Excellent article from CJR on Star Ledger & Rutgers' relationship

[brodo]

The Columbia Journalism Review published this article. Here's an excerpt:

For the past several years, Rutgers has felt the blow of intense reporting on the university’s athletics program. The most impactful journalism has come from one news outlet: NJ Advance Media, which publishes The Star-Ledger and NJ.com. Since 2008, the outlet has dug up a number of Rutgers public-relations bombshells, from unchecked spending to scoops on allegations of abuse and, just this summer, the suspension of the former football coach, to name a few.

http://www.cjr.org/analysis/rutgers...al&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

 

[DJ Spanky]

Now the school’s football program tops the reporting priority list, with two full-time beat reporters, an investigative journalist who follows the money, and a news desk that offers supplementary coverage.

I wonder how many other flagship football programs actually have to deal with this.

Too bad that article didn't delve into explicit falsehoods that that paper has put forth over the years, starting with their blatant lies about Schiano's contract being covered up.

 

[RutgersRaRa]

The last sentence was a shot across the bow. It made me laugh, too.

 

[GoodOl'Rutgers]

No effort made to look at S-Ls worst treatments of Rutgers? This story just assumes all the criticism is deserved and that S-L is just being tough but fair.

Consider how they revealed Schiano hidden pay... Big scandal... That they had actually published in their paper a year earlier. But for months they portrayed it as investigative reports uncovering something unscrupulous by the Rutgers AD.. Who was being pressured to resign at the time as part of an all-out attack on Rutgers management structure.. Egged on by a politically connected and McGreevy-appointed Rutgers BoG member.

This is not, nor has ever been a case of tough but fair reporting. Shame on this publication for not digging deeper.

 

[DANTHEMAN]

No mention of how the Star Liar ranted and raved about RU spending 100 million on its stadium but has always been mum about NJ failing to collect 100 million the Giants owed the statefor it's stadium.

 

[scarletrat]

it's not just that the Ledger/nj.com has unfairly targeted RU, but they are not consistent at all--given the continued sleeze that is NJ politics and corruption, they are very timid and don't go after it with the same intensity. Clearly they pick on RU because they could--it has been an easy target. Yellow journalism at its finest. Hoping with Hobbs who should know the game as well as anyone and people in place at RU now that they fight back--maybe not Saban style, but you get the drift...

 

[Knight Shift]

That’s why, according to longtime Star-Ledger sports columnist Steve Politi, it’s crucial as a reporter to be upfront with your subjects. “I’m going to try to be as fair as I can,” he says, summarizing what he told the university’s new athletic director, “but I’m not going to be a cheerleader, and I’m going to be critical when warranted.”

Politi covered Hobbs a few years ago when he was the interim athletic director of a nearby college. Politi wrote about a number of Hobbs’s high-profile decisions, and the two had an amiable working relationship. That history makes Politi optimistic about the paper’s relationship going forward with Rutgers.
o_O

 

[RUBigFrank]

notice how today the Asbury Park Press had the first story regarding the assistant coaches being let go. Ledger was relegated to citing the press as the news source.

Wonder if that was done by design to send a message to the Ledger.

 

[RM60]

Kind of seem the writer's looking to ingratiate himself....

Pretty poorly done if you ask me...

 

[We Are RU]

That’s why, according to longtime Star-Ledger sports columnist Steve Politi, it’s crucial as a reporter to be upfront with your subjects. “I’m going to try to be as fair as I can,” he says, summarizing what he told the university’s new athletic director, “but I’m not going to be a cheerleader, and I’m going to be critical when warranted.”

Politi SHOULD BE a cheerleader but also be critical when warranted. This is our state university for goodness sakes!

 

[RU Husky]

Yes, the author could at least have objectively noted some of the abuses made by the S-L in carrying out its mission to be looking over Rutgers' shoulder and why it was that the former AD may have made her albeit provocative statement.It didn't come out of nowhere.

Disagree with OP. Thought it was a lousy article.

 

[RUTBAY]

Someone via twitter should point them to this piece as to why Rutgers won't comment and to why people think why Politi's rag is not thought of highly by the University.

 

[RC1978]

SL "fire the coaches" "coaches need to go" "Flood needs to be fired"

SL Week after coaches fired, "New coach almost double the salary of Flood" "Rutgers on hook for Assistants salaries" "Rutgers should leave Big10 gamble"

 

[koleszar]

I think I read somewhere, where Hobbs is connected/friends with one of the guy's who writes these douchebags paychecks. Not 100% sure so don't quote me on it. Put pretty sure I read it some where. That could be the reasoning behind D*ckhead's amiable relations with Hobbs in the past.

 

[RU76]

The author assumes that the negative reporting by the SL is a recent development. In fact it has been ongoing for decades. From headlines, to minimizing our accomplishments, to choice of language, to repeating unflattering events over and over again even when unrelated to the subject matter of the article, to outright fabrications, to character assassinations, etc., their vendetta has been ongoing. The article relies on self serving statements from those who have targeted us. There is no upside for RU to respond. The likelihood that any comment we would make will be twisted out of context and thrown back at RU for years is high.

 

[Caliknight]

Having grown up in another state and living in another, I can honestly say I have never seen the vitriol towards a school that the SL has towards RU. It doesn't need to be a fluff rag, but that paper has repeatedly gone out of the way to disparage the school, often in an inappropriate manner.

If you have never lived out of NJ, trust me. It is far from normal.

 

[RU4Real]

The thing that's always amazed me about the Ledger, in the context of the continual Rutgers beatings, is the amazing lack of ink they've given to that ugly, empty thing in the Meadowlands that cost (so far) the GNP of a small, industrialized country.

 

[bac2therac]

probably because they get some kind of kickback from the Democrats who pushed for it

 

[RUsojo]

This article is not balanced.

 

[Knight Shift]

Some have said the connection between Syracuse and SI Newhouse are the root of the Star-Ledger's vitriol for Rutgers. SI Newhouse Jr. did not go to college. His brother Donald went to Syracuse. Their father went to Rutgers Law Newark. Is there a connection?

 

[Rutgers1976]

Politi, et al look for ways to paint a negative slant on every issue related to Rutgers. Sure they'll report on a win or good news, but they think they're being top notch investigative (real) reporters by doing this. They'll get more readers in NJ if they look to paint a positive picture instead. It isn't, never was and never will be a real newspaper.

 

[new jersey1]

The SL has no credability as far as I'm concerned. They have an obvious agenda despite Politi's comments.

 

[graystork]

Well that's three minutes of my life I'll never get back. What a joke. The article doesn't address the Star Ledger's hostility to Rutgers even before Hermann showed up, or the libelous hatchet job it did on Bob Mulcahy. Nor does it mention the company's cozy connection with Syracuse. If this is what passes for journalism at Columbia it's sad.

Let's face it, New Jersey is a populous state with plenty of college choices. So unlike Nebraska, and Oklahoma, and Iowa, the majority of college-educated New Jerseyans did not go to Rutgers. The Star Ledger knows this and caters to its clientele. It knows it can get almost as many positive hits by writing a negative piece about Rutgers as it does for a positive article. This has nothing to do with Hermann, Hobbs, or that idiot Politi. It's about demographics. Will Politi have a "better" relationship with Hobbs? Maybe. Will it change the negative slant that the SL puts on every article about Rutgers? Absolutely not. The Star Ledger slants it's coverage like this because it gets more responses from angry Rutgers fans and fans of Rutgers-hating schools like Syracuse and others. When this article suggests that Hermann was the cause of Rutgers' problems with the SL and this will somehow be better with Hobbs, all it proves is that its author doesn't know what the hell he's talking about. I guess Tim Pernetti blew his nose in the SL because of the superior paper content it uses.

 

[RUfromSoCal?]

wow:

When Politi came on in the late 1990s, he says Rutgers sports were low on the paper’s radar. Now the school’s football program tops the reporting priority list, with two full-time beat reporters, an investigative journalist who follows the money,

As anyone in business knows... you need to produce results to get resources..

In other words... penishead and dbag MUST find scandal to keep their jobs....

 

[LevaosLectures]

The Columbia Journalism Review published this article. Here's an excerpt:

For the past several years, Rutgers has felt the blow of intense reporting on the university’s athletics program. The most impactful journalism has come from one news outlet: NJ Advance Media, which publishes The Star-Ledger and NJ.com. Since 2008, the outlet has dug up a number of Rutgers public-relations bombshells, from unchecked spending to scoops on allegations of abuse and, just this summer, the suspension of the former football coach, to name a few.

http://www.cjr.org/analysis/rutgers...al&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

The Columbia Journalism school used the word impactful? I give up.

 

[srru86]

This was a puff piece with no effort beyond a chat with Politi.

Give me a call when CJR looks at the bogus reporting of the "secret" Schiano deal reported by Sherman and Margolis from their wannabe muck racking squad years after their sports pages had reported those same terms in a story by Matthew Futterman.

 

[RU Husky]

Lest we forget the public apology that NJ.com had to issue on account of the one sided/biased reporting by Dan Duggan , prompted by Kevin Manahan's decision to publish the story without hearing from Flood, in the Ian Thomas transfer story. Their coverage of the alleged Tyree bullying incident was equally shameful. Now that's something which belongs in an article trumpeting journalistic integrity.