Another AnnArbor.com masterpiece

Submitted by aaamichfan on June 4th, 2010 at 3:14 PM

In its mission to report anything that can possibly be construed as negative towards Rich Rodriguez, annarbor.com has given us this gem. Although 54% were undecied and 20% had a favorable opinion of him, they still felt compelled to run the headline, "Polling Website says Michigan fans have unfavorable opinion of football coach Rich Rodriguez". Enjoy.

 

http://www.annarbor.com/sports/um-football/polling-website-says-michiga…

Comments

Twisted Martini

June 4th, 2010 at 4:06 PM ^

Nothing to see here.

 

EDIT:  I wasn't intending to harsh on AAAmichfan, just that AA Live would crank something like that out and treat it as news.  My bad.

Paly33

June 4th, 2010 at 3:21 PM ^

Plus they always find a picture of RR where it seems like his puppy just died! I haven't seen a picture of him in the last 3 months of him smiling.  AnnArbor.com is creeping up to Freep status.

MGoBender

June 4th, 2010 at 3:37 PM ^

If 54% are undecided and 20% have a favorable opinion, then if my math is correct, 26% have an unfavorable opinion of him.  So, yeah, not in FREEP territory if you ask me.

Now since they even state that 51% want to see Rich Rod continue, a more apt headline may be "Slight majority wish to see Rodriguez continue as UM coach".

But is anyone really surprised a newspaper/media outlet chose to go with the sexier headline? 

wigeon

June 4th, 2010 at 3:32 PM ^

sneeze on Michael Rothstein. A full-blown snot explosion. Then, I'd wipe nose with the back of my arm and casually say "Sorry dude". 

blueheron

June 4th, 2010 at 3:38 PM ^

From the article: "Of those polled, Rodriguez had a 20 percent favorable rating, 26 percent unfavorable rating with 54 percent undecided."

26%... check.

From the picture: "Michigan coach Rich Rodriguez isn't well-liked by most Michigan residents..."

SPIN! 

That's not  a wholly unreasonable intrepretation of the data, but it's not really fair, either.  Why not say "3/4 of those polled have no issue with RichRod?"  (That's a rhetorical question.)

Njia

June 4th, 2010 at 3:56 PM ^

Is apparently unaware which side of its bread has the butter. Their sole claim to relevance is due to the University of Michigan. Most of their readers (and prospective readers) are bound to have more than a passing affiliation with the U. Piss off most of that market segment, and they kiss their future goodbye.

wile_e8

June 4th, 2010 at 4:20 PM ^

The know exactly which side of the bread has the butter: the side that generates traffic, hits, and ad revenue.  Have any of their other articles today generated its own thread on this board?

rastafari

June 4th, 2010 at 4:06 PM ^

the bottom line here is this is our HOME E-PAPER. It is a complete goat fuck. Why would some reporter even spend the time to publish this shit???

How about we talk about the positives? Our promising upcoming season, the recruits, superior attitude, superior speed. ANYTHING but this ongoing shit!!

91 fucking days!!!!

 

GO BLUE!!!!

Don

June 4th, 2010 at 4:13 PM ^

Oh, I think they've identified exactly the portions of the population that they want to cater to:

1.) Those for whom it's simply UNACCEPTABLE that we don't have a "Michigan Man" as head coach, especially since he's not Les Miles and gosh it's awful the way Rodriquez left WVU. If you asked these readers who Ed Pastilong was, they'd look at you blankly and then guess it's a chain of restaurants up in the UP that serve meat-filled dough things.

2.)  MSU fans in the A2 area. There are more than you might think.

Just wait: if RR turns it around this year and/or next, Rothstein and Birkett will be falling all over themselves to assure us they knew he was going to be successful all along and that they've always supported him.

michgoblue

June 4th, 2010 at 4:16 PM ^

I am not defending the article, but is this really a big deal?  The article was factually accurate - of those with an opinion, 26 didn't like RR and 20% did.  The article also went on to note that 51% say keep RR for another year.  Just saying that we, as a fanbase, can't get so worked up about the media that every article that is not glowingly positive causes us to grab our pitchforks and light our torches. 

This is NOT in the same realm of what the FREEP did. 

Tater

June 4th, 2010 at 4:52 PM ^

What I don't like about this is that parents and recruits who read mlive or A2 dot com see this headline with its inaccurate interpretation of data.  Sadly, in the minds of many, if they read it in a headline, it is "true."  And when they read this kind of stuff on a repetitive basis, it can't help but sneak into their decision-making processes.

It may or may not be true, but one could reasonably infer a possibility that markets like Columbus, where the media prints mostly positive stories about their team, have a recruiting advantage over markets where the press routinely undermines the local product.

Monocle Smile

June 4th, 2010 at 5:09 PM ^

Imagine what would happen to car sales if the Freep started printing stories about how GM cars don't stand up to collision tests and their executives routinely drown kittens in the Detroit River regardless of the truth of either of those statements.

Massive exaggeration, I know, but in this case when the local media whips out hatchet jobs, prospective students and athletes who read local headlines to get the inside scoop get one of two messages: either Michigan isn't all it's cracked up to be, or everyone in Ann Arbor is a whiny bitch.

Kilgore Trout

June 4th, 2010 at 5:42 PM ^

That has to be one of the more ridiculous proposed laws I've ever seen.  I'm no lawyer or constitutional scholar, but that has to be a violation of the first amendment, right?

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances"

Emphasis mine.  The government regulating who can report on them has to be the easiest first amendement case in history.