Penn State horror story

[iamshack]

I led off my statement by saying that it's unfair that he's being labeled as a main bad guy.

 

My point is that there is a group of guys all involved together like a gang (Sandusky, Paterno, AD, GA, etc.). They are all guilty of doing something (failing to alert authorities/robbing), but one guy is guilty of doing something much worse (child molestation/murder). It might be unfair for one of the guys to take the media hit as being the center of it all when he's only guilty of a lesser crime, but that in my opinion, I really don't give a s*** who gets crucified by the media if they all get their just dessert. In no way am I saying that Joe Paterno has ever donned a Richard Nixon mask and robbed a bank only to be thwarted by Keanu Reeves. It's simply an analogy.

Your analogy was a s***ty one though, and that is exactly why I am complaining about the media here. Not 4 days after the news breaks, you've got people comparing Paterno to a gang leader of bank robbers. Umm...no. Next we will compare him to the German SS and Heinrich Himmler.

 

 

[Jordan4life_2007]

Should the media not be reporting this? Should they ignore or downplay that a well-known coach was involved in the supposed investigations and reporting of the abuse?

 

The media makes money off of stories; the bigger the story, the more money that make. That doesn't mean they shouldn't cover big stories or important issues because it is also in their own self-interest to do so.

 

Nobody said cover the s*** up. The media has a job to do and I respect that to a degree. Forget about Soxtalk at the moment. This is the biggest story (sports wise) going on right now. And Paterno is getting reamed. And it's unfair and easy for people sitting behind a computer to cast permanent judgement.

[iamshack]

Should the media not be reporting this? Should they ignore or downplay that a well-known coach was involved in the supposed investigations and reporting of the abuse?

 

The media makes money off of stories; the bigger the story, the more money that make. That doesn't mean they shouldn't cover big stories or important issues because it is also in their own self-interest to do so.

No, the media absolutely should report it.

 

You have admittedly not paid any attention to how they are reporting it though, so I don't really see how we can debate the issue.

[Balta1701]

And Paterno is getting reamed

Possibly not the best choice of words given the case at hand.

[Jordan4life_2007]

Possibly not the best choice of words given the case at hand.

 

Well then go ahead and delete the post. That's not how I meant it but we know how sensitive you get.

[Milkman delivers]

Your analogy was a s***ty one though, and that is exactly why I am complaining about the media here. Not 4 days after the news breaks, you've got people comparing Paterno to a gang leader of bank robbers. Umm...no. Next we will compare him to the German SS and Heinrich Himmler.

 

OK, in my analogy, which is purely hypothetical, Paterno isn't the gang leader. He's a member of a gang that are all responsible for something bad, and he's being crucified in the media as being the ringleader who is the most to blame, all the while he is not. I think that it's actually spot on.

[Jenksismyhero]

I don't care about "most Americans." I'm interested in what's being discussed itt. Stop deflecting with this media coverage stuff from what was actually being discussed, which was Paterno's and others' roles and responsibilities in this situation.

 

Paterno's side of things are included in the GJ findings. What could you hear from him that would excuse his inaction in your mind?

 

He could say that he followed up multiple times with the GA and AD about their meeting and investigation and they both determined that instead of a brutal rape it was just some inappropriate behavior (wrestling with no one around, maybe showering in the same room, who knows...something not to the level of rape)

 

He could have been told that campus police performed an investigation and found nothing credible, and thus nothing needed to be reported.

 

He could have been told that nothing credible at all was found after the investigation but that Sandusky was in the locker room with a boy by themselves, which probably wouldn't look good if people found them, so they decided to ban Sandusky from coming to the locker room with one of his kids.

 

You have no idea what Paterno did/didn't know at that specific time, other than the fact that he was told by the GA about an act he saw (which is a he said-he said as to the specific nature of the acts).

 

People just need to calm the f*** down. I can't believe Paterno has already gone through the media trial before anything about his involvement is really known.

[iamshack]

GMAB man, you can say this exact same thing about any terrible situation.

 

I guess you have no problem with terrorism since the media made money off of running ads when September 11th happened. I mean, this is nonsense.

No, you can't. The distinction is that the media is trying to pretend as though the real story to them is the kids, when in all reality, it is the Penn State legendary football coach going down right in front of us all.

 

Why not just lead the story off with a child molestation scandal has sunk Joe Paterno and then make it all about Paterno as much as they want?

 

Instead, they are acting as though they have such heartfelt condolences for these innocent children...and then after 8 seconds of reflecting on that, we spend the next 59 minutes on just how many stakes we should drive through Joe Paterno's heart.

 

Sorry, to me, that is just entirely disingenuous. I don't know how to make it any more clear for you.

[Kyyle23]

Nobody said cover the s*** up. The media has a job to do and I respect that to a degree. Forget about Soxtalk at the moment. This is the biggest story (sports wise) going on right now. And Paterno is getting reamed. And it's unfair and easy for people sitting behind a computer to cast permanent judgement.

 

 

You of all people saying this is the height of irony.

 

 

 

And seeing how flippant you are with this whole situation is very bothersome to me.

[iamshack]

OK, in my analogy, which is purely hypothetical, Paterno isn't the gang leader. He's a member of a gang that are all responsible for something bad, and he's being crucified in the media as being the ringleader who is the most to blame, all the while he is not. I think that it's actually spot on.

He's a freaking football coach! He's not a gangleader. "Gang" has an extremely negative connotation, which is exactly why you're choosing that word.

 

Regardless, I know what you're trying to say...and I agree he should lose his job.

[StrangeSox]

You have admittedly not paid any attention to how they are reporting it though, so I don't really see how we can debate the issue.

 

That's because I don't care about the issue, I care about what we were actually discussing before this "the media is too focused on Joe!" deflection.

[Jenksismyhero]

No, you can't. The distinction is that the media is trying to pretend as though the real story to them is the kids, when in all reality, it is the Penn State legendary football coach going down right in front of us all.

 

Why not just lead the story off with a child molestation scandal has sunk Joe Paterno and then make it all about Paterno as much as they want?

 

Instead, they are acting as though they have such heartfelt condolences for these innocent children...and then after 8 seconds of reflecting on that, we spend the next 59 minutes on just how many stakes we should drive through Joe Paterno's heart.

 

Sorry, to me, that is just entirely disingenuous. I don't know how to make it any more clear for you.

 

Or some bulls*** article like on grantland about how this tragedy affects ME personally. "This is a terrible tragedy....god all my thoughts are ruined. Those assholes. f*** you for making State College not seem to perfect in my mind anymore! Gah!"

[StrangeSox]

He could say that he followed up multiple times with the GA and AD about their meeting and investigation and they both determined that instead of a brutal rape it was just some inappropriate behavior (wrestling with no one around, maybe showering in the same room, who knows...something not to the level of rape)

 

He could have been told that campus police performed an investigation and found nothing credible, and thus nothing needed to be reported.

 

He could have been told that nothing credible at all was found after the investigation but that Sandusky was in the locker room with a boy by themselves, which probably wouldn't look good if people found them, so they decided to ban Sandusky from coming to the locker room with one of his kids.

 

You have no idea what Paterno did/didn't know at that specific time, other than the fact that he was told by the GA about an act he saw (which is a he said-he said as to the specific nature of the acts).

 

People just need to calm the f*** down. I can't believe Paterno has already gone through the media trial before anything about his involvement is really known.

 

Why wouldn't any of those claims be reflected in the Grand Jury testimony?

 

edit: How would this fit in with him being forced into retirement 4 years earlier for similar allegations?

 

edit2: Why would he keep McQueary around if he was making false accusations of child rape about a long-time friend?

Edited November 9, 2011 by StrangeSox

[Milkman delivers]

He's a freaking football coach! He's not a gangleader. "Gang" has an extremely negative connotation, which is exactly why you're choosing that word.

 

Regardless, I know what you're trying to say...and I agree he should lose his job.

 

I was merely trying to equate it with an easily identifiable group of people doing something wrong. I could have said the same thing but used corrupt politicians as the analogy. Either way, it's going to be compared to people doing something wrong because they were doing something wrong.

[Jenksismyhero]

Why wouldn't any of those claims be reflected in the Grand Jury testimony?

 

Why would they need to be? Paterno wasn't involved in this investigation.

 

edit: i mean to say the subject of this investigation

Edited November 9, 2011 by Jenksismybitch

[southsider2k5]

From NYT

 

 

 

CNN now reporting there have been a dozen or so additional allegations filed with the tip line offered by police. We'll see how legit those are.

 

You are misreading this. The incident has to be reported, yes. The person who reports the incident doesn't necessarily have to be the one to report it. this is the law pretty much everywhere.

[iamshack]

That's because I don't care about the issue, I care about what we were actually discussing before this "the media is too focused on Joe!" deflection.

The problem is that most people you're having this discussion with, have gotten the vast majority of information from that very same media. It may not color your opinion, and it may not even color many people's opinions in here, but it has and will color some peoples', purely due to a desire to make more money on the story, and that bother me.

 

And you are seriously going to accuse me of deflecting something? I've come in here and voiced a very minority opinion on the matter. If I was in the business of deflecting criticism or running from disagreement or even being called a fool, I certainly wouldn't voice that opinion.

Edited November 9, 2011 by iamshack

[StrangeSox]

Why would they need to be? Paterno wasn't involved in this investigation.

 

edit: i mean to say the subject of this investigation

 

He testified. His own letter claimed that he informed his bosses and then had no further involvement. There is no indication that he took any further actions.

[StrangeSox]

The problem is that most people you're having this discussion with, have gotten the vast majority of information from that very same media. It may not color your opinion, and it may not even color many people's opinions in here, but it has and will color some peoples', purely do to a desire to make more money on the story, and that bother me.

 

That's potentially a fair point.

 

And you are seriously going to accuse me of deflecting something? I've come in here and voiced a very minority opinion on the matter. If I was in the business of deflecting criticism or running from disagreement or even being called a fool, I certainly wouldn't voice that opinion.

 

Yes, I am. No one was talking about media coverage, the discussion was centered on Paterno's and others' moral and ethical obligations to follow through on this situation. How the media chooses to portray the story is irrelevant to that.

[Jenksismyhero]

Sort of proving iamshack's point -

 

ESPN has been working hard to hire Charles Robinson, an investigative reporter for Yahoo that tends to break a lot of big scandals:

 

http://thebiglead.com/index.php/2011/11/09...arles-robinson/

 

In other words: scandals = audience = $$$$$$$$$$. Victims? Who cares.

[iamshack]

That's because I don't care about the issue, I care about what we were actually discussing before this "the media is too focused on Joe!" deflection.

And just one further point, to you and Balta especially, I really don't believe either of you don't have a problem with the news being reported (and obviously shaped) in a way that is not necessarily accurate, but rather, in the way in which ratings and therefore revenues, will be optimized. Especially when you're dealing with such a sensitive subject matter.

 

I apologize if I keep running in another direction on this than most of you (or deflecting, as you say), but that should be a relevant issue, in my opinion.

Edited November 9, 2011 by iamshack

[Jordan4life_2007]

You of all people saying this is the height of irony.

 

 

 

And seeing how flippant you are with this whole situation is very bothersome to me.

 

Care to elaborate? Because I have no idea what you're talking about. 95% of my posts here are White Sox, Bears, Bulls or other sports related topics. The drunk thread every now and then and just random non-serious topics. I don't touch the sensitive topics (filibuster) most of the time because, well, people are just too damn sensitive. Best example being the Gordon Beckham gay thread when it became me vs Soxtalk because I didn't give the PC response to having a gay son.

[Jenksismyhero]

He testified. His own letter claimed that he informed his bosses and then had no further involvement. There is no indication that he took any further actions.

 

You are making a gigantic leap here. Not everything that people testified to is included in the grand jury finding. I'm quite certain Paterno would have testified to his history with Penn State, his age, his address, blah blah. None of that is included in this finding either.

 

Edit: Nor would his letter be the end all be all. A lot of people are assuming he knew exactly what was going on. If that's not in his letter, does that mean it's not true?

Edited November 9, 2011 by Jenksismybitch

[Milkman delivers]

Sort of proving iamshack's point -

 

ESPN has been working hard to hire Charles Robinson, an investigative reporter for Yahoo that tends to break a lot of big scandals:

 

http://thebiglead.com/index.php/2011/11/09...arles-robinson/

 

In other words: scandals = audience = $$$$$$$$$$. Victims? Who cares.

 

But again, that isn't the point of this thread. So, who cares?

 

Someone should start a thread in the Filibuster about sensationalizing the news.

[kev211]

Its easy for people who dont handle or work with sensitive situations to say what they would have done.

 

Its a lot harder knowing that if Paterno reported it, and it wasnt true, that Paterno could have basically ruined his friends life over hearsay.

 

If the graduate assistant believed he saw a crime, it was up to him to get the police involved.

I know I am a bunch of pages behind, but this.