Michigan "Problems" on Page 1 of nytimes.com

Submitted by ChalmersE on November 20th, 2009 at 8:26 AM

Just an fyi that right now the front page of nytimes.com has an article discussing Michigan's "problems". Aside from a quote or two from Fielding Yost III, there's not much new in the article -- aside from the fact that it's getting a major play in the nation's newspaper of record. Here's the link: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/20/sports/ncaafootball/20michigan.html?_…

Comments

Sven_Da_M

November 20th, 2009 at 8:33 AM ^

... the writer, Joe Lapointe, worked for the Freep back in the day.

It's pretty tough reading when you see something like this:

"If the Buckeyes (9-2, 6-1) win Saturday, Michigan could finish last in the league and out of the postseason bowl picture with its first two consecutive losing seasons since 1962 and 1963."

Last in the Big Ten. Somewhere someone's spinning...

Wide Open

November 20th, 2009 at 8:57 AM ^

Living in Ohio, this is enough of a story that a person in another department that I don't know or even talked to before asked me if RR gets fired this weekend or a month from now. I can sort of get that.

But that it's a compelling enough story that it's on Page 1 of nytimes.com demonstrates the NYT is...

...not exactly a rock of journalistic credibility.

SysMark

November 20th, 2009 at 9:10 AM ^

The NY Times will always run some kind of story on Michigan/OSU leading up to The Game. Unfortunately this is what's out there now and we just have to put up with it. Next year the story will be different. Hell it may even be different by Saturday evening. Here's to hope and faith.

Feat of Clay

November 20th, 2009 at 9:36 AM ^

Yeah, I'm pretty sure they have a stringer here in Ann Arbor, because Ann Arbor (and things related to Ann Arbor) gets into the NYT quite a bit for a town of its size. That may help keep U-M stories on the radar. Well, that and the fact that we have a metric asston of alums.

Come to think of it, OSU probably does too, although how many of them are capable of reading the NYT is a different matter.

Row26

November 20th, 2009 at 9:31 AM ^

Being on the nytimes.com homepage isn't really the same as being "front page" in the NY Times. As it says at the bottom of the story, it appeared on page B10 of the paper. The Times rotates stories through the spot at the top of its homepage throughout the day to encourage visitors to keep coming back every few hours to read fresh news. In fact, another story has already taken its place since I started writing this.

Hoken's Heroes

November 20th, 2009 at 9:45 AM ^

Michigan Football doesn't have a history of making up false stories nor is losing money hand over fist. The only thing good about the NY Times paper is wrapping dead fish with it.

Tater

November 20th, 2009 at 9:47 AM ^

Thankfully, almost nobody in NY cares even a little bit about Michigan. The only people who will remember the story by next week are UM fans who live there and UM haters who live there. The article won't change anyone's mind about anything.

In other words, the article is totally worthless.

BlueinDC

November 20th, 2009 at 9:50 AM ^

This is sort of an unusual snub by the NYT toward Ann Arbor. In their sports coverage, they usually tilt toward a bias in coverage toward Michigan and ND (two schools that are actual football powers with a substantial alumni base within the NYT's readership demo).

The NYT actually has one of the highest circulations, per capita, in Ann Arbor. If you pick up a copy of the Times in Michigan, Ohio, etc, it's chock full of advertisements for UMMA and soforth.

So it's sort of unusual (and surprising) to see them take a sharp edge toward M in their story, a traditional feature they do in the run-up to The Game.

victors2000

November 20th, 2009 at 9:54 AM ^

so it would be fitting that they profile an equally world class university such as Michigan going through hard times, in this case it's esteemed football program. Hey, we're Michigan, leaders and best, you know. We count.

That didn't come across too arrogant, did it?

BlueInMonterey

November 20th, 2009 at 9:55 AM ^

Why?

1. Lloyd never needed investigating. Running clean programs requires a clean AD. Lloyd ran top 10 programs for years without a hint of scandle

2. Lloyd is predictable. We can argue if its a good thing for a football coach, but for an AD, predictable is good.

3. Lloyd is a class act. He always represented the University well. He accepts reponsebility when things go wrong. He is well spoken and thoughtful.

4. He had nothing to do with RichRod. He can provide an honest evaluation of the situation. He knows more about the program than anyone on the planet. Who is better qualified to say if RichRod stays or goes?

blueblueblue

November 20th, 2009 at 10:13 AM ^

Everyone here attacking the NYT for this piece is pretty pathetic (neg away). That's right, shift the blame. Do you always blame others for your problems? Nothing in that article is even remotely false or biased. The times did not create our problems, they are just reporting them to a wider audience. Michigan stories sell, and Michigan-Ohio State stories sell more. It's part of being a Michigan fan. How have you all not learned that by now?

ChalmersE

November 20th, 2009 at 2:11 PM ^

Does anyone recall whether MSU was called for any face mask penalties against Forcier? I ask because I was just looking at the print version of the article and there's a pretty blatant version of a face mask grab.

MGoViso

November 21st, 2009 at 8:41 AM ^

To describe Martin's bit of jerkishness exhibited while shoving past kids checking credentials at the stadium as "allegations that Martin twice this season made physical contact with young stadium workers" is very misleading to the typical reader. I imagine the NYT defense would be that they included a hyperlink to another story on the issue, but it's sad to think that modern journalistic ethics have decayed to the point where you don't have to actually make a situation and its context clear because you have this link--honestly, most people will not click on that for more information.
Furthermore, they finish that bit with this paragraph: "The university said the events were 'in no way linked' and that Martin 'had been thinking about retirement for a long time.'" Again, the quotes are misleading, as a decent fraction of the potential readers may confuse those for sarcasm quotes, and it's still poor journalism to not give any full quote or context on the matter!
This should be upsetting to anyone who likes truth. Thank god for Brian.