AbRKnight
02-05-2010, 05:09 PM
Article by: (Rivals free content)
Jonathan Chait
Talk about it in The Fort
The unprecedented controversy the commitment of Demar Dorsey has nearly all Michigan fans angry at somebody. Some are angry at Rich Rodriguez for, they think, turning Michigan into a thug program. Some are angry at the Detroit Free Press. Which side is right here?
Let's start with the ethical issue of offering a scholarship to Dorsey. This is a kid who, a few years ago, was committing burglary and seemingly on track to becoming a hardened criminal. Whether Michigan should ever recruit such a player is hard to answer. The defense of Michigan is that Dorsey was never convicted, and that the justice system probably saw something in him to see him as deserving of leniency. He has a solid family that's trying to steer him in the right direction, he has realized the error of his ways, and wants to go to college far away from home specifically to distance himself from a past he regrets with shame.
Eric Bronson/BronsonPhoto.com
On the other hand, there's also a legitimate case to be made that Dorsey should not be offered. The case holds that it's hard to tell if a kid genuinely regrets his crime or merely regrets getting caught. Moreover, Dorsey may not present a huge risk of misbehavior, but he probably represents a bigger risk than a student-athlete with a clean record.
I'm going to punt on this question and admit they both have merit. But it's worth pointing out an important fact here. It is completely routine for colleges to offer scholarships to kids who have had legal scrapes. The college football blog "Every Day Should Be Saturday," authored by a Florida fan, marvels at the Detroit media's reaction to Dorsey's signing:
"Not even convicted? Next question, coach--we don't even want to finish this one, since clearly Demar Dorsey has no problems whatsoever and will be a fine addition to the football team. That, Michigan fans, is what it would be like if you were anywhere else in the nation and had a recruit with a couple of nasty juvenile arrests, but the Freep is on the scene for this extremely overblown story like the WITI TV 6 news crew. DURR HURR WHY DOES RICH ROD RECRUIT THUGZ OUTRAGE HURR. Because some of them are fast, can play football, and can be kept out of trouble for four years while they win football games? The Michigan press is the polar opposite of SEC press corps, and we mean that in the good and bad way: not fawning, but also convinced there's a potential Watergate beneath that Gatorade bucket over there."
I'm going to get to the media momentarily. But in the meantime, let's be clear: the (not crazy) argument that Michigan shouldn't sign Dorsey is an argument that Michigan should hold itself to a higher standard than most programs. Which is to say, if you're criticizing the decision, you're criticizing Michigan for being like other football programs.
The trouble with the media reaction is that everything about it screams: This is unprecedented! Michigan has sunk to a new low!
This is the case even though not all the coverage, considered in isolation, has been unfair. The Free Press's long story about Dorsey is, in fact, a model of journalistic probity. The story lays out all the facts. It interviews Dorsey, and people sympathetic to him, but also one of his intended victims. It presents the complexities in such a way that readers with opposing views can reach opposite conclusions. I gained a deeper understanding of Dorsey from reading it, and the reporters deserve commendation.
The problem I have is: why is this one example receiving so much attention? As I said, colleges sign recruits, and retain players, who have committed similar offenses or even much worse. Michigan State recently had a football player in a strikingly similar legal position as Dorsey. His crime and punishment did not receive any media attention until he was implicated in another crime in East Lansing. To report and comment extensively about legal difficulties at school A, while ignoring similar circumstances at school B, gives readers the impression that school A has a lower standard than school B. That is the exact meta narrative that comes through in the newspaper's coverage of the two schools.
Few things are less sympathetic than the fan who complains about his team getting worse coverage than the rival. But the complaint is unavoidable because the double standard at the Free Press is so glaring.
When Michigan State running back Glenn Winston committed a crime markedly worse than Dorsey's -- it was 1) violent and 2) resulted in a conviction and jail time - and was immediately allowed to return to the team, nobody at the Free Press questioned coach mark Dantonio's ethics. When Winston committed a subsequent assault, columnist Michael Rosenberg objected mildly, "he might have to take a tougher stand the next time a player gets in trouble."
Suppose Dorsey had commited not burglary but, like Winston, an assault that left his victim with brain damage, and spent time in jail. Imagine Rodriguez offered him a scholarship anyway. Now suppose that a few months later, Dorsey commits another assault. Do you think the Free Press columnist's conclusion just might be something sharper than "he might have to take a tougher stand the next time a player gets in trouble"?
I have written before about the Free Press's hilariously credulous account of the mass assault by Spartan football players. The story relied on accounts of the players' parents, which, being both second-hand and highly biased, have the least possible credibility. It presents as credible the players' claims that they decided to go to the fraternity event to investigate a previous altercation (hey gang, let's pile into the Mystery Machine and unmask the villain!), that they lied to the coaches but told the truth to their parents, and that they never threw punches. All these claims have since been discredited.
Now, when evaluating a newspaper, it's important to distinguish between straight news reporting and opinion columns. The latter shouldn't normally be held up to taint the objectivity of the former. In this case, however, the distinction is impossible. The opinions of the columnists are driving the coverage of the straight reporters. In some cases, the opinion columnists are being allowed to break news about the same subjects they're opining on.
From reading the Free Press, you wouldn't suspect that Rich Rodriguez has had few disciplinary issues at Michigan, and those that have arisen (Justin Feagin, Boubacar Cissoko) have been dealt with swiftly and severely. One can legitimately debate whether and to what degree Michigan should have higher than normal standards of behavior and academics for its recruits. But that debate is very difficult in an atmosphere where the local media seems determined to impugn the coach's integrity.
Jonathan Chait
Talk about it in The Fort
The unprecedented controversy the commitment of Demar Dorsey has nearly all Michigan fans angry at somebody. Some are angry at Rich Rodriguez for, they think, turning Michigan into a thug program. Some are angry at the Detroit Free Press. Which side is right here?
Let's start with the ethical issue of offering a scholarship to Dorsey. This is a kid who, a few years ago, was committing burglary and seemingly on track to becoming a hardened criminal. Whether Michigan should ever recruit such a player is hard to answer. The defense of Michigan is that Dorsey was never convicted, and that the justice system probably saw something in him to see him as deserving of leniency. He has a solid family that's trying to steer him in the right direction, he has realized the error of his ways, and wants to go to college far away from home specifically to distance himself from a past he regrets with shame.
Eric Bronson/BronsonPhoto.com
On the other hand, there's also a legitimate case to be made that Dorsey should not be offered. The case holds that it's hard to tell if a kid genuinely regrets his crime or merely regrets getting caught. Moreover, Dorsey may not present a huge risk of misbehavior, but he probably represents a bigger risk than a student-athlete with a clean record.
I'm going to punt on this question and admit they both have merit. But it's worth pointing out an important fact here. It is completely routine for colleges to offer scholarships to kids who have had legal scrapes. The college football blog "Every Day Should Be Saturday," authored by a Florida fan, marvels at the Detroit media's reaction to Dorsey's signing:
"Not even convicted? Next question, coach--we don't even want to finish this one, since clearly Demar Dorsey has no problems whatsoever and will be a fine addition to the football team. That, Michigan fans, is what it would be like if you were anywhere else in the nation and had a recruit with a couple of nasty juvenile arrests, but the Freep is on the scene for this extremely overblown story like the WITI TV 6 news crew. DURR HURR WHY DOES RICH ROD RECRUIT THUGZ OUTRAGE HURR. Because some of them are fast, can play football, and can be kept out of trouble for four years while they win football games? The Michigan press is the polar opposite of SEC press corps, and we mean that in the good and bad way: not fawning, but also convinced there's a potential Watergate beneath that Gatorade bucket over there."
I'm going to get to the media momentarily. But in the meantime, let's be clear: the (not crazy) argument that Michigan shouldn't sign Dorsey is an argument that Michigan should hold itself to a higher standard than most programs. Which is to say, if you're criticizing the decision, you're criticizing Michigan for being like other football programs.
The trouble with the media reaction is that everything about it screams: This is unprecedented! Michigan has sunk to a new low!
This is the case even though not all the coverage, considered in isolation, has been unfair. The Free Press's long story about Dorsey is, in fact, a model of journalistic probity. The story lays out all the facts. It interviews Dorsey, and people sympathetic to him, but also one of his intended victims. It presents the complexities in such a way that readers with opposing views can reach opposite conclusions. I gained a deeper understanding of Dorsey from reading it, and the reporters deserve commendation.
The problem I have is: why is this one example receiving so much attention? As I said, colleges sign recruits, and retain players, who have committed similar offenses or even much worse. Michigan State recently had a football player in a strikingly similar legal position as Dorsey. His crime and punishment did not receive any media attention until he was implicated in another crime in East Lansing. To report and comment extensively about legal difficulties at school A, while ignoring similar circumstances at school B, gives readers the impression that school A has a lower standard than school B. That is the exact meta narrative that comes through in the newspaper's coverage of the two schools.
Few things are less sympathetic than the fan who complains about his team getting worse coverage than the rival. But the complaint is unavoidable because the double standard at the Free Press is so glaring.
When Michigan State running back Glenn Winston committed a crime markedly worse than Dorsey's -- it was 1) violent and 2) resulted in a conviction and jail time - and was immediately allowed to return to the team, nobody at the Free Press questioned coach mark Dantonio's ethics. When Winston committed a subsequent assault, columnist Michael Rosenberg objected mildly, "he might have to take a tougher stand the next time a player gets in trouble."
Suppose Dorsey had commited not burglary but, like Winston, an assault that left his victim with brain damage, and spent time in jail. Imagine Rodriguez offered him a scholarship anyway. Now suppose that a few months later, Dorsey commits another assault. Do you think the Free Press columnist's conclusion just might be something sharper than "he might have to take a tougher stand the next time a player gets in trouble"?
I have written before about the Free Press's hilariously credulous account of the mass assault by Spartan football players. The story relied on accounts of the players' parents, which, being both second-hand and highly biased, have the least possible credibility. It presents as credible the players' claims that they decided to go to the fraternity event to investigate a previous altercation (hey gang, let's pile into the Mystery Machine and unmask the villain!), that they lied to the coaches but told the truth to their parents, and that they never threw punches. All these claims have since been discredited.
Now, when evaluating a newspaper, it's important to distinguish between straight news reporting and opinion columns. The latter shouldn't normally be held up to taint the objectivity of the former. In this case, however, the distinction is impossible. The opinions of the columnists are driving the coverage of the straight reporters. In some cases, the opinion columnists are being allowed to break news about the same subjects they're opining on.
From reading the Free Press, you wouldn't suspect that Rich Rodriguez has had few disciplinary issues at Michigan, and those that have arisen (Justin Feagin, Boubacar Cissoko) have been dealt with swiftly and severely. One can legitimately debate whether and to what degree Michigan should have higher than normal standards of behavior and academics for its recruits. But that debate is very difficult in an atmosphere where the local media seems determined to impugn the coach's integrity.