|06/01/2012 - 11:49am||The sample is all Michigan||
The sample is all Michigan voters, in both instances. The February survey - not this one - was conducted during the GOP primary, and had a subsample of GOP primary voters.
|02/22/2012 - 5:19pm||I'd look for one soon||
Given Ohio's primary is a week later, on Super Tuesday, I would expect PPP to get in the field in Ohio. I believe Quinnipiac's tested sports in Ohio, too, specifically amid the Tressel scandal.
|12/17/2010 - 8:01am||I can try to do that once the||
I can try to do that once the new Congress is sworn in come January.
|12/09/2010 - 2:33pm||I posted mine in a more||
I posted mine in a more journalist-y fashion (my professional background). Yours is an absolutely great read, too. Really enjoyed this.
|12/09/2010 - 12:34pm||Jared, I'd point out that the||
Jared, I'd point out that the actual numbers on RR are drawn from a subsample in the poll self-identified as Michigan fans.
|11/29/2010 - 6:51pm||I'd hone in on this quote||
I'd hone in on this quote:
|11/29/2010 - 3:12pm||Wish I could lay claim to||
Wish I could lay claim to being a regular viewer, but the vid came along on Twitter, so I thought I'd listen to it (benign crush on Hathaway). And then she said that.
|11/19/2010 - 4:05pm||Didn't know that about||
Didn't know that about Sprint. I'm a Verizon user, but I'll see if any of my gameday companions are with Sprint.
|11/19/2010 - 3:27pm||It's one of these new-fangled||
It's one of these new-fangled destination games. Much like the games at Wrigley and Yankee stadium, the teams are trying to expand their footprint.
I believe this is also a home game for Indiana, thought it will almost certainly be more full of PSU people. It helps them boost the attendance average they need to keep to remain D-I eligible.
|11/19/2010 - 3:05pm||I refuse to believe||
I refuse to believe there's been a Big 10 football player to love America more than J Leman.
|11/19/2010 - 2:56pm||Great journalism||
Not only good to hear from T-Woolf, but this was just a well-done piece in general. Pumped to see this kid back on the field next year.
|11/19/2010 - 2:52pm||I need this win||
I need this win. I have a family wedding I have to go to next weekend, which will take place an hour before The Game. For the love of God, let's get some momentum going into next week. Wish me luck.
|07/13/2010 - 2:44pm||Here's hoping||
There are many great years ahead for Coach Carr to watch the Wolverines take the field. While some might have soured on him by the end of his tenure, his enduring legacy of winning us a national title earn him a spot among Michigan's greatest.
|05/25/2010 - 8:44pm||False||
We criticize each other all the time, especially in D.C. journalism. Every journalist worth his or her salt knows the Freep report was BS. That's not to say if they were all aware of it, but, if made aware of the facts, I'm confident they'd willingly criticize those reports.
|02/04/2010 - 5:57pm||I work for one of the Hill||
I work for one of the Hill rags, fwiw (would prefer not to say which one). But re: the comments below -- yeah, this guy sucks, but I'm maybe still naïve enough to think there are enough good reporters out there to save the business.
|02/04/2010 - 3:50pm||As a journalist||
As a journalist, I'm pissed off more than ever at how much hacks like Drew Sharp give the rest of us a bad name.
|01/05/2010 - 5:18pm||Take it from someone sitting||
Take it from someone sitting in a newsroom right this moment: Things don't exactly break down that way most of the time.
You can have your copy editors write all the headlines in the Land of Theory, but you're kidding yourself if you think other editors don't weigh in sometimes, if not often.
It happens more often at online-focused publications, toward which the Freep is drifting more and more.
|01/05/2010 - 2:52pm||I hate headlines, too (I have||
I hate headlines, too (I have to write my own). But our obligations as journalists are to at least be faithful to the content of our own damn stories. It's like writing a story on the stimulus package, then headlining it "Obama saves economy" or "Obama kills economy" as a teaser headline.
FWIW, the DetNews's hed on this is much more responsible (hold your shock).
|12/09/2009 - 2:15pm||This is nothing, correct, but...||
This measure's likely to go nowhere. Waxman (D-Calif.), the committee's chairman, may allow a full committee vote on this, but it's highly unlikely that Speaker Pelosi (D-Calif.) or Majority Leader Hoyer (D-Md.) would schedule a vote. Essentially, this bill by Barton is highly symbolic only.
HOWEVA: It's important to note that this isn't the only political force at play here. The Playoff PAC founded by Sen. Hatch (R-Utah) has hired some serious guns in the PR world, who are shopping around anti-BCS stories to political journalists. (Full disclosure: I have a good source who's solicited me with said stories. I haven't written anything -- yet.) On the other side of things, the BCS picked up former WH Press Secretary Ari Fleischer to handle their PR.
The takeaway is that people in DC are stirring up noise mainly to gin up public pressure against the BCS, and Barton's measure is just one facet of that effort.
|12/02/2009 - 10:40pm||Says something about Mikey||
Says something about Mikey that for as many times as they've cut him, he's the one they're first to bring back.
|11/28/2009 - 11:34pm||The award's for guys who come||
The award's for guys who come up big in clutch situations. Can anyone really say Gerhart hasn't met that basic criteria after watching tonight's game, and his previous performances this season?
|11/22/2009 - 11:24pm||Uh...||
I'm from Toledo originally (lifelong U-M fan and alumnus), but I don't think its proximity is a reason for the fandom. The city is split between OSU-Mich (maybe even with a slight M tinge).
I don't think geographic distance is key to the truly disgusting sight on display on Saturday. The factors above and a willingness for M fans to sell to the Enemy are probably more apt explanations.
|11/20/2009 - 9:50am||NYT in Ann Arbor||
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.
|11/20/2009 - 9:46am||Sorta rare for columnists to||
Sorta rare for columnists to be so open about their partisan hatred for another school in a rivalry. Most columnists like to see themselves as above it (despite the fact that they're, uh, opinion writers). Good for WoJo.
|11/18/2009 - 11:54pm||This is exceptionally tough||
This is exceptionally tough for me. I work in a newsroom (NOT the Freep or DetNews), which is basically a wide open space with desks scattered about. My desk is in a corner, and I face the wall - i.e., I cannot see anybody come up behind me, and anyone can see what's on my computer screen.
There have been sooo many times when an editor's walked up behind me while I'm reading MGoBlog or watching a football video or something.
Thank God all my editors are sports fans, otherwise I would've gotten canned a while ago.
|11/14/2009 - 3:24pm||This week's slogan: Remember '69||
This week's slogan for the team should be "Remember '69."
We've come into The Game expecting to be crushed before. And you know what, we've shocked the world before.
RichRod, defensive recruiting, 5-6, whatever. It's time to rally around the team. Maybe it's hopeless optimism, but, like I said, it's all we have. Even if we lose...well, we tried.
P.S.: That's what she said.
|11/09/2009 - 12:57pm||Single dumbest thing...||
Hi, I'm late to this, so forgive me if I'm retreading anything.
The single dumbest thing about this thread is it just says "Fire RichRod" next year. Well, as long as we've made up our minds, why bother playing the 2010 season? Why not fire him now?
Posts like this make it abundantly apparent people are looking for a reason to fire him - they're not looking at on-field results.
If we fire him, keep him, whatever -- make it because of the results! (with context)
|11/01/2009 - 1:39pm||A lack of understanding||
This has been said in some form throughout the thread, but those who are calling for Rich Rod's head put M at risk for becoming something more like Sparty, or, worse, latter-day ND.
I get the frustration; I'm frustrated, too. But some of you *really* want a coaching change? After a year and a half??
Think about the repercussions - some poor schlub comes in facing another situation where he's got another coach's players trying to fit into hypothetical new coach's system. What happens then? We fire him, too?? Not to mention: what coach would come to M when it would seem that some its fans are willing to kneecap his chances at winning before he even gets a chance.
The reality is that continuity and an opportunity to grow are necessary elements for a coaching change to succeed. People calling for Rich Rod's firing, IME, lack a fundamental understanding of why we're losing, as well as an understanding of college football in general.
|10/27/2009 - 7:43pm||Well, we all get complaints||
Well, we all get complaints (from politicians, etc) about our objectivity, but we do our best to live up to professional obligations. This is my news organization: http://thehill.com/
|10/27/2009 - 7:41pm||Gov. Granholm is term-limited||
Gov. Granholm is term-limited from seeking reelection. Lt. Gov Cherry is expected to nab the Democratic nomination.
The three Republican candidates are Attorney General Mike Cox, (U.S.) Rep. Pete Hoekstra, and businessman Rick Snyder (former Gateway CEO, among other business ventures).
|10/27/2009 - 5:25pm||I mean, it's probably more||
I mean, it's probably more speculation than it is informed, but one would think that if he's willing to leave the Domino's position for politics, he'd be willing to leave the position for the AD-ship, if it appealed to him. Let's not forget that he has extensive ties to the school -- having helped raise money for Mott's, having played under Bo, and having served on the board of Regents before being booted as a GOP candidate for reelection in a Dem wave year (2006).
|10/27/2009 - 4:48pm||Do you mean...||
Do you mean within the post on the front? Admittedly, I'm sort of a newbie to this and don't post unless I generally have something well-thought-out to say. It seemed like a longer, semi-distinct thought for discussion for me, though, which is why I put it here.
|10/27/2009 - 4:38pm||Full disclosure||
Full disclosure: I work as a journalist for an (objective) newspaper in D.C. covering politics, so I just wanted to add any context (for better or for worse) to help add analysis for Brandon's potential hiring.
|10/24/2009 - 11:20am||I know that when I applied||
I know that when I applied back in fall of 2003, they unweighted high school GPAs to recalibrate inflation. In short, your GPA is calculated with A = 4, B = 3, and so on.
During my journalisting years during college, I followed admissions. While a number of facets of the process have been revamped, I believe their GPA recalibration is still in place. That said, its role in predicting admissions in the era of "holistic" reviews of application is sort of unclear.
|10/22/2009 - 6:35pm||With one exception||
Agreed on unexceptional food at Ashley's, with the exception of the curry fries. Those are fantastic. They shouldn't work on paper, but somehow, they just work.
Of course, the beer and whiskey menu is fantastic, like you said.
God, I miss Ann Arbor.
|10/03/2009 - 5:16pm||I'm with you. This is a game||
I'm with you. This is a game that really brought us down to earth and refocus us going into Iowa. The reality is that this is still a freshman playing his first road game, and a defense that's very thin, and still has much to learn. Many of us were expecting 6-6 or 7-5 (myself included). While this loss certainly hurts, let's be grateful for where we're at so far.
|10/01/2009 - 5:16pm||-9||
Andrew Conboy and Corey Tropp's assault on Steve Kampfer
|09/10/2009 - 6:45pm||It's times like this I'm glad||
It's times like this I'm glad I didn't go to law school. I'm just glad you didn't refer to him as, "Roberts, C.J."
|09/10/2009 - 6:23pm||Would love to see him say||
Would love to see him say some pro-Blue words at halftime, like Mike Wallace did a couple years ago during homecoming. But, as was stated above, he grew up in northern Indiana.
Then again, I'd also love to do a kegstand with him during a tailgate.
|08/31/2009 - 3:22pm||"As in hoops case..."||
At risk of beating this qualification to death, as I have on the boards: I'm a journalist.
I understand and respect good reporting, and am probably more willing to bend over backward to defend the MSM than most here. Hell, I'm probably not willing to gather the crowds and light the torches to go after Rosenberg and Snyder the way some readers might.
HOLY GOOD GOD, YOU'VE GOTTA BE KIDDING ME.
The "As in hoops case" headline is just journalistically disastrous in about every way imaginable. Yes, as happened in the hoops case, Michigan is self-investigating. But to compare the two investigations in an incredibly preliminary investigation is indefensible.
I'm a political journalist. The tantamount situation for me would be to compare anytime a politician comes under investigation -- which, uh, is not infrequent -- to the granddaddy of modern political scandal, Watergate. And you know, I would never write a headline reading, "As in Watergate case..."
To be fair, it was headline writers and not the staff reporters who slapped this indefensible doozy on the story. That doesn't make it any more excusable. If I were the staff writer, I'd ask for a change to the hedder. I get the pressure to sex up a story with a good headline, but my word, this crosses the line.
|08/31/2009 - 12:50pm||Also a reporter, here||
Like the fellow journos who have chimed in above, I'm happy to defend good stories. (Don't work for the Freep, as a matter of disclosure.)
The story should have been written; it should be reported out.
What bothers me is that I'm not sure they've well-sourced the specific allegation that RR & Co. made excessive practices, per se, "mandatory" and not "voluntary."
Rosenberg and Snyder should follow up on that -- it's their job. However, what bothers me about the story as it ran is that it relied on inference and insinuation to fill in the holes that they weren't able to source.
Also, Jon Chait made a very good point over on Rivals this morning: Rosenberg's been writing columns (not analysis, columns) on Rodriguez and Michigan football for some time right now. He shouldn't be on the team to report this. Firewalls, people!
|08/30/2009 - 10:41am||1.The point is that canceling||
1.The point is that canceling a subscription would be to inappropriately punish an entire organization (and its stellar politics coverage) for the sins of its sports page.
2. Worst bias evah? (See: Olbermann, Keith and Hannity, Sean) Note: that's bias in the "media," not bias in "reporting" - there's a difference.
3. Any journalist who feels obligated to help or compelled to hurt one school or another should quit. Expecting a reporter to protect their alma mater goes against everything a good journalist should stand for.
|08/30/2009 - 10:37am||What about the Daily?||
Bill$ Martin might have some spare change lying around to buy a UK paper.
Seriously, though, I had a thought: To the Daily sports editors reading (and I'm sure you are), you've got a golden opportunity here. First edition comes out a week from Tuesday - there's a major opportunity to get in touch with players and coaches to actually field out a great reaction here. If the players' reactions are along the lines of "this is bullshit," there's a great Michigan-versus-the-world story to write going into Game 1, and an even better one going into Game 2 about the mentality of the team.
Assuming for the moment that the story is mostly BS, I would imagine the players are circling the wagons around their coaches. And that's a much better story to write than what the Freep published today.
|08/30/2009 - 10:07am||Don't sue||
I'm not a lawyer, but I am a reporter.
First things first: if you were to sue for defamation, libel, or slander, you'd likely lose. The standard, for libel at least (your most likely cause of action), would be to show that the program is somehow not public, that the story did more harm than good, and that they recklessly disregarded the facts. Further, you wouldn't likely have standing against the newspaper to sue.
I don't think the story was reckless - they have some facts, but definitely not enough to make the jump from "players worked more than was probably appropriate" to "OMGZZZ MAJOR RECRUITING VIOLAITION!!1!"
The Freep shouldn't be faulted for investigating something like this - that's what good newspapers do. What they should be faulted for is going to print with the central allegation of the story (i.e., that U-M coaches drove a practice regime that violated NCAA rules) being so thinly sourced directly. The violations claim is based on big inferences and insinuation, which I have a major professional issue with.
I've seen some talk on Twitter and these boards about trying to drive repercussions against the Freep, or, worse, a hope that the paper meets its demise.
Don't do that.
The paper's done hero's work reporting on Kwame and Conyers in the last year alone - it won a Pulitzer for chrissakes. I don't begrudge this reporting team for continue to look into it; I would encourage them to do so, because that's what good reporters do.
But nothing I've read leads me to believe that they'll find anything, and if they report another story that's so thinly sourced, then we've got to start raising serious questions about these reporters' ethics, as well as the professionalism of their editors.
|08/30/2009 - 12:43am||RE:||
Thanks. I'm particularly proud that I wrote it after an evening full of vodka and a Hold Steady concert here in the District. Now off to bed, ha.
|08/30/2009 - 12:35am||Take it from a journalist...||
It took this story to finally convince me to register for MGoBoard.
I'm a working journalist - albeit, thankfully, not in sports journalism. I'm willing to go further than most, I think, on sports blogs to defend the MSM (though I'll never defend Drew Sharp).
The Freep story isn't bad for using anonymous sources, per se - that's just part of the business sometimes, unfortunately. I think they've adequately sourced the fact that the practice schedule for players has been rigorous and, most likely, exceeds the legal amount for players under NCAA rules. (Whether or not those rules are fair and/or applied consistently is a different issue.)
What's journalistically wrong with the story is the inference it makes: that by virtue of the players' participation in practices beyond the allowed amount, it was compelled by coaches. This, as far as I can tell, they have no sourcing for in the story. The fact that there is pressure on players - be it a desire for playing time, or whatever - does not mean the coaches transformed "voluntary" to "mandatory."
They have point A (players practice beyond normal, allowed amounts). And they have point C (that would constitute an NCAA violation, if directed by the coaches). But they haven't at all sourced point B (that the coaches made them mandatory.)
In short, I don't think it's bad that the Freep ran the story; if there's an actual violation, I hope they report it. But I don't think they have the story here. And beyond not having the story, they use some slanted, insinuating language in the story that leads a reader to draw very specific conclusions - the story is short of objective.
I don't question their reporting ability. But their editor should have made them get more fact before they published this.
And that's my first MGoPost.