Etiquette regarding the Free Press Boycott

Submitted by chitownblue2 on May 30th, 2010 at 2:07 PM

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.

Comments

jmblue

May 30th, 2010 at 2:17 PM ^

It's generally newcomers to the board who post links to Freep articles.  I think it's okay for people to explain that there is a general consensus against doing so, but I agree that it should done more politely (and negbanging is unnecessary). 

BTW, boycott is a real word.  It doesn't need quotation marks.

Tater

May 30th, 2010 at 2:28 PM ^

...and maybe the two or three people here who still read the freep should have some respect for those who proudly boycott. 

The freep lied to teenagers to get information which they used to report the football team to the NCAA in a (so far) falied attempt to "bring down" RR.  Since most people here are UM fans who care enough to read and comment in a UM blog every day, it is only natural that they still have emnity toward a media outlet that has abused its power to negatively impact a team they care about.

Maybe, instead of aiming your vitriol, straw men, and ad hominem attacks toward the fans and posters here, you could direct it toward someone who truly deserves it: Rosenberg.

Also, I have a question for you.  Brian made a comment about his ire with the freep that was quite strongly worded.  Are you including him in your blanket indictment of mgoblog?

I also have another question?  Why is it "tiresome" to mention the boycott of the freep, but not "tiresome" to attack loyal Michigan football fans on a Michigan sports blog?

chitownblue2

May 30th, 2010 at 2:43 PM ^

...and maybe the two or three people here who still read the freep should have some respect for those who proudly boycott. 

"Respect" and "agreement" aren't the same thing. They can "respect" the opinion of those who choose not to consume the Free Press by not trying to tell them they're wrong constantly (I understand I'm guilty of doing this as well). Those who boycott can do likewise. I'm more opposed to derailing a legitimate discussion (Dontrelle Willis) with this stuff.

The freep lied to teenagers to get information which they used to report the football team to the NCAA in a (so far) falied attempt to "bring down" RR.  Since most people here are UM fans who care enough to read and comment in a UM blog every day, it is only natural that they still have emnity toward a media outlet that has abused its power to negatively impact a team they call care about.

You (and they) are entitled to your enmity. At no point in this post did I claim you can't be angry.

Maybe, instead of aiming your vitriol, straw men, and ad hominem attacks toward the fans and posters here, you could direct it toward someone who truly deserves it: Rosenberg.

The man who coins the phrase "Rosenpuke", vaguely anti-semitically refers to Snyder as "Shyster", and is physically incapable of typing "OSU" or MSU" without inserting a "$" into the acronym has accused me of ad hominem attacks. The man who takes new of Zack Randolph's arrest and implies that he fuels an East Lansing drug running ring, and the man who has written that Terrelle Pryor "plays high" is accusing me of vitriol. You, my "friend" are the height of hypocrisy.

Also, I have a question for you.  Brian made a comment about his ire with the freep that was quite strongly worded.  Are you including him in your blanket indictment of mgoblog?

Brian, as any human being, is capable of being wrong. Brian, like any human being, may do or say something I disagree with. His belief is not a legitimate reason for me to change mine. Futher - have you seen Brian lambasting posters who paste a Free Press link? I haven't seen it. He chooses not to post them himself. Which I have no problem with.

I also have another question?  Why is it "tiresome" to mention the boycott of the freep, but not "tiresome" to attack loyal Michigan football fans on a Michigan sports blog?

Tater, here is where you and I fundamentally disagree. You think a common rooting interest can unite us. There are many things I prize in people I like, love, and even tolerate that I prioritize more highly than "are they a Michigan fan".

(Plaschke mode)

You bring anti-semetic slurs to mgoblog.

You act like people who cheer for, or attend MSU are lower forms of human life

You, as a middle-aged adult, have no problem writing, and casting baseless aspersions against teenagers - accusing them of graft, drug abuse, and likely worse - all because they have the audacity to play for a team you dislike.

Your loyalty to Michigan is secondary to the numerous pieces of evidence that you are an utterly reprehensible human being. That is far more important to me than who you cheer for.

M-Wolverine

May 30th, 2010 at 3:17 PM ^

...even on a Michigan bent, he's willing to throw Lloyd under the bus at any turn (and not just the Rich vs. Lloyd nonsense...but individually), so I even question the unwavering Michigan loyalty. Can't stand the whole "I back him because he's the Michigan Coach" mentality of those whose loyalty only exists currently...but was completely the opposite with the prior regime. (Which isn't the case with all people, or even most with the quoted mentality.  But in this case, yes).

Njia

May 30th, 2010 at 5:07 PM ^

I've only seen one, more withering discourse in my entire life*. If I'm ever in a situation where I really need a good court room attorney, I'm contacting you first.

 

*Lucy from Peanuts. She and Violet got into a heated argument. Violet went on an on for about five panels with her diatribe - good stuff if the object of the words had been anyone else; however... Lucy cut her down with about a two-sentence response. Violet lost just as sure as she was the Devil in that Charlie Daniels tune. It was a thing of beauty.

2014

May 30th, 2010 at 9:21 PM ^

I'd like to hear a similarly reasoned argument of your support for the Freep. You seem like a literate guy, so maybe you can help shed some light on your stance versus attacking those that have taken the polar opposite stance.

I personally have never negged anyone who linked to the freep, but I haven't been back to the website since the first article Rosenberg posted.

For me, it goes way beyond Michigan sports. Rosenberg essentially wrote an op ed piece that was presented (and clearly approved by the higher ups at the Freep) as a piece of journalism. I just don't know how I can support a newspaper that has ceased to report the news and instead create it to fit their own agenda. If they did it in this instance, who's to say the same thing isn't going on in other parts of the paper?

I'd be interested in hearing the pro-argument for the Freep... 

formerlyanonymous

May 30th, 2010 at 9:28 PM ^

The problem is that you're creating a false dillema. Just because he doesn't care to boycott the freep, doesn't mean he's all pro-freep. You can continue to read it without being 100% for it. Sure, they may not have great Michigan coverage (understatement), but they do offer a lot more content than just that (see: Tigers piece they were talking about).

2014

May 31st, 2010 at 11:56 AM ^

He/you can read the Freep all you/he wants. He/you can discuss freep articles all you want on this board. Just don't post the link and feed their rapidly dissolving revenue streams.

As far as content goes, sure, I imagine they still have some interesting reads. But the staff/editors that work on the Tigers' stories are the same people that work on the Michigan pieces. They showed a lack of journalistic integrity by respresenting an editorial piece as investigative journalism. If you read the freep, you're saying that's OK. That's your decision.

Seth9

May 31st, 2010 at 7:39 PM ^

Just don't post the link and feed their rapidly dissolving revenue streams.

Posting the link doesn't feed their revenue stream. Clicking on it does. I don't think that providing an additional opportunity for people to click on a Freep link is out of bounds if it is identified as such because it doesn't serve to override anybody's choice to observe or not observe the boycott.

The Big House

May 30th, 2010 at 2:25 PM ^

It's also done by people starting threads who read the FreeP but don't want to increase their revenue, so they don't post the links. Brian does this on occasion with content posted on the front page.

chitownblue2

May 30th, 2010 at 2:48 PM ^

I have no issue about Brian (or anyone)choosing not to post or click links to the Free Press. I personally disagree with the boycott, but they can do what they want. I disagree with people being lambasted for posting a link - especially when the poster likely did it out of ignorance of the boycott.

Brian, to my knowledge, has not yelled at anyone for posting a link to the Free Press.

A2MIKE

May 30th, 2010 at 8:55 PM ^

I am not trying to be a jerk or anything... but your animosity towards boycotters of the freep signals more at play than personal preference.  Do you work for the Freep?  Do you work for a newspaper?  Are you a journalist for msm?  There is something beyond the surface here.... just curious.

chitownblue2

May 31st, 2010 at 12:15 AM ^

as my name suggests, I live and work in Chicago.

I am not a journalist. I am a writer at an infrequently read Michigan blog. I have no stake in the FREEP - to be honest, I don't go to their site, and I don't read them, merely because as a non-Michigan resident, and non-Michigan native, I have no reason to.

For the record: I don't care if people read or don't read them.I no longer care about that. I just hope people can respect the decision of people who choose to read them - and not jump all over some pour soul who happens to link them that's not aware of the MGoJihad.

Njia

May 31st, 2010 at 1:03 AM ^

Recall that was the term Brian first used to describe the Freep campaign against RR and U-M Football. I think its safe to take the position that MGoBlog didn't start this, but many people here intend to keep at it until Rosenberg, Snyder, their editor and/or publisher have some sort of reckoning.

As soon as the Rosenberg/Snyder article appeared in August, I cancelled my Freep subscription. I've stopped berating other users on this site if they read the Freep, but I honestly believe that posting links to their site, (other than the "print" link) indirectly supports the Freep. Brian has stated pretty clearly that he doesn't want this site supporting that publication in any way. He owns this site, so that's his call, and his perogative.

Now, I'm sophisticated enough to understand that the Freep doesn't "owe" the U-M anything. They are not paid to be homers. On the other hand, allowing their columnists and reporters to push an openly hostile agenda against U-M, even if it is just the football coach, is reprehensible.

Make no mistake; this was more than simply an attack on a football coach. While football is only one program of many at the University, the clear intent of the article was that the head coach - and by extension, the University administration - care not a whit for the "student" part of "student-athletes", and were treating football players little better than dogs, all evidence to the contrary. The Freep picked and chose facts to support a narrative it wanted to promote, and Truth be damned.

A2MIKE

May 31st, 2010 at 7:52 AM ^

It wasn't this thread that caused me to believe something more than personal was involved.  I just remember seeing a couple threads where you tore into people about boycotting the freep and I figured after starting a thread on the topic something must have touched a nerve.  I personally don't like the freep, but that started way before the jihad, and I really dont care for the news either.  All newspapers are agenda driven, just like your nightly news broadcasts, but the freep and news have been agenda driven way longer than your average regional paper.  To me they had the hopes that they could become the Sun-Times or the Tribune, breaking big stories that mattered nationally.  The jihad aside, they just never quite got there. I agree with most of your points, I don't support the freep just like I stopped watching the nightly news, but I don't think less of anyone that chooses to continue reading the freep.

Other Chris

May 31st, 2010 at 3:38 PM ^

He just rips people when they are being stupid, which is only infrequently about the Freep and mostly about the irrational expectations people put on scholarship athletes and the feeling that they are entitled to do so since the student athletes are "paid" in scholarships.  The Freep thing seems like it bugs him because it is crapping up perfectly interesting content bearing threads, and for what?

formerlyanonymous

May 30th, 2010 at 2:25 PM ^

I save the angst only for Bleacher Report. I have no problem with the freep past UM sports, which includes that Tigers link the other day. If people read it, that's up to them. If it were my local paper, no matter how fickle one or two reporters might be to something dear to me, I don't think I could boycott it either. 

The Bleacher Report has no redeeming qualities.

MGoBender

May 30th, 2010 at 3:24 PM ^

If I could +1000 the OP, I would.

Misopogon said it best in the thread in which MGoMatt was negged to oblivion:

I'd take one thoughtful, querying, honest and open-minded poster like you over 100 posts spreading homerist anti-Freepism.

Section 1

May 30th, 2010 at 3:34 PM ^

And the more like MGoMatt (that is, guys who ask honest questions about the Freep and ultimately come away agreeing that the Freep's standards have been practically nonexistent), the merrier, I say. 

I don't hate the Free Press out of homerism.  I hate the Free Press for a ton of detailed, substantive reasons.

As I've said before:  We have rivals; Ohio State, Michigan State, Wisconsin.  And we have enemies; the Detroit Free Press.

MGoBender

May 30th, 2010 at 3:44 PM ^

Couldn't agree more.  Unfortunately, not all posters are as intelligent or well thought out as you were in that thread (or at least don't present themselves that way). 

Many see the word "Freep" and sprint to Ann Arbor Pitchfork and the result is a bunch of negative one-line posts about the Freep.  For me, all that does is stifle conversation and promote a one-sidedness to the entire blog.

mgovictors23

May 30th, 2010 at 3:42 PM ^

I have no problem if people want to get info from the Free Press about other sports and stuff like that, but me personally I won't read it and won't even mention it.

aaamichfan

May 30th, 2010 at 11:05 PM ^

The bottom line is, the owner of this blog(Brian) had said numerous times to never link to any Freep articles here.

If you want to continue reading the Freep, that is your own personal choice. However, Brian has made it clear that he does not want this website contributing revenue to them.

 

Case closed. Find something else to bitch about.

aaamichfan

May 30th, 2010 at 11:47 PM ^

A final note: I can't emphasize enough how much of a hit job this was. Until such time as Drew Sharp, Michael Rosenberg, and Mark Snyder are no longer at the paper, if you are a Michigan fan with a Free Press subscription you should terminate it immediately. If you link to a Free Press article it should be the print page and it should be nofollowed. If you visit the Free Press website, you should have adblock on. If you write for Michigan's Rivals site you should not write for the Free Press. It's not because they took a swing at Michigan's program. It's because they were blatantly dishonest in doing so.

http://mgoblog.com/content/jihad-second-tentative-results