away?

What precedent do you speak of?

Joined: 10/20/2008

MGoPoints: -405

mtzlblk

June 1st, 2010 at 5:21 PM ^

argument that progresses something like

-direct freep link posted

*no Freep links!!!!

*don't post freep links

*BOYCOTT FREEP!!!

*DON"T BOYCOTT FREEP YOU ARE ALL HOMERS ANd BLIND!!

*I don't boycott the freep

*you SHOULD!!

*you SHOULDN'T

Precedent, i.e.:

1. whenever people got into discussions about MGoPoints and who was negging who, it devolved into a thread like this, so at some point there was a very clear edict that discussing them would get you hammered that is pretty well supported

2. poster's that refer to names of our rivals with silly and derogatory permutations of MSU/OSO or their mascot names was judged by the majority of this board to begin smacking of the MLIVE type discourse and is almost universally despised here, so now there is a clear policy not to do it or you will get docked 100,000 MGoPoints.

To be clear, I'm not 'insisting' on this, it was merely proffered as a possible solution. I'm not advocating supporting linking one way or the other, just something that says you can, or you can't post direct links and then there is nothing to argue about and that a calm, gentle reminder to someone that doesn't follow that policy is all that is required.

Joined: 01/20/2009

MGoPoints: 5049

CPS

June 1st, 2010 at 7:40 PM ^

The difference between your precedent and the present situation is that in your examples it is the message itself, whether conveyed inherently or explicitly, that lowers the level of discourse, thereby necessitating the institution of policy.  A non-print-only link to the freep alone does no such thing, especially when ancillary to the main message of a comment, even if there is an intended underlying anti-boycott sentiment.  The discourse only devolves thereafter, as you demonstrated.  The problem isn't the link; it's the rabble that follows.

As a consequence, your proposal risks throwing the babby out with the bathwater, no matter the policy, and necessarily dictates acceptance of one side or another, rather than respect.  To the extent you want policy on this board, how about one that requires respect of one's choice to support the boycott or not, and leave it at that.  Don't force it down people's throats one way or another.

Joined: 10/20/2008

MGoPoints: -405

mtzlblk

June 1st, 2010 at 9:00 PM ^

I am about talked out on this topic.

To your point, I would be completely ok with a neutral policy whereby anyone that jumps on someone for posting a direct link gets dealt with and anyone trying to stifle people venting against the FP are dealt with in a similar manner. A policy doesn't inherently have to be one-sided.

I will just say that I do hope we can all just put this stuff behind us at some point and just cheer for Michigan and not have to worry about who is attacking the team and how best to treat them. Anything that cuts down on rabble rablle is okay by me.

Joined: 01/20/2009

MGoPoints: 5049

Edward Khil

May 31st, 2010 at 1:38 AM ^

For an article about Dontrelle Willis?

I think it's simple courtesy to link to the News or to mlive.com, or even the AP or ESPN or mlb.com, when commenting on rote news.

Joined: 03/06/2010

MGoPoints: 1077

2014

May 31st, 2010 at 11:27 AM ^

I mean minimal offense by this Chitown, cause I agree with a lot of what you're saying. But I do think your argument falls down in one key area (a couple of other areas too but they're a matter of opinion):

Read the freep all you want. Discuss the freep all you want. Don't link to the freep. Respect the owner of this blog's opinion. That seems cut and dry. Brian has an opinion that happens to be supported by a significant percentage of the readership. But in the end, if you support what he does here, if you support what this blog is about, then respect his opinion and don't link to the freep.

It's pretty simple I think...

Joined: 12/11/2009

MGoPoints: 2359

maizenbluenc

May 31st, 2010 at 8:08 AM ^

I am boycotting the Freep, but I think there is value in a few of our OPs letting us know what half reported, yellow journalistic tripe they are printing / posting. (Keeping an eye on what your enemy is up to sort of thing.)

If someone wants to come in here, and post up a link to the print version of a Freep article and an excerpt or two. I have no problem with it, and I agree with chitownblue2 that the OP shouldn't be negged for it, or have an endless string of you posted from the Freep hijack the intent of the post.

Joined: 07/21/2009

MGoPoints: 10630

Blue Durham

May 31st, 2010 at 10:24 PM ^

someone who is compelled to post a Free Press link could post both both printable and actual pange link, so that each person could chose how they decide for themselves how to patronize the Free Press.

Or better yet, we could just ban anyone who dares to link to the Free Press, prinable link or not.

Or maybe, just maybe, we could decide not to get all bunged out on the web-site viewing decisions that others make that don't quite agree with our own after said point of view is bludgeoned on this here blog for months on end (I think this one is Chitown's point, and NOT that he is pro- or anti- Free Press, he has not specifically said one thing pro or con for the Free Press, just that others should make up their own minds how they deal with the web site/newspaper).

Shit, what was I thinking, that last one is insane.

Finally, with all of that being said, I do greatly respect Brian, his views and perspectives, the incredible site that he has worked so hard to build.  I think all of that warrents our respect and consideration of the views that he presents on this blog.  However, I suspect the last thing that he would want is for the readership to turn into a group of MGoSycophants.

Joined: 06/30/2008

MGoPoints: 6082

mtzlblk

June 1st, 2010 at 1:32 PM ^

we can throw away any other conventions that the majority of board members have deemed unfit, i.e. people can make their own decisions about:

-whether or not to refer to rival teams in various unsavory manners, like employing a dollar sign in their acronym

-people who want to talk about MGoPoints should have the option to talk about MGoPoints w/o fear of getting neg-banged

-some people who post here care about grammar, a lot, some people do not. Those that don't shouldn't feel the need to proof-read their posts carefully just to avoid getting neg-banged by those that do.

Not that I condone the above behavior, I don't. There are good reasons why they are discouraged. These standards were arrived at through a sort of 'gestalt' of popular opinion where the majority dictated that certain things would not be tolerated on this board and that system is enforced through reminders and downvoting.

I understand that these aren't straight apple-to-apple comparisons and that not boycotting the freep isn't as cut and dry as perhaps calling our Spartan brethren a more sisterly, make that little sisterly, version of their name, but I do think it falls into the same general category.

It would seem like their is some room for compromise here that would be acceptable to everyone.

1. If you want to link to the Free Press, please just follow the requested method of doing so from the person that puts their heart and soul into making this such a great site. This actually goes beyond any notion of acceptable v. non-acceptable and to me is really a question of basic courtesy to he that toils in the mines to keep this site someplace we all want to be. Brian has made this site what it is and he should have some say in whether or not the success of what he built can be used to benefit an organization he so clearly wishes not to support. His stance is clear, his opinion is as reasoned and thought through as it could possibly be and he has made explicit his wish for how, if you feel the need, you should link to the free press. That is not telling anyone how or what to think, it is simply a plea to not support the organization using his traffic. That is reasonable.

If someone does post a link, they should be reminded politely of the policy for the board on how to link and given instructions on how to fix the link, or an alternate link for people to follow.

2. People that want to vent anger against the Free Press and/or to urge a boycott should be free to do so without being labeled as a hopelessly biased homer fan. It is a perfectly rationale reaction given the circumstances, even if you don't agree with it. To attempt to dissuade the majority of people on this site that they are wrong about this is Quixotic at best and results in as many hijacked threads that devolve into bickering as any other topic I have seen.

FWIW - I don't labor under the belief that a boycott of the Free Press from this site actually makes a material difference in their traffic numbers, other larger factors are at work there. I do however think it an important gesture in symbolic terms on a site with I wouod think the largest and most informed group of M fans to be found anywhere.

Joined: 01/20/2009

MGoPoints: 5049

Other Chris

June 1st, 2010 at 1:46 PM ^

The conventions you describe exist to make this board a more tolerable place. A bunch of  oh-so-played "humorous" nicknames for rival teams don't add anything to the discourse.  Nor does a bunch of ranting about MGoPoints, which are largely meaningless as anything other than an indication that you either spend too much time here or maybe should take a break, depending which way they are trending.

Generally speaking, someone adds a link in order to add to the conversation.  Ranting at them about what they chose to link, how they chose to link it and whether Brian approves or not does not.

Joined: 06/30/2008

MGoPoints: 1219

dennisblundon

June 1st, 2010 at 1:59 PM ^

I think the point that the poster was getting at is that not directly linking to the Freep should be done out of courtesy to the creator of this blog. If you go to someone's house and they ask that you take your shoes off, you do it out of courtesy, I doubt you would argue about how you have a right to wear your shoes if you want.

In my opinion boycotting a newspaper is certainly a personal decision and should not be influenced by anyone. However, linking to the paper a different way out of respect for the person who created something you take part in is not all that unreasonable of a request. If you ( anyone) feels this request to be too lofty by all means directly link it. Just to be surprised if someone points it out.

Joined: 02/23/2010

MGoPoints: 9613