Recalling Jon Chait today.
It was August 31, 2009, when Jon Chait went online with his searing criticism of the Free Press' editors, for allowing Michael Rosenberg to play the role of self-appointed investigative reporter, when he had earlier played the role of opinion columnist with an anti-Rodriguez agenda.
MGoBlog was one of many online outlets which then linked to the Chait online-column, which bears re-reading:
http://michigan.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=982287
Chait's main point at that time, in the immediate aftermath of the newspaper story, was not so much that Rosenberg had it all wrong. (That part was later determined through the exhaustive University/NCAA investigation, such that David Brandon now openly characterizes Rosenberg's original story as "false and misleading," and "crap." Jon Chait exposed Rosenberg's folly in some detail in his own later columns. Brian Cook did it here, in a series of blog posts.) Rather, Jon Chait's point was that basic ethics require somebody at the Free Press to choose -- are they going to trot out Rosenberg as an opinion columnist, advocating positions? Or is he going to be an investigative reporter?
The Free Press, even in the face of extreme criticism, has now flipped twice on that subject. Rosenberg was a columnist. Then, he unleashed himself on Stretchgate. Now, he has rotated himself back to columnist-advocate, with the predictable, inevitable column demanding of Dave Brandon, not just that Rich Rodriguez be fired, but that Jim Harbaugh, whom Rosenberg lovingly portrayed for another publication (Sports Illustrated, in October of 2010), be hired.
I won't quote Rosenberg, or link to the story. There's no longer any need. Rosenberg, and the Free Press, have together reached the level of ethical bankruptcy.
January 3rd, 2011 at 9:46 AM ^
Thanks for the flashback?
January 3rd, 2011 at 9:49 AM ^
That paper doesn't interest me. They haven't anything to add to the mix of information regarding sports for a while, and it felt like the editors got behind the stretching debacle in an effort to make themselves relevant again in the face of their readership moving to sports blogs. The sad truth is, they really have nothing to offer.
<br>
<br>
January 3rd, 2011 at 11:27 AM ^
I only talk about papers that pape for Michigan.
January 3rd, 2011 at 9:49 AM ^
The declining circulation numbers of the Detroit papers pretty much say it all. They have no future and would probably already be dead if we weren't sending them links everytime they write something annoying about M football.
January 3rd, 2011 at 10:56 AM ^
Let me get this straight- the Detroit papers would be "dead" if not for people clicking links to read about Michigan football? Let's not give ourselves too much credit.
Newspaper readership is down nationally. This is nothing new. The Detroit area is leaking population like a sieve. If you think their sports coverage is the only reason the dailies are declining, you're delusional.
January 3rd, 2011 at 11:53 AM ^
January 3rd, 2011 at 10:02 AM ^
Completely agree - it looks bad for the freep. I would like to say I'm surprised someone hasn't stepped in to stop it but the newspaper business being what it is these days, revenue is all that matters.
January 3rd, 2011 at 10:03 AM ^
It's completely shocking that Section 1 is posting, unprompted, a critique of the Detroit Free Press. I need to step away from my computer, get some coffee, and react unemotionally to this truly stunning out-of-character act.
January 3rd, 2011 at 10:19 AM ^
And not a year and a half old....
Oh, wait...
January 3rd, 2011 at 10:45 AM ^
more up arrows to push for this
January 3rd, 2011 at 11:33 AM ^
to set apart posts about the potential coaching change, maybe we need a FP prefix to set apart posts by Section 1.
January 3rd, 2011 at 2:12 PM ^
I've seen a lot of great avatars, but your's is the first that prompted me to comment. Now back to the CC talk.
January 3rd, 2011 at 11:49 AM ^
January 3rd, 2011 at 10:22 AM ^
... it was actually a decent piece of writing.
One thing I really found insightful re the RR vs JH comparison:
Rodriguez hired too many subpar coaches whose chief qualification was loyalty to him. Harbaugh wants the best coaches he can find, and he is secure enough to know that his players will still see him as the leader. His Stanford players would run through the locker-room wall for him.
January 3rd, 2011 at 10:31 AM ^
It was devoid of any particular evidence, or metrics of any style. And it has been a growing theme for Rosenberg -- not only was Rich Rodriguez an NCAA outlaw, abusing his players through his designated monster, Barwis -- Rodriguez is also guilty of selecting terrible and incompetent assistant coaches.
This is Rosenberg at his most-insulting.
January 3rd, 2011 at 10:41 AM ^
I agree RR has done a poor job with some of his coaching hires, but the biggest mistake was at DC and I don't know if Gerg's "chief qualification was loyalty to RR." As far as I could tell, that hire was out of the blue (i.e., no past relationship to RR) and was based on his resume (successful as a DC at the NFL level and at Texas). I thought it was a bad hire from the get-go based on what has been discussed here before, but it didn't seem to have one iota to do with "loyalty" (the same could be said for the Scott Shafer misfire), just a poor evaluation of how the coach would work.
In fact, I think we all can agree if Casteel (one his "loyal" guys) would have come, we would v likely be in a much better position.
Plus, the comment about Stanford players "running through walls" - well, the players at UM seem to love RR. The only time they seemed to give up hope was the second half of the bowl game, where the weight of everything came crashing down upon them. I was shocked how they never quit in the Wisconsin or OSU game - they never kept trying. They just didn't have the experience/talent/coaching (with whatever % you want to put on each) to succeed.
January 3rd, 2011 at 10:54 AM ^
This is exactly correct, and well-said. Rosenberg isn't merely lacking in support; he's not even making much sense. Michigan would have been better off, with some more "undying loyalty" to Coach Rodriguez (at least in the form of Jeff Casteel), rather than less.
No one, least of all me, is interesting in defending what has truly been a fiasco at the position of DC. Funny; neither of the DC's were Mountaineer Insiders with RR.
January 3rd, 2011 at 2:17 PM ^
I agree RR has done a poor job with some of his coaching hires, but the biggest mistake was at DC and I don't know if Gerg's "chief qualification was loyalty to RR."
Are you really giving Tall, Braithwaite and Gibson a pass? Do you see our defensive players making much progress in the fundamentals? To say nothing of the fact that this trio undermined Shafer's authority and RR sided with them, leading to Shafer's departure.
January 3rd, 2011 at 12:12 PM ^
It is some decently written fiction. But fiction isn't what I'm looking for from a newspaper reporter.
January 3rd, 2011 at 10:44 AM ^
is that media hacks like Rosenberg, Snyder, Sharp, and Defran will claim vindication. It won't matter that their character assassination campaign was largely independent of the obvious on-the-field issues; most UM fans, casual and otherwise, will conclude "yeah, Michael Rosenberg and the Free Press sure nailed this one, didn't they?"
January 3rd, 2011 at 11:25 AM ^
Let it go already. The Freep story is dead and gone. RR failed on his own. This thread is totally irrelevant. Let it go.
January 3rd, 2011 at 11:27 AM ^
If figured it out. Section 1 is Rita Rodriguez.
January 3rd, 2011 at 11:31 AM ^
If that's true, she could at least bring some of her homemade tortilla chips to the conversation every now and then.
January 3rd, 2011 at 2:02 PM ^
Don't forget the dip. That stuff is delicious. And may be in short supply very soon.
January 3rd, 2011 at 12:05 PM ^
We get it.. you hate the Free Press and any journalist that doesn't support RR in general. Let it go, big guy.
Or at least stop posting about it.
January 3rd, 2011 at 12:13 PM ^
what is the point of posting abou it.