The author, Jennifer Conlin, grew up in Ann Arbor and (I think) now lives in the Detroit area, so she didn't just pick the Daily at random.
More news is broken on the internet than anyplace else. The classic newspaper model is broken. They are all on skeleton crews and outsource as much as possible. They charge money to read what you can already get on the internet.
While there is still nothing like a morning paper and a cup of coffee at a coffee shop or cafe in the morning, it's easier to just take a laptop or tablet now.
The elephant in the room: free access to stories on the internet. Either newspapers are going to have to make us watch a paid ad or an affiliate marketing pitch before each article or they are going to have to charge us for access if they want to make any money.
When I first used the internet, I was shocked to learn that you could read newspapers free online. I "knew" it was only a matter of time before they started charging money. 15 years later, I can still read Mlive and the Detroit News for free.
Not a great business model.
April 15th, 2014 at 11:38 AM ^
The problem with free news online is that there is little accountability. Hell, when the Boston Marathon bombings happened last year, you had people citing to Reddit comments and ID'ing guys who had nothing to do with it.
You need a press that is upstanding and fights to maintain the quality of information flow to readers; this site performs some of those functions in the small world of Michigan sports. It is sad to see local news die off because I think it has a purpose, and many of the top internet resources rely on the groundwork performed by these more traditional news organizations.
The model is broken and papers need to evolve, but some of their core issues stem not from some systemic issue with the product as much as the changing nature of consumers and their desire to not pay for stuff while also expecting it to be of the same quality as before.
Well it's only free in the sense that most don't charge you directly. However, your information is tracked and sold to to marketing and data mining firms and Google Analytics brings relevant adverstising to the side of your page.
April 15th, 2014 at 10:16 AM ^
In the "old days" when newspapers actually made money, investigative reporting by better newspapers had serious oversight before breaking a story to ensure accuracy. There was a check and balance system in place.
I have some concerns as to the degree of oversight the Daily has in place. Maybe some of our Mgoblog members who worked for the Daily might elucidate how stories are reviewed for accuracy.
April 15th, 2014 at 10:44 AM ^
While I agree that there was at least a facade of integrity in journalism prior to the internet, I disagree that stories weren't just as fabricated in the past as they are now; ultimately only a few, exceptional, journalist can keep medium and present a fair piece.
I will agree that modern journalism wears its ideologies on its sleeve...
jdon
April 15th, 2014 at 10:45 AM ^
That horse was let out of the barn a long time ago, the Web opened the door. The pressure to post instantaneously combined with shoestring budgets for mostly free content means little to no editorial oversight of most news pieces posted online. I know several people in journalism here in NYC, and an "editor" these days usually just means a writer who is responsible for editing his/her own piece. There are very few exceptions, the Times is one.
April 15th, 2014 at 10:14 AM ^
many journalists have opted to protect one political party. Just ask Sharyl Attkisson.
April 15th, 2014 at 11:34 AM ^
April 15th, 2014 at 10:19 AM ^
This is an interesting piece actually.
It seems to me that the relationship that the University has with the Ann Arbor area almost makes the Michigan Daily the logical successor to the Ann Arbor News in a way, especially now as regional papers like that are starting to have drastically reduced roles in their home communities. Actually, the ASU operation was something I was not aware of and found impressive actually, particularly having a Washington bureau for which journalism students get credit for manning. That's pretty awesome.
April 15th, 2014 at 10:32 AM ^
They got the document either from an internal UM employee at OSCR (in definite violation of FERPA), Gibbons himself (i think we can dismiss this possibility), or possible the victim as she may have been sent documents about results. The CSG seems to dismiss the first case with no evidence but doesnt have real conclusion as to how the daily received it.
The Daily has done a good job with background and other info around this case but I wouldnt go overboard crediting them with breaking this as the leak of the document was really the thing that drove the whole story. If you credit them for getting an employee to leak the document illegally or for the victim picking them to work with (if that is source), then I guess you can give them more credit here.
April 15th, 2014 at 11:00 AM ^
I think you'll find many stories are "broken" by getting someone to give you something rather than someone else, whether legally or not. Watergate comes to mind as a case where some reporters got a fair amount of credit for obtaining a leak.
It's the way it works.
April 15th, 2014 at 11:19 AM ^
April 15th, 2014 at 10:48 AM ^
I found it amusing to read the comments section of that Times piece. In addition to readers reacting to the content of the piece, a few deans from university journalism programs not mentioned in the article had to write in to toot their own horns, including...Sparty's journalism dean.
April 15th, 2014 at 11:40 AM ^
To be fair, the NY Times is only the paper of record in America; MSU's reach in intergalactic. He was just trying to get NYT in line with the rest of the cosmos.