Takes Rosenberg to Task

Submitted by Tubes on November 1st, 2011 at 1:54 PM

Local media flamethrower (Brian Cook TM) Jeff Moss recently posted a column on his website ( bombing Michael Rosenberg for his actions associated with practicegate and does an effective job of taking Rosenberg to task.  The article can be found here:


DSR contributor and MSU alumnus Justin Spiro also penned a column from a rival perspective but reached a similar conclusion in regards to Rosenberg.  His article is here:






November 1st, 2011 at 2:11 PM ^

I have a hunch that you just made someone's day . . .

Wait for it . . .  Here it comes . . . 3 . . . 2 . . . 1 . . .

[Edit:  Its been 2 hours.  Where is he??]



November 1st, 2011 at 2:14 PM ^

Has anyone at the Freep ever answered for Rosenberg's article? Even with my whopping high school newspaper experience, I know it's a fairly serious breach of journalistic ethics to publish the story they did, in the manner they did and with the apparent lack of oversight on the part of editors with supposedly neutral feelings.

I wonder if the complaining will ever reach a level where they realize he and his editor need to go, especially in light of Three and Out.


November 1st, 2011 at 2:15 PM ^

He has an intense dislike for Michigan, but still calls Rosenberg to task.

The first one borders on anti-semetic enough by continously bringing up Jewish references that have nothing to do with the story that he completely undercuts a good takedown.  But it's probably called a "rag" for a reason.


November 1st, 2011 at 2:31 PM ^

Does someone who is part of a particular ethnicity, religion, gender, sexual persuasion, etc., get a free pass in ribbing someone from the same grouping?

The answer is two-fold.

  1. They may get a pass, if making such references/jokes in their own group.
  2. But they don't get a pass, or not as much, if they take their slights public.

I have witnessed blacks using slurs with other blacks that could never be used by anyone else. I have witnessed gay friends acidly lampooning other gays. My brother-in-law, who is Jewish (secular), will often make jokes or slights of those who are conservative, orthodox, etc., with whom he takes issue.

Still, this is one I won't touch with a 10 foot pole, but will sit bemused at a distance, should they choose to destroy each other.

I do think the first article is very well written, and I "almost" feel sorry for Rosenberg, because of the baggage he will carry with him as long as he writes. Frankly, he probably needs to find another career.


November 1st, 2011 at 3:46 PM ^

If some black friends are using the N word among themselves, that's fine. There's even a line for art, perhaps. But is this a humor piece, or an opinion one? I think it's the latter, trying to be funny, so it undercuts the credibility. If Drew Sharp made up names using the N word, it might be the one thing to make him less credible.

I know the guy uses the appropriated "heeb", over the slur "hebe", but using it in a negative connotation is just a sly way of using the slur without using the slur.

I'm not even Jewish, and it was all in too poor taste, even towards a douche like Rosenberg.  There's so much you can justly attack him on...why use that?


November 1st, 2011 at 8:44 PM ^

I don't feel the least bit sorry for Michael Rosenberg.  He deserves to be fired and never get another job in journalism for his multiple and severe breaches of ethics.  I am glad that the things many of us wrote in amazon about his book hurt him, because he deserves every bit of pain it brought him.  

When someone abuses his power and violates the ethics of his profession to further a personal vendetta, he should be squashed like a bug when it is proven that he did so.  Like Craig James, though, Rosenberg was never given the punishment he richly deserves by his employer.  

Worse yet, Rosenberg was even rewarded with a writing position at SI dot com.  George Dohrmann must want to vomit every time he thinks of Michael Rosenberg.


November 1st, 2011 at 2:21 PM ^

Hopefully, this will lead to Lloyd Carr whispering in Rosie's [Rosenberger’s] ear that maybe a transfer to the Columbus Dispatch is in order.

Hahaha. Well played, DSR!


November 1st, 2011 at 2:44 PM ^

“Rodriguez’s staff uses some of the foulest, most degrading language imaginable. I know coaches curse, and I’m no prude, but this goes way beyond a few dirty words. He belittles the players. This is a big part of why offensive lineman Justin Boren left the team. He felt his dignity was at stake.”

To write everything he wrote as a journalist knowing that it's complete fiction means you either A) have big brass balls or B) know you can get away with it.  If you don't have enough machismo to brush off Amazon reviews on your book, it's clearly the latter, which says about as much regarding the culture at the FP as it does his character.


November 1st, 2011 at 2:43 PM ^

A website I've never heard of posted a piece, two years after the fact, about an irresponsible story written by an unapologetically irresponsible journalist. Cool story, bro. 


November 1st, 2011 at 2:58 PM ^

I was with the author up until he started making anti-Semitic references ("Rosenheeb"? "Jews and Bacon don't mix"? WTF?). That's kind of not cool. I was about to retweet the article with a @Rosenberg_Mike mention, but I stopped when I read the innuendos at the end. 


November 1st, 2011 at 10:16 PM ^

Jews and Bacon don't mix?  Come on, thats funny.  Its sort of a pun because Bacon revealed some unflattering things about this particular jew, and jews are believed to also avoid pork.  Guess you got to be a fan of puns.  And is "heeb" really derogatory?  I had to look it up, but it is apparently short for "hebrew."  Would it be derogatory to call some one an Anglo or an Afro?  Maybe a little but we can all agree that guy should be called some derogatory things, right?


November 2nd, 2011 at 10:32 AM ^

A (purposeful) mispelling of the Jewish slur 'hebe'. While before 'hebe' was an ethnic slur, 'heeb' is a word of pride regarding ones Jewish idenity. This transformation is due in large part to the emerging Jewish youth culture comming out of New York City.

I don't think from the tone of the article you can take it as a brotherly positive, but a sneaky way to stick a slur in there.


November 1st, 2011 at 8:48 PM ^

Moss ruined a great post with his slurs, even if they are "in-house."  Imagine this was an African-American writing about someone like TO and it contained seven variations of the n-word.  Other than that, though, the content is great.  

OMG Shirtless

November 1st, 2011 at 9:12 PM ^


Tater: For years, and especially after Rosenpuke and Shyster's hatchet job, I have wished that somebody, anybody, would go after TSIO with such fervor. Now that the Scarlet Wall of Silence has crumbled, news agencies are scrambling to get as many pieces of what is left as they can.

Just one of many examples of what comes up when you do a site search on Tater + Shyster.

Search Results

People have spent years trying to beat it into your head that calling Snyder, "Shyster," was anti-semetic.


November 1st, 2011 at 3:13 PM ^

The second article is extremely well-written and insightful.  His assertions beg the question:  Is it really common knowledge in the journalism business that Rosenberg violated the basic tenent of reporting by writing with strong pre-conceived opinions about the subject?  The blogger is very convincing and, if so, how in the hell can the Free Press keep Rosenberg employed?  I just don't get it and probably never will.



November 1st, 2011 at 3:33 PM ^

I just can't figure it out.  The firestorm that it brought should have, in and of itself, been enough to put serious pressure on the Free Press.  Then, finding out that the charges were trumped up once the NCAA investigation ended should have pushed it over the top.  Is Rosenberg that widely read by Michiganders that he brings enough revenue to the paper himself to justify his position?  Or is the negative response more akin to angry Michigan fans who know nothing about journalism (in other words, he didn't truly violate any "rules" of journalism)?  Or, better yet, maybe there are no longer any tenents of journalism!


November 1st, 2011 at 3:41 PM ^

By the way Rosenberg talks about it in retrospect, during the rare instances in which he has,  you would think he honestly believes the latter - these are just pissed Michigan fans and what the hell do we know anyway. He seems fairly unrepentant about the whole affair, and if "Three And Out" is any indicator, he's likely more upset that "War As They Knew It" was roundly panned. 


November 1st, 2011 at 3:27 PM ^

The Freep keeping Rosenberg employed seems, hmm, very telling. It's almost like the ESPN v. OSU case in that this particular issue isn't of great consequence, but the ramifications (Ohio governmental entities releasing records to the public, journalistic standards for newspapers desperate for subscriptions and ad clicks) are very, very big.

Imagine if the NYT had Paul Krugman doing investigative pieces on the Ron Paul campaign, or if Fox News had Glenn Beck writing an investigative piece on Barack Obama. Is that really okay? The fact that the Freep thinks so is definitely an indication of their lack of ethical standards.

Section 1

November 1st, 2011 at 4:14 PM ^

{"tenet" - principle, belief or doctrine generally held to be true...}

I think we have Fisked the Freep here on these pages better than either of those two posts.  And without the questionable ethnic references.

I'll repeat just one thing, that has particular relation to Three and Out.  As most of us know, Jon Chait had reviewed Rosenberg's book War As They Knew It very favorably, and yet he still condemned his colleague Rosenberg's self-assignment to the Freep's Stretchgate story.

So in Three and Out, Bacon asks Rosenberg about that complaint; it would be impossible for Rosenberg to deny Chait's status in journalism.  Rosenberg's explanation given to Bacon and set forth in the book was that the Free Press had no dedicated investigative journalist in the sports department.  They were short-staffed, in other words.  Rosenberg had to do the story because he was the only one available to do it.

But even that after-the-fact explanation by Rosenberg isn't true because we know that the Freep assigned one of its most senior investigative reporters, Jim Schaefer, to the story as soon as Rosenberg and Snyder went to press with it.  The Free Press found the adequate staffing, after Rosenberg had fully concocted the story of his choosing.

The Free Press, which had quite apparently gone out of its way to NOT interview any persons of real authority or control before the story broke, and had otherwise concealed the development of the story, suddenly turned Jim Schaefer loose, to FOIA all relevant documents from the Athletic Department.  That happened the week AFTER the Rosenberg story was published on August 30, 2009.  Rosenberg's explanation to Bacon was not and is not an honest one.

This is the kind of mendacity that was at work in that story.  No ethnic name-calling is needed, and none should be injected.  Rosenberg's fundamental dishonesty ought to be the main focus.


November 1st, 2011 at 3:48 PM ^

Rosenberg and Snyder still being allowed to attend press conferences at Michigan and still being allowed in the press box at all.  Is there some reason that Michigan does not just pull his pass?  We don't we make an issue out of it?


November 1st, 2011 at 4:22 PM ^

Most important, to this article anyway, is that I loathe the University of Michigan. I revel in their defeats, particularly when they come at the hand of Michigan State. My joyous celebration of USC’s 2007 Rose Bowl triumph over the Wolverines was so obnoxious that a Michigan fan asked where I lived and pronounced his plans to “be in jail tonight”.

I'm sure the article written by the second author is a great read, but I immediately stopped as soon as I finished this paragraph.  I know the fact the hates Michigan so much is supposed to make me really believe what he's saying, but I simply cannot read something by someone who, when asked to name their favorite moment in MSU football, so obviously would answer "Appalachian State."


November 1st, 2011 at 5:06 PM ^

He tweets Mark Schlereth asking him why his son sucks. He likes to call someone's daughter the c word in a public forum just because he has a beef with the father and wants to get under his skin. I mean, it doesn't really bother me, but he has issues.

He's brutally honest about expressing his opinions on local sports media figures. He used to skewer Mike Valenti as the phony loudmouth hack that he is, but now they tweet each other like they're twitter buddies. Disappointing.


November 1st, 2011 at 5:19 PM ^

Bacon pointed out on the radio (Sean and Terp) that the week of the MSU game (that we lost in OT) the NCAA was pulling coaches and players out constantly from practice and that Rod spent 6-7 hours a day in interviews -- the team had no time to prepare and were confused about the rules and situtation.


Rosenberg is a scumbag, it is too bad that most UofM fans do not read other forms of media that have pointed this out definitively.


On the Huge Show, Rosenberg had previously said that he wanted Rod fired and on a different show after the article Huge asked if this was a conflict of interest...him saying that he wanted Rod fired and then writing an article that could get him fired....Rosenberg said something along the lines of 'I guess'.


November 1st, 2011 at 8:10 PM ^

As much as I dislike Rosenberg, the first article almost made me sympathize with him.  The author mistakenly conflates Rosenberg's unethical behavior with his apparent ethnicity.  The repeated ethnic slurs in his article seemingly imply that Rosenberg's behavior is due to his presumed religion rather than his own individual character.  Such an implication is ridiculous, disgusting, and way over the top.  Indeed, I  suspect that even Rosenberg would not stereotype the first author's writing as the result of his race, ethnic group, religion or gender. There is no place for such divisive prejudice.

Personally, I would prefer that we cease posting any more of the articles from the "sportsrag" website of the first author, whose own prejudice makes Rosenberg seem almost like a sympathetic victim.

IMO, Rosenberg does not deserve such status.


November 3rd, 2011 at 3:09 PM ^

Now let's be honest, who wasn't at least tempted to go and read the reviews for Rosenberg's book on Amazon after Bacon mentioned him whining about it in 3 and Out. There's some solid work up there.