 |
| Emma Glover read Threet and Out and hates Michael Rosenberg. |
Bruce Feldman, who was booted from ESPN for being a decent journalist, interviews Three and Out author John U. Bacon about the Rich Rodriguez aftermath. Once again, Bacon discusses the apparently icy relationship between Rich Rodriguez and Lloyd Carr.
I have to admit that I find the Lloyd Carr thing strange. Either Rich Rodriguez did something we're unaware of to offend Carr . . . or maybe, just maybe, Carr doesn't like the limelight. Carr was never a big fan of the media, and I find it completely plausible that he would eschew opportunities to "set the record straight." If you ever saw Carr brush off a reporter while heading into halftime, you know he's not a fan of the media. The lone exception seemed to be Jim Brandstatter, who just happened to be a Michigan alum who broadcasts for the program. You never saw Carr going out and seeking the spotlight like a lot of coaches do now.
Of course, it's also possible that Carr was simply pissed that Rodriguez tore down everything he built.
I don't know the answer. It was a strange situation and I wish Carr would explain his side of the story, but I don't expect that to happen. We'll probably just have to remain the dark.
The best explanation I've heard for the Carr situation is this - he initially supported and even recommended Rodriguez but immediately upon him being hired there was a large faction of former players, boosters, and administrators that were pissed (just like you're seeing this week as Penn State embarrasses its legacy). When this happened, Carr was stuck. If he supported Rodriguez he risked losing the relationship and reputation he had with all of those people. He was too nice of a guy to come out against him. So he just kept his mouth shut.....which was just as bad as throwing Rodriguez under the bus.
ReplyDeleteThis is the only explanation I've heard that explains the timing. Carr recommended Rodriguez and then before RR even spoke to a player or coach Carr went silent publicly and had his "transfer meeting" with the players.
Here's one minor story related to RichRod that gets under my skin and I can't understand: The #1 jersey fiasco. Bacon addresses this in the book to some extent, but the missing piece of the puzzle to me is Jon Falk.
ReplyDeleteBy all accounts there isn't a person alive who doesn't love Falk and think he's great at his job and an expert at Michigan Football History. I'm trying to slog my way through his book right now and it is countless stories of how lovable he is and how good at his job he is.
So where the hell was he when they were handing out the #1 jersey to some random freshman DB???? Why didn't he just speak up to RichRod and say - "you might want to look into this".
I have the same thought about Fred Jackson, though I imagine most coaches are too busy to even notice what jersey the players are wearing. It was a minor blip on the overall radar of Rodriguez, but I still can't understand why it happened.
@Anonymous 12:33am
ReplyDeleteIf that were the case then Carr should have tried to exert some authority and tell them that RR is your new coach, deal with it.
Bump Elliot did the same thing when Bo was hired.
Anyway I'm not done with Bacon's book but I'm about 1/2 way through it... RR was undermined from the start, and Michigan people just aren't willing to admit it.
That was an interesting little bit about how the Penn State story made it out.
ReplyDeleteWith regards to Three and Out which I just forced myself to finish.
I was there when Rick Leach took over from Dennis Franklin (who really, really got screwed).
Leach was far from my favorite.
Many people have heard me say that as a QB Ricky Leach was a great right fielder, and that he would have gone down as the greatest collegiate passer of all time if only they counted the passes he completed on one bounce.
I stumble across Rick every now and then and intend to tell him that while he still is far from my favorite Michigan QB, he is my all-time favorite ex-Wolverine and one of the very few who acted like a Michigan Man, at least with regards to my opinion of what a Michigan Man is or should be.
Bo would have been proud of Ricky Leach.
1) Is Bacon a little biased toward the coach he spent three years with?
ReplyDelete"[With Rodriguez coaching] it’s not hard to think they would go 10-2 or even better this year"
10-2? Or better!!? It is, indeed, hard to think that.
2) As Magnus points out, we don't really know much about Carr. If he did what Bacon describes (not more or less or different -- does Bacon even have all the information?), Bacon is judging it based on the perspective and priorities of Rodriguez: What will help/harm Rodriguez the most. Maybe Carr did it for reasons completely unrelated to Rodriguez; for example, if I had recruited players to play for me; and if I promised, implicitly or explicitly, that I'd be around throughout their careers; I would regret breaking that promise, however unavoidable, and feel they should be released from their side of the deal too.
3) The usual blogger/journalist nonsense. Maybe the newspapers don't print some of Bacon's allegations because they are unsubstantiated or just sensationalistic gossip. What does a blogger playing gotcha with a journalist have to do with Michigan? That's a promotional stunt for his blog.
4) Bacon, being a former journalist, should know that he should get the other sides of these stories before he believes them.
(There a wide variety of bloggers and I read TTB for a reason. The following isn't about Magnus ...)
ReplyDeleteThe notion that bloggers, esp. high-volume commercial sites like mgoblog, don't have the same vested interests, biases, and profit motives as journalists, is naive. Bloggers put their pants on one leg at a time too.
A big difference is that professional journalism has processes to manage those natural biases: Corroborate evidence, have a high standard of factual accuracy, take a neutral position, and give both sides a chance to make their case. It's still very imperfect, but at least they try. (And of course there are a wide variety of journalists and publications.)
For some reason, bloggers print whatever they like, and people just believe them. That widespread blind faith is scary to behold.
(Sorry for the OT rant)
@ Anonymous 12:33 a.m.
ReplyDeleteIf your account of the events is true, I still don't think badly of Carr for it. He's responsible to a lot of people, and the fact that people were pissed about Rodriguez's hiring says more about them than about Carr. I personally don't mind his radio silence. He's not the coach and not the spokesman for the program, so I didn't think he was required to come out and say anything positive or negative about Rodriguez. The program had moved on.
@ Anonymous 12:37 a.m.
ReplyDeleteI agree that the #1 jersey fiasco is a little bit strange, because SOMEONE should have warned Rodriguez. I don't think it should be a coach's job to ask every single question about the program. There should be people in place (the AD, the equipment manager, etc.) to let him know about these traditions.
I have a hard time believing that Rodriguez would have ignored Falk's warning that the #1 jersey should be reserved for the team's best receiver, so my assumption is that he just didn't know.
When Rodriguez was made aware of the "tradition" of the #1 jersey, he made the necessary correction. People turned that into a bigger deal than it should have been.
I think that Lloyd's initial call to Rich about taking the Michigan job had less to do with liking Rich than despising Les Miles. Carr would have supported the hire of any coach over Miles. That is why Carr reached-out to Rich Rod - to block Miles. That also explains his utter lack of support for Rich despite being the initial one to reach-out to Rich regarding the Michigan vacancy.
ReplyDeleteTo Magnus, and the others here;
ReplyDeleteI agree with Magnus about the #1 jersey fiasco. It was needlessly turned into a p.r. disaster. The person who did that, singlehandedly, was Michigan's one-man nonstop p.r. disaster, Braylon Edwards. Edwards could have, and should have, picked up the phone and called someone at the Athletic Dpeartment, rather than popping off to the press.
I disagree with Magnus on what we might have expected from Coach Carr. I expected at least one thing from Carr; that he would have forcefully spoken out against the Free Press when Stretchgate was boiling over. David Brandon did; Jim Brandstatter did; Frank Beckmann did; Rick Leach did. The University's formal written response to the NCAA said as much. I'm shocked that there weren't more football alumni to condemn Rosenberg and the Free Press. But I'm most disappointed that Carr failed to stand up for Michigan against the newspaper's charges, which we now know (Brian Cook pretty much knew all along) were exaggerated to the point of falsehood.
As for John U. Bacon telling one side... He repeatedly asked Carr and others to talk to him. Compare, the Free Press writers who never even asked for another side (and who deliberately hid their investigation, to the detriment of any good investigative technique) until they figuratively rolled a newsprint hand grenade into Bruce Madej's office on the Friday before the Saturday they went to print.
As Bacon rightly says, "The Free Press, which buys ink by the barrel, has not spent one drop responding to my reporting on their story in Three and Out."
Respectfully,
Section 1
@ Anonymous 7:56 p.m.
ReplyDeleteWhy should Carr have spoken up against the Free Press? First of all, he wasn't there at the practices to know whether the violations took place or not. Furthermore, Brandon had to because he's the AD; Brandstatter and Beckmann practically had to because they're media personalities. Leach is a different story and did so of his own volition, but Carr wasn't in the same boat as any of those guys.
If the Free Press could defend their story, they would have. I think they realize it's an embarrassment to their company, and they probably just hope it goes away as quickly as possible.
"Why should Carr have spoken up against the Free Press?" The answer is clear, at least to me.
ReplyDeleteFirst, because at the time, Carr was a Senior Associate Athletic Director, not a retiree in private life.
Second, because even if he was Carr retiree, he is the most visible face and the most nationally-known voice for the Michigan football program. He is, or was, the guy to whom everybody would have looked, for a headline-making rebuttal and some pushback against a newspaper that was being grossly unfair to the Michigan Athletic Department.
Rosenberg, Snyder and the Free Press may have been motivated by personal animus toward the Rodriguez staff, but the story was fundamentally damaging to Michigan Football at large. Carr had to have understood that.
And about the other defenders of Michigan: Dave Brandon wasn't the AD at the time of the alleged violations, but he's made himself clear since; Brian Cook wasn't there; Bill Martin wasn't an eyewitness; nor were Beckmann and Brandstatter. The latter two (Beckmann and Brandstatter) are, as you say, media guys. People do look to them to say something, anything. But as Bacon instructively points out in the interview you linked (thank you for that), it was the regular media people who seemed so unmotivated to criticize one of their own (Rosenberg) within that mainstream media.
And I'll grant you this, Magnus -- the official pushback didn't happen for a long time. Too long, really. Dave Brandon waited until the initial investigation had been completed. Mary Sue Coleman never said anything.
Only Brian Cook, and Jon Chait, and just a few other voices in the wilderness; they spoke out first, they crtiticized Rosenberg the hardest, and now we see that those voices in the wilderness all turned out to be right.
There may be a lot of unresolvable debates about Rich Rodriguez and coaching, and there may be people who question or criticize parts of Bacon's "Three and Out." But nobody is questioning Bacon's takedown of the Free Press. What Bacon's book reports squares with everything the Freep critics have been saying all along, and the Freep is not answering any of the critics' questions. Bacon answers questions about the story; Rosenberg won't. What does that tell you?
Carr undoubtedly knew everything that Bacon knew, long before Three and Out was published. Carr had the ability, and the bully-pulpit, to represent the Michigan Athletic Department and to push back on the Free Press. He failed, completely. Carr didn't have to say anything about Rich Rodriguez; Carr didn't even have to criticize the NCAA. But Carr could easily have taken down the Free Press. Why didn't he? I hope to put that question to Carr someday. Somebody needs to.
Section 1
"Only Brian Cook, and Jon Chait, and just a few other voices in the wilderness; they spoke out first, they crtiticized Rosenberg the hardest, and now we see that those voices in the wilderness all turned out to be right."
ReplyDeleteI know it's not a popular thing to say among UM fans, but I read all the Freep articles and much of the criticism. There was a lot of heat, hate, and light, but never any sound criticism.
The Freep articles looked like good reporting to me. Well sourced, confirmed (in part) by UM's and the NCAA's investigations, and I saw nothing important that was disproven. There were probably some errors, but nothing is perfect.
The response on UM blogs was predictable. But repeating something often or loudly enough, magnified by the echo chamber of other fans, doesn't make it true. People used to tell each other that the Earth was flat (or the Rosenbergs were innocent, or Iraq had WMDs, or whathever gospel you like) and denounce anyone who disagreed, but no matter how often or loudly they said it, they were wrong.
UM screwed up. Maybe the NCAA's rules are overly strict, detailed, or unrealistic, but that's not the Freep's fault. We're shooting the messenger, just like every other teams' fans (check out what USC, OSU, etc. fans say about allegations against their programs, or ask Kirk Herbstreit).
Roanman;
ReplyDeleteDennis Franklin graduated the year before Rick Leach arrived in Ann Arbor. Leach took over the offense from Mark Elzinga, not Franklin. Elzinga, who still had eligibility left (Mark was either a senior or a junior), was the presumptive heir to the QB job that fall. Leach was very much of a surprise as a starter. Elzinga had showed promise in running the offense; but I don't think that Elzinga was "screwed" in losing the job to a phenom like Leach.
I agree with you; that Bo would have been proud of Leach's enthusiasm and loyalty to the program when the chips were down. It is inconceivable to me, that if a newly hired coach Rodriguez had been seated in a banquest room alongside Bo Schembechler, that somebody like Eric Mayes would have been publicly lecturing the head coach on Michigan Man-credentials.
Section 1
guanxi:
ReplyDeleteNo. Here's an outline of what the Free Press did bad, and wrong, and how they screwed up:
1. The Free Press used all anonymous sources, all selected and sought out by the reporters. The two named players -- Stokes and Hawthorne -- were basically misquoted and abused. Even Angelique Chengelis spoke out about that abuse, resulting in a frosty relationship with Rosenberg.
2. The Free Press never justified hiding its anonymous sources; no good reason was given for granting anonymity to former players, who might well have been disgruntled and interested in hurting Michigan. Those are the Free Press' own rules that they broke, not mine.
3. The Free Press never spoke with anybody in Compliance, or in the Athletic Department, nor any of the coaches before running with the story. The Free Press had not FOIA'ed any documents. This was not a case of Michigan refusing to answer questions upon request, as the Freep and Carr have recently done. The Freep writers never asked anybody who mattered at Michigan. They clearly wanted to blindside the Michigan staff with the story.
4. Proof of the intent to blindside the football program was evident from Rosenberg and Snyder setting a meeting with Bruce Madej on the Friday before the Saturday publication, and demanding a comment or a response by the next day.
5. The story itself showed the flawed reporting; there was lots about hours and hours spent on football. But no clear definition of 'countable' versus 'noncountable' hours. And what the Free Press alleged, in terms of wildly inflated allegations of practice time overages, turned out to be much ado about almost nothing after the investigation. The Free Press arrogantly stated that the rules were to protect student-athletes; the real investigation showed that there was nothing close to any abuse of student-athletes. The violations were highly technical, leaving many compliance professionals scratching their heads.
6. The Free Press publisher went to work on behalf of his writers, after the blowback started. Paul Anger editorialized that the Free Press would "continue" to give all sides their chance to air their views. But in fact the Free Press hadn't pursued all sides in the first place, and didn't ever give voice to any opposing viewpoints. (Not any op-eds or crticism; the Freep published only some stray Freep.com web comments and a handful of letters, on one day.)
7. You should read the August 30, 2009 Sunday Freep again. It is nauseating. You'll see the attention paid to Rodriguez, who in fact had little to do with the suspect CARA forms nor the piddling violations found with respect to the GA's. And you'll see the attention paid to Mike Barwis, as if he were some kind of monster. All that, for some stretching time, and some confused GA job descriptions.
8. Now don't forget about the depredations of the Free Press before and subsequent to August, 2009. The Free Press credulously reported that Justin Boren's reason for transferring to OSU was a deterioration in family values. When in fact it was almost certainly due to his little brother not getting offered a Michigan scholarship. And there was Michael Rosenberg reporting on harsh language in practice as some sort of predicate for players transferring, when Rosenberg had not attended the practices that were open. There was Mark Snyder's so-misleading-as-to-be-false reporting on a "Katrina" reference by Rodriguez at the '09 Football Bust. (Regent Katherine White had made the Katrina reference, before Rodriguez politely responded to her in passing in his own speech.)
There's more; much more. But this is getting so long...
Section 1
And a further comment, guanxi;
ReplyDeleteAs Magnus probably knows, the newspaper reporting and the NCAA investigation was a very big deal for a lot of former players. I've indicated elsewhere; I talked to several players all of whom said much the same. Their common theme was, "Yes, we were bothered by the losing '08 and '09 seasons. But what really bothered us more than anything was the idea that our historic record for being a clean program had been tarnished, by the NCAA allegations." That was a comment heard not only from lots of former players, but also lots of alums.
Of course, that all goes back to Rosenberg, Snyder and the Free Press. Any sane, thinking person must understand; that but for the Free Press, there'd have been no NCAA investigation of Michigan football. And but for Rosenberg's particular methods in sandbagging his story, there might well have been an early self-report by Michigan, that would have resulted in only secondary violations. (See, e.g., Maryland's alomst identical secondary violations last year.)
Michael Rosenberg is as smart, as he is malicious. He knew where to hit Michigan Football, and how to make it hurt. He took a shot at Michigan's "respectability." And he deliberately made it hurt as much as he possibly could.
I don't say any of this as a fanatic supporter of Michigan; rather, I say it as someone who has long been suspicious of the Free Press, and whose suspicions have been confirmed at every turn in the case of the paper's hateful treatment of Rich Rodriguez.
We're not "shooting the messenger" with respect to the Free Press. All that we are doing is telling a story, about somebody who did the moral equivalent of filing a false police report alleging somebody else of having committed a crime. That's not rage, or vengeance. That's the truth. And a search for some meaning and some justice in what has happened.
Section 1
Section 1:
ReplyDeleteThanks for taking time to post that detailed list (and sorry to everyone else for hijacking this discussion!). I've read many of the allegations and here are my thoughts:
A) Most of all, if true these flaws seem inconsequential, nibbling around the edges of the core issue: Did UM violate NCAA rules? Yes, and UM and the NCAA confirmed it. Was the story flawed? Yes, every human endeavor is flawed and the critic can always find errors, in the QBs play, in the general's plan, and in the engineer's design. Still we have to play the game, fight the war, drive over the bridge, and get our news somewhere.
B) Much of it is characterization ("nauseating", "depredations", "wildly inflated", "highly technical"). It conveys your feeling on the matter, but it's not evidence for someone who is unconvinced.
C) Much of it tries to read and impugn the mindset of the authors (a very common means of 'shooting the messenger'). I'm not so good at mind reading, even with people I know well, and I doubt anyone else does much better. A million motives can explain someone's actions. Maybe they are just aggressive journalists (if the allegations are true). For example, #4, if true, is standard practice in journalism AFAIK. Certainly no journalist will give someone else an opportunity to break their story.
D) I've seen very little to substantiate most of it. How can anyone say what the authors did or didn't do (or, as I said above, did or didn't think)? Does someone have access to their phone logs or notebooks?
What would convince me would be consequential statements in the Freep articles that were later proven false, and in a way that was substantiated. I haven't seen them.
guanxi;
ReplyDeleteFirst, you raise the issue that Michigan was found to have been in violation of NCAA rules. That is true. But the point, which I think I made pretty clearly but you didn't get, is that what Michigan was accused of in the Free Press (wild, gross violations of practice time rules) was not true, and what Michigan was found to really have done was piddling technical stuff that, had it been self-repoprted by Michiga without the splash of newspaper headlines, it might well have been a secondary violation that no one much cared about. Schools are self-reporting secondary violations all the time. it is "major violations" that hurt. And it is CLEAR; Rosenberg did everything possible to make his story one that would set Michigan up for major violations.
Second, you ask how it is that I know what the Free Press writers did or did not do. There are three main ways. One, I did my own Freedom of Information Act request to the University of Michigan. I asked Pat Sellinger for all of the Free Press FOIA's, so that I could know what they asked for , and when they asked for it. Second, I had the chance at a large alumni dinner where Rosenberg spoke, to pepper him with questions. I angered a lot of people, including Rosenbeg. His answers were not good, and I have incorporated them into what I've written, Thirdly, I have spoken with John U. Bacon about much of this, and he is very much aware of what I have posted on MGoBlog.
But don't take it from me. Ask David Brandon, about the details of what was in the Free Press. Brandon told me that he had gone through the infamous Freep story with a yellow highlighter, hitting everything that was false, or exaggerated or mischaracterized, and that by the time he was done, his paper was mostly yellow.
So, to summarize; the Free Press' interview subjects (we don't know who they are, what their interests are, or why they really needed to be anonymous) alleged vast amounts of recklessly-violative practice time violations. Those allegations were untrue. The Free Press quite deliberately chose one side of a story, with nothing more than anonymous sources, having chosen NOT to approach anyone in the Athletic Department until the eve of publication, so as to sandbag the Department, make a very big splash and to intentionally expose Michigan to an NCAA investigation.
It's not just me; there are many, many webpages I could refer you to; I presume that you have read Jon Chait's writing already. And as good as any summary is this one, from Brian Cook:
http://mgoblog.com/content/long-last-sir
Section 1
Section 1,
ReplyDeleteI understand your points, I just am unconvinced for the reasons above. You repeat the allegation, "Michigan was accused of in the Free Press (wild, gross violations of practice time rules) was not true." What statement in the Freep was contradicted by later evidence? Just one?
Let's stick to significant statements, not minor details; and to major errors, not a few degrees of difference; and to evidence from credible sources, not someone's post on an Internet forum.
The resesarch you talk about (holy cow!) raises an essential question: If people are expected to doubt the honesty of people who put their own names and professional reputations behind articles in the Detroit Free Press, why should we take on faith the claims of an anonymous poster on an Internet forum? A blogger? How do we decide who to believe?
greetings guanxi, I am a different "anonymous"
DeleteLet me make this simple for you via allegory:
The Freep alleged that RichRod was driving 95 mph, weaving in and out of traffic with open liquor in the car.
The NCAA investigation found that he had exceeded the speed limit by 5 mph and, while technically guilty of speeding, was actually going with the flow of traffic and not endangering anyone.
However, the Freep's exagerrated claims damaged Michigan's reputation with potential recruits for over a year and tied up the players and coaches for hundreds of hours in an NCAA investigation that eventually found and stated that the claims of the Freep report were exaggerated and that no players were harmed.
You seem to be saying, "But he WAS speeding, the law is the law." I think it is naive to assert that there is no ethical problem with reporters working to paint things in the most negative light possible, willfully excluding important context (countable vs non-countable hours), rather than working to fully understand and accurately describe the situation.
Last point first:
ReplyDeleteTo a great extent, Rsoenberg and Snyder DIDN'T put their own names and professional reputations behind their Stretchgate writing. And neither did their sources. We really don't know who any of the sources are. And we haven't been given a good reason why any of them must be anonymous. The Freep story, time after time, says "Several players told the Free Press..." That's bullshit, unless there is a valid reason for them to be anonymous. Process, in that case, matters. We don't know what questions Rosenberg asked, or how he asked them. We don't know what personal interests the sources had. We can't check the veracity of Rosenberg, because Rosenberg won't allow it or provide the background information or even answer many questions unless forced.
What did the Free get flat-out wrong? Here are just a few:
~ "Numerous players on the 2008 and 2009 teams said the program far exceeded limits intended to protect athletes from coaching excesses and to ensure fair competition." Far exceeded? Let's dig into that:
~ "In the past two off-seasons, players said, the Wolverines were expected to spend two to three times more than the eight hours allowed for required workouts each week. Players are free to exceed the limit, but it must be truly voluntary.
"The players said the off-season work was clearly required. Several of them said players who failed to do all the strength and conditioning were forced to come back to finish or were punished with additional work.
"'It was mandatory,' one player said. 'They’d tell you it wasn’t, but it really was. If you didn’t show up, there was punishment. I just felt for the guys that did miss a workout and had to go through the personal hell they would go through.'"
The NCAA, once it looked into it, never alleged anything like any of that. It was a wild, gross allegation. Unsupported. Except by Rosenberg's anonymous guys.
~ "Players spent at least nine hours on football activities on Sundays after games last fall. NCAA rules mandate a daily 4-hour limit. The Wolverines also exceeded the weekly limit of 20 hours, the athletes said."
Again; no proof, and the NCAA never alleged anything about "Sundays" in the Michigan NoI, Case No. M-324.
~ "Several players said that on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays during the past two off-seasons, they were expected to be in the weight room for three to four hours, followed by a run of 45 minutes to an hour.
"Players said that on Tuesdays and Thursdays, they were expected to spend two to three hours working on speed and agility. That brings the total time commitment to 15-21 hours a week — more than the NCAA’s weekly 8-hour limit, which includes time spent watching film."
Again, more allegations of really gross violations of the rules, if indeed all of that time was Countable, or "CARA" time. But Rosenberg never defined CARA time in the article. And that is John U. Bacon's main complaint. When Michigan's practice time allegations were closely examined, the Freep allegations were almost all found not to be "Countable" time.
There were the allegations of Quality Control staff at voluntary drills. They were there. The only problem is that on a hanful of occasions, the Quality Control people who were there, and who thought they could be there, had some other duties that were more in the nature of coaching, and to make a very long story short, their ill-defined written job descriptions and activities made them (hourly workers!) "coaches" under the hyper-technical rules.
So, just as you have asked, I have stuck to the biggest main points, not some piddling editing errors.
Section 1
And now I have some questions for you. Really, they are for Rosenberg. Perhaps you could ask Rosenberg yourself.
ReplyDelete- Why did Rosenberg wait until the eve of publication, to approach anyone in authority, who was truly knowledgable about CARA time issues?
- Why should we not be suspicious of Rosenberg's motives, and the motives of players like Boren or Mallett or Clemons, if indeed they were sources? Why give anonymity to players who have left the Michigan program, and who had nothing to fear from Rodriguez or his staff?
- Why would Rosenberg grant anonymity to former players, but not current players like Hawthorne and Stokes? If former players feared "retribution" (and I have to check, but I think the Freep changed its online text without telling anyone), why wouldn't current players? Is it not undeniable; that Rosenberg sandbagged the two freshmen on their quotes, when in fact they had no idea whether they were discussing CARA time with you and made no such distinction? Did Rosenberg tell the anonymous sources what kind of story he was doing, but not Stokes and Hawthorne? (Too long to detail here, that possible abuse would have been an absolute violation of the Free Press' own ethical guidelines.)
- Will you, Michael Rosenberg, answer questions in an open forum about this reporting?
Incidentally, I'd be more than happy to ask Rosenberg all of this, in an open forum, with my name and professional reputation on the line, if Rosenberg will do the same.
Section 1