Penn State horror story

[StrangeSox]

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.

 

The media are exploitative vultures and ESPN is a godless monster.

 

Can we get back to discussing why Joe Paterno doing literally the bare minimum he could in a case involving first-hand accounts of child rape is somehow ok?

[Milkman delivers]

The media are exploitative vultures and ESPN is a godless monster.

 

Can we get back to discussing why Joe Paterno doing literally the bare minimum he could in a case involving first-hand accounts of child rape is somehow ok?

 

Because the guy was his friend and he didn't want to believe it, duh.

[iamshack]

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.

So what is the point of the thread? Is it the victims of child molestation in environments that cater to their presence, by people that they should be able to trust and look to as role models?

 

Or is the point that Joe Paterno is getting publicly slayed for being the head coach of a football team at a university where these events happened?

 

I mean, the title of the thread says "Penn State Horror Story." I guess I just inferred from that that the actual "story" and how and why it is being reported was fair game.

 

I guess we should just change the thread title to "Joe Paterno tolerated child molestation at Penn State," since that is really what this thread is about.

Edited November 9, 2011 by iamshack

[StrangeSox]

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?

 

See my second edit.

 

If he truly did follow up in any of those scenarios, why the hell would he keep someone on staff who he now believes falsely accused his long-time friend of child rape?

[Jordan4life_2007]

The media are exploitative vultures and ESPN is a godless monster.

 

Can we get back to discussing why Joe Paterno doing literally the bare minimum he could in a case involving first-hand accounts of child rape is somehow ok?

 

He's not innocent. He deserves to be fired. What else do you want? Jail time? If so, then that loud sound you here at the moment is me hysterically LMAO.

[iamshack]

The media are exploitative vultures and ESPN is a godless monster.

 

Can we get back to discussing why Joe Paterno doing literally the bare minimum he could in a case involving first-hand accounts of child rape is somehow ok?

Again, the problem is the "facts" in your sentence right there came from those exploitative vultures and godless monsters.

 

Some of us want to hear from all significant parties before we rush to damning this guy.

[StrangeSox]

Or is the point that Joe Paterno is getting publicly slayed for being the head coach of a football team at a university where these events happened?

 

That's a completely dishonest portrayal and you know it.

[iamshack]

That's a completely dishonest portrayal and you know it.

No, it's just manipulating the portrayal to suit an endgame, the same as the media is doing.

[StrangeSox]

Again, the problem is the "facts" in your sentence right there came from those exploitative vultures and godless monsters.

 

Some of us want to hear from all significant parties before we rush to damning this guy.

 

No, it comes from the GJ findings. The findings that say Paterno talked to his AD the next day about accusations of molestation. The findings that say the GA was called into a meeting that Paterno wasn't present at. The findings that say this situation went unreported and uninvestigated for almost a decade, aside from banning Sandusky from bringing children into the locker room.

 

I can't really envision anything Paterno could say that would make me view him in a better light at this point. Jenks' scenarios don't add up. I don't need to hear denials from someone who's getting thrashed for failing to stop this man years ago.

[StrangeSox]

No, it's just manipulating the portrayal to suit an endgame, the same as the media is doing.

 

No, it's dishonest and insulting to the people here, on SoxTalk, not in Bristol, trying to discuss this issue.

 

And how, exactly, is the media's portrayal of this story similar? Are they completely obfuscating the facts surrounding the issue, giving intentionally dishonest and completely inaccurate representations of the story?

Edited November 9, 2011 by StrangeSox

[RockRaines]

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.

Well yeah, how many people have clicked on an OSU or Miami link in the past 9 months regardless of the information being rehashed. People love scandals especially those relating to a prominent entity or a figurehead of an institution.

[iamshack]

No, it comes from the GJ findings. The findings that say Paterno talked to his AD the next day about accusations of molestation. The findings that say the GA was called into a meeting that Paterno wasn't present at. The findings that say this situation went unreported and uninvestigated for almost a decade, aside from banning Sandusky from bringing children into the locker room.

 

I can't really envision anything Paterno could say that would make me view him in a better light at this point. Jenks' scenarios don't add up. I don't need to hear denials from someone who's getting thrashed for failing to stop this man years ago.

I agree with you on most of these points.

 

But Paterno seems to want to present his case quite a bit. I wouldn't be shocked if he made other efforts to deal with this that we are simply unaware of at this early stage in the findings.

[Milkman delivers]

So what is the point of the thread? Is it the victims of child molestation in environments that cater to their presence, by people that they should be able to trust and look to as role models?

 

Or is the point that Joe Paterno is getting publicly slayed for being the head coach of a football team at a university where these events happened?

 

I mean, the title of the thread says "Penn State Horror Story." I guess I just inferred from that that the actual "story" and how and why it is being reported was fair game.

 

I guess we should just change the thread title to "Joe Paterno tolerated child molestation at Penn State," since that is really what this thread is about.

 

OK.

[Milkman delivers]

He's not innocent. He deserves to be fired. What else do you want? Jail time? If so, then that loud sound you here at the moment is me hysterically LMAO.

 

That's exactly what we want. Period.

[RockRaines]

Or is the point that Joe Paterno is getting publicly slayed for being the head coach of a football team at a university where these events happened?

No, its because he was directly involved in the information that was being passed around about his employee and was also directly involved in what happened to said employee more than once in regards to consequences. He's the most powerful man at an institution not only where this happened, but where it was sometime funding and enabling such acts to occur.

[iamshack]

No, it's dishonest and insulting to the people here, on SoxTalk, not in Bristol, trying to discuss this issue.

 

And how, exactly, is the media's portrayal of this story similar? Are they completely obfuscating the facts surrounding the issue, giving intentionally dishonest and completely inaccurate representations of the story?

Oh goodness. It was an oversimplification to make a point. Chill.

 

Again, I've stated several times now how the media's portrayal is similar. As I said, listen to the media reporting it and then we'll debate it.

[RockRaines]

I agree with you on most of these points.

 

But Paterno seems to want to present his case quite a bit. I wouldn't be shocked if he made other efforts to deal with this that we are simply unaware of at this early stage in the findings.

Or his personal PR team keeps letting him make statements that will portray him in a better light somehow. He's already captured at least one person on here because he said he "wished he had done more" aka, I knew about it and didnt do anything at the time. He's been interviewed on this before and I am positive that even more negative pieces of information will come out about his knowledge of the situation if this goes to trial.

[RockRaines]

That's exactly what we want. Period.

Yup. PSU should be cleaning house, and Paterno's cocky statements about how the board shouldnt spend another minute thinking about his job status only make him look worse.

[Balta1701]

Yup. PSU should be cleaning house, and Paterno's cocky statements about how the board shouldnt spend another minute thinking about his job status only make him look worse.

Wait, he said something to that effect? That sounds godawful.

[iamshack]

No, its because he was directly involved in the information that was being passed around about his employee and was also directly involved in what happened to said employee more than once in regards to consequences. He's the most powerful man at an institution not only where this happened, but where it was sometime funding and enabling such acts to occur.

Well I'm sorry, but I just don't hold him as responsible for not chasing this guy down and the vast majority of you guys. Some people just don't want to be involved in sick s*** like that.

 

Does he deserve to lose his job. Probably so.

 

Do I find it necessary to condemn him personally? No.

 

I have far greater ire towards the police that turned a blind eye. I find it far more disturbing that the organization entrusted by the public and charged with preventing these sort of people from walking around amongst us did nothing than Paterno's inaction. But apparently that is not as big of a story and there are not going to be any threads created to discuss that issue.

[Jordan4life_2007]

That's exactly what we want. Period.

 

Cool. Then we agree. If that's all. But to me, and I'm not saying this is the case with you in particular, there's some that seem to want a lot more than him simply losing his job.

[StrangeSox]

I agree with you on most of these points.

 

But Paterno seems to want to present his case quite a bit. I wouldn't be shocked if he made other efforts to deal with this that we are simply unaware of at this early stage in the findings.

 

What other efforts could he have made where the following scenario makes sense:

 

A current subordinate and former player of Paterno's comes to him with allegations that Paterno's long-time friend, who happens to spend an inordinate amount of time with young boys, was molesting or raping a young boy in the PSU locker room. Paterno rightfully alerts his AD.

 

 

These are known facts to this point. Now, let's speculate:

 

Paterno hands the matter off to his AD, trusting him to follow through. Paterno, deeply troubled by these accusations, follows up relentlessly. He is assured repeatedly that the matter is being investigated. Eventually, he is told that it does not appear that Sandusky did molest this young man, but this young man was never found and just to be safe we're going to bar him from bringing boys around campus any more.

 

Paterno can rest easy knowing that his friend didn't really molest those boys, but now he has someone on his staff who accused his life-long friend and colleague of child molestation. How can you keep him around and working for you for almost a decade more? How can you not discuss this manner further with your AD and your GA and get this resolved?

[iamshack]

Or his personal PR team keeps letting him make statements that will portray him in a better light somehow. He's already captured at least one person on here because he said he "wished he had done more" aka, I knew about it and didnt do anything at the time. He's been interviewed on this before and I am positive that even more negative pieces of information will come out about his knowledge of the situation if this goes to trial.

So what's the harm in me waiting on those negative pieces of information to come to light, rather than simply assuming that they will?

[Balta1701]

Well I'm sorry, but I just don't hold him as responsible for not chasing this guy down and the vast majority of you guys. Some people just don't want to be involved in sick s*** like that.

But he continued allowing that person access to his facilities and presumably continued staying in contact with him. Unless he completely shut the door with him and never spoke to him again after the allegations, he was directly involved in sick s*** like that.

[Milkman delivers]

Cool. Then we agree. If that's all. But to me, and I'm not saying this is the case with you in particular, there's some that seem to want a lot more than him simply losing his job.

 

Not really anybody in this thread, though. That is, unless more evidence comes out that he knowingly swept it under the rug. Then, I'd want more done.