The Debate: Is the Reporting on Penn State Responsible?
This isn't the first piece of media criticism we've ever written at SportyMcbloggin.com, but it is probably the only serious one. Since we're in the blogosphere, and thus not credible journalists, we feel the need to clarify: we have no horse in this race. We are not now, nor have we ever been: students, graduates, employees, or supporters of Penn State or a major rival. We couldn't care less about the institution. That said, we are interested in the events surrounding Penn State and the subsequent ramifications across college football and all of America.
Text Message from W.H.:
Friday November 11
Monday November 14
(Editors Note: Not that it is relevant to the Paterno discussion, but the Bob Costas interview was amazing. He grilled Sandusky, holding him to the fire with direct questions about the events. That is journalism and at least there are still a few Bob Costas's around to show the rest of the sports world, and criminal prosecutors, how to not softball an alleged criminal.)
So, what are your thoughts on this Penn St thing? Doesn't it seems like a witch hunt directed by the media to destroy Paterno?
Friday November 11
Email from B.K:
I'm not sure where to start here but to answer you're original question about whether or not this is a witch hunt against Paterno, no, absolutely not. This guy deserves what he’s getting. Here’s what gets me. He was told about the incident in the shower from a former grad student (who’s now still coaching? That ridiculousness is for another day) and simply told his superiors. Ok, actually, all that I understand, I might have done the very same thing, but then to not follow up on all this is downright negligent.
Furthermore, after all this Paterno still allows him to be around the team with more little boys?! Are you F’n kidding me?! You can’t expect me to believe that the winningest coach, and a hall of famer, is stupid which leads me to the other opinion that he was in on the cover up. He chose to protect a football program rather than 9-11 yr. old kids. That’s downright disturbing. His precious Penn State Football team should be the least of the worries of anyone in this matter. Now, I’m not saying that him and the president got together and decided to cover all this up. He knew of the allegations and investigations and chose to turn a blind eye to it. What was he so afraid of here?
Doing the right things says all you need for the character of an individual, he even admits that he should have done more. Protect Penn State? HA! Protect your kids on the team? HA! He knew all this was going on and chose to ignore it. He knew better then and he knows better now.
Joe Paterno was the most powerful man at Penn State even in 2002. He could have gone to authorities and followed up. You think the police there are going to listen to Joe Pa? You bet they would. Hell he could’ve gone public. I bet the president would’ve been fired before Joe Pa. He wouldn’t have been hurting himself, he’s the man in Pennsylvania. He’s wouldn’t have hurt his precious program, they have NOTHING to do with all of this. He chose to go along with the program by letting this slide to protect Penn State when he really was hurting it. Now the integrity of the University itself is in major question.
The real tragedy here is the kids. To live there and try and fight Penn State? It couldn’t be done. They needed someone powerful on their side and that man should have been Paterno. Is this a witch hunt? Nah. He was the power in Pennsylvania. He got all the glory when things were well and he should shoulder the blame here too.
All that being said, he’s not the only one at fault here, he’s just the big name on the docket, so to say. He’s the one guy that people would have listened to if he would have came forward with this information.
Sorry this was kind of rant. I’m really kind of pissed about all this and I’m not really sure why other than fact that one of the guys that could have done more, didn’t. This was kind of rambling as well. I’m interested to hear what you have to say.
- B.K.
Friday November 11
Email from W.H.
And a good day to you sir.
I'll begin with an aside. I've become recently aware to the fact that "winningest" may not be a word. I can't find it in a hardbound Webster's Dictionary, it is in the online version. But I bet I'd be hard pressed to find it in the Oxford. I'll check when I get home. Regardless of whether it is currently a word, it wasn't at one time. This is a word which has been created by the sports media as an excuse to bypass "most winning" for some bizarre, probably lazy reason. It was at one point grammatically incorrect and poor form. That may seem like a ridiculous introduction, but it works completely to my point.
I think the entire idea of "sports journalism" is a false ideal. It does not exist. Sports is based around opinions. You can argue about games, about which players were best, hell the games themselves are decided by human interpretations. Perhaps I shouldn't expect sports writers to be able to shift from the arbitrary world inside the lines to the world outside the games where we generally support arguments, especially legal ones, with facts. You, and a lot of commentators, may be correct in asserting that Paterno was an omniscient and omnipresent force at Penn State and throughout greater Pennsylvania. Maybe he was too smart to just be a figurehead at this point in his career. But show me one fact that proves that. Furthermore, show me one accurate description of what he was actually told by McQuerry about the wrongdoing. Even if there are facts that come out later to prove he is the Godfather of the "Penn State Boosters' Child Touchers Club, Crime Syndicate and Bi-Annual Bake Sale", there still are no facts at the present time to justify any of the articles/commentaries implicating him in such behavior.
In the majority of articles discussing this controversy, there's more blind accusation and implication toward Paterno than established facts. ESPN put up a decent timeline of events. Yet, starting on Tuesday, the coverage has been credentialed media writing opinion pieces, pretending Paterno was the ringleader, and calling for his head. I'd like to compare this to Richard Jewell and Duke Lacrosse, but it more closely resembles the French Revolution. Read the eighth paragraph in this piece by Ian O'Conner. It implies that Paterno had an accurate description of the events from McQuerry, yet that's not what it is actually written. The article claims McQuerry later told the grand jury an accurate description of the offending incident, but there is no definitive claim by O'Conner that the grad student told Paterno the exact details. Here's Jemele Hill's article about why Penn State needed to fire Paterno. It has 27 sentences, only 2 discuss facts of the case. They are the exact same facts that are present in Howard Bryant's piece. Essentially, McQuerry told Paterno, Paterno told Curly. Both Hill and Bryant's articles defend the author's right to "judge Paterno outside the constricts of the law", because unlike Sandusky (the alleged perpetrator of the crimes) Paterno isn't accused of a crime. Therefore he's not protected by that nasty "guilty until proven innocent" business.
Look, I don't mind that they fired Paterno. But it's inexcusable for the media and especially the Penn State administration to make him the scapegoat. If the alleged acts were perpetrated by Sandusky and Sandusky only, then he's your villain. Just because a bunch of sports writers claim that Joe Paterno was autonomous and could control everything at the University doesn't make it so. The reality is that until today's front page (roughly 72 hours into this story?) ESPN wasn't even discussing the culprit. Few are discussing why the witness of the alleged assault, McQuerry, is still a Penn State staff member.
Anyway, I completely agree with you, in the fact that, the victims are the real tragedy. They have become a completely lost entity in this entire situation. First the administration, whomever it was, swept the events in 1998 and 2002 under the rug. Now the sports journalists have turned all their attention to tearing down Joe Paterno. There's a piece by Dan Wetzel on Yahoo that says it's time to move on and clean up at Penn State. Really? The day after all the revelations come to head? I guess that's the true definition of a 48 hour story. "Well, we got him, now go clean up and pretend nothing happened." I feel that Rick Reilly, a columnist, is the only one who actually gets this from a journalistic integrity standpoint, as his article is the only one discussing the long term effects the victims will feel.
Again, I'm not saying they shouldn't dangle Sandusky over the Erie river with a crane wire wrapped to his dick, provided he's found guilty. I believe the penalties for child molesters and abusers are far too light in this country. Jail doesn't do him justice. However, there is only one fact in this that has linked to Paterno so far: he was told some information by McQuerry, then Joe informed his supervisors. Here's the kicker, the coach perpetrating the alleged assault was not on Paterno's staff and hadn't been for 4 years. Go try and find an article that explains that clearly. The allusions made have been done so to specifically direct the reader into thinking Sandusky was a part of Paterno's staff at the time the incident was reported by McQuerry.
OK, I may have ventured off your point a bit there. But I'm open to a redirect if you'd care to make a response.
-W.H.
Friday November 11
Email from B.K.
I see you're point. Winningest will now be taken out of my dictionary.
I think we're both right here to some extent. For now, Paterno was told something, none of which has become public and he told his superiors. Let's just say for arguments sake that he followed up on this and his superiors told him they checked it out and that they told him everything's ok and that it was all a misunderstanding/total lie/whatever. He knew there were investigations, he never once thought having this guy around might be bad for the program or worse, bad for Penn State? He had to testify in front of a Grand Jury for Christ's sake. That's not a red flag to him or anyone else at Penn State? He wasn't on Paterno's staff but he was around the team WITH YOUNG BOYS. Paterno maybe didn't know exactly what happened or what Sandusky was doing but c'mon.
Maybe declaring Paterno the Don of all things Penn State is bad, but if the president of the University comes out and says "A" is good and Paterno disagrees, who are most people going to listen too? Did we even know who was the president of Penn State was before all this? You're right he's the scapegoat because he's the name everyone knows, especially sports writers. But the same power that his brought all this down on him could have been used years ago to right this wrong. At the very least Paterno should have told his superiors that this guys is no good, he can't be around my team. He could have done all that. Maybe they threatened his job. He could've gone public with it then. He admitted himself that he wished he would have done more. Sounds like someone trying to save face when knows good and well that he really screwed up here.
I'm not basing a whole lot of my argument on facts or legal arguments. If he comes out and says exactly what happened and how everything panned out this way then maybe it will sway my quick judgement but until then I'm entitled to an opinion based on good morals and not legal obligations. If Paterno didn't know he could do anything with just merely his name sake then he's stupid and I refuse to believe that he can hold a prestigious job like that, win 2 national championships, be elected to the hall of fame and have a friggen award named after him based on coaching on AND off the field is stupid.
We should argue something more fun like the financial crisis.
- B.K.
Friday November 11
Email from W.H.
I think we'll be able to parlay this argument into the depths of the financial crisis once we get a list of those Penn State trustees.
I understand that most of the public outcry and media criticism is based on emotion. I understand that most of your debate is focused more on morals than legality. Thus it's irrelevant for me to use the "Liquor Store Defense" as I call it. Basically, if you robbed a liquor store, and I saw you rob a liquor store, and I told Joe Paterno that you robbed a liquor store, he still has little value as a witness to the proper authorities. Hearsay is only admittable under certain circumstances in court. We'd have to get one of our lawyer friends to comment on whether or not JoePa could verify you robbed that liquor store based on my assertions. To take this a step further, many are editorializing an assumption that the police would have gone after a Penn State employee if Paterno said it was fine. For all we know, the first rule of Penn State is you don't talk about Penn State. They cops may have just been instructed to take Paterno's pigskins if he stepped out of line.
But there again I go delving into the legal side of this. If this really is merely an emotional argument than I guess what I cannot understand is why a football coach would ever have as much power as is claimed by the sporting media. If we are to assume that Joe Paterno was the defacto governor of Pennsylvania, the question is not "why didn't he act?" The question is truly, "how as a society did we allow that to happen?" Are we to believe that he had more power than his superiors, more power than the police? This is a public American university. This is an institution of higher learning. There is a president, a board of trustees, college deans, a faculty who's goal is to shape the young minds of America, and an alumni base which prominently features the best and brightest of our nation and the world. We act as if college football is bigger than the institution itself. If that were true, than the people who granted him that much power would be just as culpable.
In that scenario everyone at the sports networks, who lionized him and all of college football, would be just as much of an accessory as Paterno because they canonized a false idol, because they paid millions to college conferences for television rights, because they never did a damn bit of investigating during a 1998 case involving Sandusky opened by the Centre County District Attorney.
If that scenario were true than the donors and alumni that support our fine public and private institutions of learning would be guilty of developing, harboring, and contributing to potential molesters under the guise of college athletics.
If that is true than every fan of the game of college football, including you and I, would be an accomplice for our celebration of the game.
If that is true than every good upstanding American company who ever spent a dime on advertising during college football, is culpable for funding those institutions which could not regulate themselves from egregious acts.
If we are to hold all of those people and companies accountable than we are questioning the very documents which give us the freedom we hold so dearly. We are questioning the intentions of our very founding fathers fathers. We are questioning the higher education we provide in this nation, which is sought by generations of youth world-wide. We are saying that the entire system is broken, that America's ideals are for nothing, that the country has failed those children.
Well I, for one, am an American. And I believe that the system is and has always been the greatest in the world. I believe in our businesses and multinationals. I believe in our institutions of higher learning. I believe in our founding fathers. I believe in you and I, and the sovereign greatness of every other American.
Except for Jerry Sandusky. That guy's an asshole.
- W.H.
Monday November 14
Email from B.K.
I'm not arguing that Paterno should or should not be so popular. Our culture did that. Maybe sports fans like me are partly to blame for that. Ok. No one reported to me that an 11 yr old was being molested in the shower. I didn't then in turn only fulfill my legal obligations and not what should have been morally followed up on. I'm not saying Paterno did anything legally wrong. It's morals that were broken here. Very little sports teams fire people only when they are proven guilty of something. They fire them under speculation a lot of times because they stand for something more. Charles Barkley may not have wanted to be a role model but that comes with the job. I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this one.
- B.K.
Monday November 14
Email from W.H.
Man, I was really hoping you'd come back with something as ridiculously over the top as I went. I was trying to lead your argument into the assertion that America has failed, that we've created defacto Lords of manors just like the corrupt English system our founders were trying to escape. Probably not the way to go with this, as the actual details of these events are some of the most disgusting things to ever come out of sports.
I guess that's been my biggest issue with the coverage. The reason I felt it was a Paterno witch hunt was that no one was talking about the actual victims and the consequences of these horrific acts. I'll always feel that Paterno was scapegoated, whether right or wrong, because the administration had wanted to get rid of him from the start. The headlines railed against Paterno and not the institution. If the president of the board of trustees let him go in a press conference with the words, "Joey, you did a heck of a job" it would have tied it all ironically together. And like I've said previously, I don't care that they fired him. That had to happen. Dragging him through the mud whilst the perpetrator and the corrupt university types get off scot-free in the fish wraps? That is one of my major objections.
Today Charles A Pierce did a great piece on Grantland about this mess. It was about how the prayer for the victims heals nothing. It is about how all the "moving on" talk is pointless. It's about how our institutional thought that promotes this type of insular protection is BS. It's the best opinion piece out on the entire scandal and it came a week after the major fallout. It came with a week to reflect. And that is what I think is missing from the majority of sports journalism.
- W.H.
(Editors Note: Not that it is relevant to the Paterno discussion, but the Bob Costas interview was amazing. He grilled Sandusky, holding him to the fire with direct questions about the events. That is journalism and at least there are still a few Bob Costas's around to show the rest of the sports world, and criminal prosecutors, how to not softball an alleged criminal.)
staff@sportymcbloggin.com
Comments