Thursday, November 17, 2011

Why Joe Paterno should sue for libel and journalists should lose their jobs.



For Paterno it all started with the big lie.

The media repeated the lie over and over again and still are either knowing full well they didn't have any evidence to back it up but did it for their own self-serving reasons or are simply too stupid to know there is no evidence to back it up.

The lie, as everyone knows, is that Joe Paterno knew a 10 year old boy was raped by Jerry Sandsusky in the showers at Penn State and didn't report it to the proper authorities.

That lie was repeated over and over again by a torch carrying mob of ignorant journalists until the trustees finally fired Paterno under pressure by the mob in the press who continue to this day, to repeat the lie as if it were fact. And no doubt feel smug about it,

But the more information that comes out, the more we see just how ignorant and malicious the press was while at the same time, the press ignores the information that exposes them for what they have been.

No one in the news media knows exactly what Paterno was told and knew except that Paterno himself and McQueary both stated that Paterno was told a watered down sanitized non specific non detailed version of what happened in that shower. But everyone in the news media collectively ignored that since "not knowing" doesn't make a good story, and doesn't, as Karl Ravech at ESPN said, "advance the story". There was even something as preposterous as Jay Bilas, an ESPN basketball analyst saying, " a 60 year old man was in a shower with a ten year old boy. That's all you have to know". Really? Grandfathers and fathers who have had children late in life, beware if Jay Bilas comes to your town.

The witch hunting has gotten so out of control that Franco Harris, one of the few to stand up and defend Paterno was himself fired as a spokesman for the Meadows race track and casino, specifically because of his defense of Paterno. This what happens with fascists when someone dares to speak out about something in opposition to the party line.

But another fact has emerged which makes the journalistic mob look even worse than before, a fact that has been conveniently glossed over by the news media for the obvious self-serving reasons.

In response to news reports of McQueary's claim that he did go to the police, the local police chief pointed out that while they have no record of McQuery filing a report with them, McQueary wouldn't have gone to them in the first place for the simple reason that, as the police chief pointed out in his statement, the local police have no jurisdiction over a crime that occurs on the Penn State campus. That,as the police chief pointed out, is the sole jurisdiction of the Penn State Campus Police.

The significance of this is crucial because if the only police agency with jurisdiction over what McQueary witnessed was the Penn State Campus police then Paterno did in fact do everything the moralizers said he didn't do. Gary Shultz was one of the Penn State administrators Paterno went to with whatever McQueary told him. Gary Shultz was the supervisor and overseer of the Penn State Campus Police.When it comes to reporting anything to the Penn State Campus Police, you couldn't get any higher than Shultz.He was, in effect, the chief of Penn State campus police.

Based on this fact and this reality, Paterno did exactly what all the self serving moralizers said he should have done and in fact, there was NO police agency other than the Penn State campus police who had jurisdiction and no other police agency Paterno should have gone to.

This is what happens when ignorant people convinced of all their own self-righteous beliefs but ignorant of facts band together in a mindless mob and go on a rampage.This is what the news media were and continue to be regarding Joe Paterno.

Members of the media like Sean Gregory of Time Magazine and Andy Staples of Sports Illustrated and any number of commentators at ESPN, the Daily News, and other media outlets, all wrote or commented that Paterno knew a 10 year old boy was raped in the showers and only reported it to Curley and Shultz and so shirked his responsibilities when we now know that reporting it to the campus police was fulfilling ALL of Paterno's legal and moral responsibilities. Maybe these ignorant journalists don't think the Penn State campus police are real police. Maybe they'd like to say that to the faces of the Penn State campus police who were in full riot gear the night of the protests, and had tear gas and firearms at their disposal if needed. Penn State has 80,000 students stretched over campuses state wide with the biggest population at the Happy Valley campus. It is a small city. The Penn State campus police are as real and have as much authority as any police anywhere in any jurisdiction. So now the lie that Paterno didnt do enough by only going to the head of campus police can be put to rest.

But as everyone knows, the biggest lie that Sean Gregory and others tell is that Paterno knew a 10 year old boy was being raped in spite of the fact that Paterno himself said he was never told that by McQueary.

Based on all the known facts, Joe Paterno could sue for libel for that reporting. And he should. The case is so open and shut it would never get to court. The media outlets Paterno could sue wouldn't let it. Instead there would be out of court settlements for millions with the stipulation that Paterno never talk about it. Why? Because the news media wants to preserve their -uh - reputations.

Of course there are those in the media, and small minority outside the media that believe that Paterno just had to know the specifics of what on. They have no proof but they say it anyway. So what did McQueary actually tell Paterno? We don't know.And neither does one single journalist anywhere. But here is something we do know.

Just a few days ago, the Citadel, a military college in South Carolina revealed they had something of a child abuse scandal of their own. In reporting the story a CNN reporter wrote:

"In 2007, the college received an allegation that five years earlier, ReVille invited two campers at The Citadel Summer Camp into his room to watch pornography. They did not touch each other, but engaged in sexual activity."

Kind of missing in specifics isn't it. The reporter doesn't say what sexual activity or how they engaged in sexual activity without touching each other. Was it an out of body experience? Acrobatics? Mind over matter?

Most people are smart enough to figure out for themselves that what this journalist so awkwardly and cryptically is trying to say is, in all probability they engaged in some kind of group masturbation. The reporter could have said so in so many words. He could have been specific. They didn't.

So an experienced reporter writing for CNN could not make a simple declarative statement about the specifics of a sexual event that took place, even with time to reflect and to get the words right and even with the help from an alleged editor,and  over an event with which they had no personal involvement. Yet we are supposed to believe McQuery gave 84 year old football coach Joe Paterno specifics when an experienced reporter with all the time in the world to reflect, couldn't.The irony is, that even if McQueary did tell Paterno all the specifics ( something Paterno and McQueary deny) Paterno did everything he could have and should have done in reporting it. There is no other police agency Paterno could have or should have gone other than the head of Penn State campus police, Gary Shultz. And he and McQueary did. What Shultz did or did not do at that point is none of Paterno's responsibility. Period.

It is not in Joe Paterno's DNA to sue. He has always avoided the limelight and personal publicity and he doesn't need the money. But there are many reasons of principle Paterno should sue certain journalists and media outlets for libel and defamation, not the least of which is that its a law suit Paterno could not lose and would mete out well deserved justice to the news media. After all isn't justice what the news  media has been clamoring about?

The legal definition of libel, which in many cases is hard to prove especially in cases involving celebrities or public figures, fits what happened to Paterno like a glove.

Two important elements must be proved. One, that the person making the libelous statements knew the statements were not true ,and two, that the person making the libelous statements knew they would injure and harm the person they were making the statements about. Two elements that in Paterno's case could be proved so easily the media outlets being sued would settle almost immediately. And as part of the settlement Paterno could demand a public apology.

One target would be Sean Gregory and Time Magazine. Gregory in print and in so many words stated that "Paterno knew a 10 year old boy was raped in the showers at Penn State and didn't report it to the authorities". No number of lawyers at Time could defend the double fabrication by Sean Gregory.

Similar statements about Paterno knowing about a boy being sexually molested were made by Andy Staples at Sports Illustrated, numerous commentators at ESPN including Stuart Scott, Jay Bilas, and others. All statements made at a time when they nor anyone else had one shred of proof that Paterno knew what they say he knew. And if true justice were to prevail, Gregory,his editor and many other so called journalists would lose their jobs for their fabricated, dishonest, and factually challenged reporting.

It is a virtual certainty media outlets like ESPN, Time Magazine and others whose journalists who defamed and libeled Paterno would settle out of court rather than risk having a jury speak and probably award many millions more than what they could settle for. And Paterno, once they agreed to settle, could donate all the money to worthy children's charities. The purpose of the libel suits would be principle and a principle worth suing over, but the money Paterno would get would also do a lot of good for a lot of charities and help a lot of children and in the end that would be justice too since it was in defense of children that the media justified its smearing and libeling of Joe Paterno.

In all probability Paterno wont sue. Certainly if Paterno was actually guilty of what those in the mob said he was guilty of, Paterno's firing and everything that happened subsequently would be appropriate. But Paterno from the first day said otherwise, said he didn't know the details or ANY, specifics of what McQuery saw and reported what McQueary told him, as he was supposed to, legally and morally to his superior, the AD and in effect, the chief of Penn State campus police, the police agency with sole jurisdiction.

Paterno should sue for libel. Not only to defend his name but to mete out justice and punishment to those who trample the civil rights of others so effortlessly for their own self aggrandizement because they think they can and get away with it and in the process do tremendous damage, as all mobs do, solely because of their stupidity and ignorance.

Paterno won't sue. But he should.

UPDATE: We can now add a writer named Jemele Hill to the list of the sanctimonious and factually challenged and dishonest sportswriters, who, if  standards of fact meant anything in journalism would lose her job as well.  Writing for ESPN on Nov. 22, Hill wrote a peice about all the negative email she has received because of the story she wrote attacking Paterno. Hill wrote in her Nov 22 peice, " I anticipated that since the story is centered on his (Paterno's) knowledge of and reaction to the alleged sexual abuse of children".

Notice how she treats Paterno's "knowledge of sexual abuse of children" as fact when we know that Hill hasnt got a shred of evidence to back that up. But even more bizarre is that Hill calls the actual sexual abuse "alleged".  In her mind Paterno's knowledge of the abuse is fact but the abuse itself is only "alleged". This is either ESPN's legal guidelines  telling her to use the word "alleged" to protect them from being sued by Sandusky if he ever got an acquital, or Hill's own twisted point of view.  But in attacking Paterno the sexual abuse is "alleged" but Paterno's knowledge of the abuse is fact.

Also somehow in Hill's journalistic fantasy world. the boy that McQueary witnessed with Sandusky in the shower has now become many and many instances.. In Jemele Hill's world Paterno not only knew of child sexual abuse with Sandusky at Penn State( that maybe didnt really happen) and did nothing about it,  but Paterno's known about  other cases of sexual abuse with other children and did nothing about  that either.
Without a single fact or a shred of evidence to back it up. Or even the suggestion of any evidence.

99 comments:

Anonymous said...

Thank you.

Frank R said...

FINALLY. Someone gets it. Thank you. Hope everyone spreads this like wild fire. Well done.

Anonymous said...

"No one in the news media knows exactly what Paterno was told "

Wow.....

This was a god damn fucking retarded article. Paterno said what he was told to the grand jury. Anyone can read it. There is no gray area.

Paterno should die in prison for not calling the cops the day he talked to McQueary.

Cori R. said...

^Paterno should die huh? That is a very rational, just and non-emotional solution to the situation.

I also glad you are spending your time to criticize Paterno while Sandusky walks the streets free on $100,000 bail. Surly you could put your energy towards following Sandusky and making sure he isn't raping more children but I am glad you are not wasting your time because it is obviously still Paterno's responsibility to stop any future rape.

Get a grip on the facts of situation and stop letting your emotions be congealed by the media whos primary goal is to make money by developing an interesting story. Don't be such a weak person, take control of your emotions and do some research.

Anonymous said...

Do you actually believe the BS you are spewing. You think Paterno didn't know. You are stupider than you look.

TheRock said...

I am a huge Hillary supporter and fan. So much so that I voted for McCain. In support of what marc is saying, check out her comments on the Penn State issue.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2063274/Penn-State-scandal-Hillary-Clinton-sympathises-students-rioted-Joe-Paterno.html

Measured, directed and positioned such that those that are actually GUILTY of what is a pretty heinous crime get their due. There has been a marked decline in news reports about JoPa in recent days. Maybe rational newspeople are starting to focus on the real story - Sandusky.

Hillary 2012

Anonymous said...

This article is correct in one regard; we don't know what he knew. To all the laypersons who didn't take the time to google "grand jury presentment" and learn what it actually is...It is a summary, written by someone (the prosecutor) trying to charge someone else with a crime. It is not a transcript, and it is often edited to fit their (the prosecutor's) intended message. They may have intentionally left out data like "joe then followed up with the VP/Police Director and AD multiple times over several months, and was told that an investigation was underway," because they weren't charging Joe, so why include any more info on him?

When you're angry, take a deep breath and make sure you're not going off half cocked, my friends.

Anonymous said...

As a fellow supporter of Joe, I thank you for this. Great statement!

Anonymous said...

Thank you for making an informative post for the mindless idiots who just believe what the media says is true without reading the report for themselves and taking the time to understand what it actually means. Instead of repeating myself ad nauseam, I will now just link to your blog.

Get well soon Joe Pa. We Are!

Anonymous said...

To the Hot Headed "Anonymous"...

I am so amused by your comment. I'm sure you are one the many feeling as if Joe had a 'moral obligation' for not reporting this blah, blah, blah.... how does one question or hold someone else morally accountable and then turn around and use words like "GD", "fucking", and "retarded"... and even go as far as feeling as if you are of higher power able to decide if one is actually even worthy of their own life and where they should die? Before you go shooting your ignorant and unintelligent mouth off about/to people of whom are obviously of a higher eductional level than you [which we got from one of the best educational institutions... PSU]; you may want to think twice about it. Your response, vocabulary, and opinion are truly offensive and of low ethical and moral standards. However, it is ironic that the 4 disgusting words in which you used to describe this article... are 4 words that could be used to describe you and your comment. Shame on you! Ignorance is lack of Knowledge; Lack of Knowledge is lack of Education; and Lack of Education is just plain stupidity and obviously one who has not graduated from Penn State or any other reputable forms of higher eduction. Do yourself a favor... sit there, be quiet, and just look pretty!!

To the Anonymous that said 'you are stupider than you look'... 1. I'm thinking you're the same smarty pants that I've already addressed above; 2. 'Stupider' isn't even a word!!!

So.... YOU'RE EVEN MORE STUPID THAN YOU LOOK!!!!

You may want to go back and get your GED!!!

Anonymous said...

I'm not disagreeing with your thoughts, but like the media, you dont have all of your facts straight. Pennsylvania state police have jurisdiction.

Anonymous said...

Your polemic is very logical and precise. Well done.

Anonymous said...

"I'm not disagreeing with your thoughts, but like the media, you dont have all of your facts straight. Pennsylvania state police have jurisdiction."

That is not his point. The point is that the campus police is fully accredited to handle these types of matters, thus making them the "authorities". They are the first emergency response to this type of scenario. So to those who say, "JoPa" did not contact the police, that is 100% false. He did. He did one better:He called the Chief of Police and they refused to handle the issue. That is why they are being indicted. The issue now is that folks must accept this truth, and that means that all this time ESPN has misrepresented the facts in this case.

Anonymous said...

Not to rain on your pity party, but you are wrong on critical facts as well.

1. Shultz is NOT the Chief of police. He has no legal policing authority whatsoever. None. He is NOT the police. He is simply an administrative manager, much like the mayor is to the chief of police in most cities. Going to the mayor/Shultz with information about a child rape is NOT like going to the actual chief of police. Neither are the police. It is not simply semantics, it is legal fact.

2. Penn State police DO have jurisdiction over child rapes committed on PSU grounds.

3. McQ NEVER said he told JoePa "a watered down version" of what happened in the showers. According to an email McQ sent to friends, as reported by many media outlets, he DID tell JoePa the details of what happened, not a watered down version of "horsing around."

If you would get your facts straight maybe PSU fans wont look like such buffoons.

Anonymous said...

Put another way, point #1 above, reporting a crime to a city mayor/Shutlz is NOT reporting a crime to the police. FACT.

Whether JoePa knew the distinction is beside the point. In any case, he should know that.

Debulator said...

Thank-you. We here in Central Pa., can see so clearly what the the "moral elite" has done to our JoePa. It sickens us. Thank-you for being one of only a handful of TRUE journalists in the nation anymore. The self righteousness that has oozed to the surface in all of this is as revolting as the child abuse itself. This article will be shared. Thank-you for having the courage to standing up for the REAL truth in all of this.

Anonymous said...

For those of you saying that PSP has jurisdiction over the Penn State campus, technically you are right. However, if any of you actually worked in law enforcement in PA, you would know that, if there is any kind of police department, be it campus police or municipal police in that area, PSP won't handle it (99% of the time) unless it is in progress when they get the call. They cover too wide of an area to handle EVERY call they get. PSU campus police are fully accredited and trained police officers, who can handle investigations.

While reporting what he was told to Shultz may not have been the best idea, what he did wasn't totally wrong. Shultz could haveand should have passed on the information to the campus police chief.

Pam Kenndy-Bjalme said...

I am a Jo Pa fan, but did he do enough? We will never know...or will we know down the road? I do know that the State Police do have jurisdiction and McCreary could have gone to them, if he felt that nothing was going to be done to Sandusky or was McCreary told to be quite by the top officials....questions, questions, questions. Should have Jo have gone to the State Police with McCreary when he saw that nothing was going to be done to correct this situation? This is what is on the minds of the public. The fact is, that know one, followed through like they should have. McCreary, Jo, Shultz, Spanier, Curly, knew Sandusky was still free, and the facts are, that they slapped his hand, and said no more! Who know's how many boys since 2002 that Sandusky made contact with? Morally speaking, if this was my child that was molested, I would be angry as a parent to find out that top officials and coaches new about this and just slapped Sandusky on the hands, and enabled a child molester to roam the streets. The sad part of it all, Sandusky is still out on the streets due to our judicial system which states, "You are Innocent Until Proven Guilty". The same should be for Jo and everyone else involved. What bothers me about all this is that who is on trial here, Sandusky or Jo? The media turned this town into a old Western Movie, "Hang Um High". The Board of Trustees as far as I'm concerned are just as guilty!!!! You can't tell me that they had no clue about this back in 1998 and 2002. They knew, maybe not all the Board Members, but the majority, and if they didn't, they are not doing their jobs correctly. This whole Sandusky mess, and the media should be focusing all their attention on this so called Monster of a man, Sandusky, not Jo!

Anonymous said...

I Have been saying this from the start. I can't believe some of the stuff that comes out of these journalists mouths. Its like one says it so it must be true and they all report it as fact. The comments are beyond liable. The students of Penn State should do something to because as innocent bystanders they are being ridiculed and talked down on as well. One talking head, a female professor from Brown University while on HLN was even referring to Penn State and its Student body as Perv-State and Pedophile State! As an alumni I feel that they have wrongfully tarnished the name of any graduate trying to start a career while carrying a Penn State Diploma.

Anonymous said...

I'm well aware psp likely won't handle it if local or university pd. I was'nt arguing that joe was wrong simply because psp has jurisdiction. Just making a point that if you are going to bash the media for not having facts straight (which I agee they don't and are causing problems) you need to have your own facts straight.

Anonymous said...

Question. Why did the AG of the State Of Pennsylvania Sit on this information after the Grand Jury's investigation was complete until after the General Election ? do you think that he knew that he would not have been elected Governor?

Anonymous said...

If you ask me, Coach Paterno was SANDUSKIED by the Governor of the State of Pennsylvania and the Penn State board of Trusties.

Anonymous said...

Wow. Wow wow wow wow wow.

You want to pimp Hillary, that's your right and your blog is still an interesting read.

But what on earth has possessed you to suddenly go on a crusade to defend Paterno?

If he knew, he's evil. If he didn't know, it's because he didn't want to. One of his assistants is buttfucking ten year olds in the gym shower and Paterno doesn't know?

Why are you wasting your time on this crusade? I don't get it. I've been reading your blog since the 2008 campaign and you were always spot-on about Obama, even if deluded about Hillary.

But defending Paterno? Give it a rest. Either he knew or he didn't want to know.

Robyn said...

"McQuery" - Seriously? You’re ragging on journalists and you can’t even correctly spell the name of one of THE KEY FIGURES IN THIS CASE??

This rant was ridiculous in so many ways -- and that's coming from a proud Penn State alum who loves JoePa and hated to see his storied career end this way.

Anonymous said...

As someone who was abused as child and other adults suspected, but did nothing to stop it, I take great offense to this article. Adults have a moral AND legal obligation to protect innocent children by reporting suspected abuse.

Paterno (who's name actually means "fatherly") was more focused on the "business" of football than the lives of those innocent child that he turned a blind eye to. How can the man even sleep at night. Shameful at best. Guilty? Without a doubt.

Mike Lee said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Mike L said...

1)Suggesting that telling Shultz was equivalent to telling the Police is a seriously flawed notion. He is not the police; he is an administrator overseeing the police. This was collusion among powerful men with a lot to lose. You haven't gone to the police unless you filed a report.

2)The notion that a 10 year old showering with a middle aged man who is not his father or grandfather is the same as showering with your father or grandfather is a preposterous suspension of journalistic integrity. Paterno knew enough to know this guy needed to be kept away from boys and didn't intervene the way a leader of his stature ought to.

Marc Rubin said...

"This was a god damn fucking retarded article. Paterno said what he was told to the grand jury. Anyone can read it. There is no gray area."

Obviously youre reading comprehension couldnt get you through college. Why dont you quote from the grand jury exactly what Paterno says he was told? The only thing that has died is your brain.

Marc Rubin said...

"You think Paterno didn't know. You are stupider than you look."

you are the poster child for all the sanctimonious know nothings out there. This isnt about what you think. Its about what you know.Which is absolutely nothing. You dont assume someone is guilty of something based on what you think. Especially when it comes to someone like you who clearly cant think. So stop trying.

Marc Rubin said...

"This article is correct in one regard; we don't know what he knew. To all the laypersons who didn't take the time to google "grand jury presentment" and learn what it actually is...It is a summary..."

Funny how the people who are howling the most about Paterno do not get this simple fact which, unfortunately needs to be pointed out. People like Mr. Wow and his enlightened use of the word "retarded.". The best defense for Paterno it turns out is the intelligence and moral rectitude of the people attacking him.

Marc Rubin said...

Thank you for making an informative post for the mindless idiots who just believe what the media says is true"

you can include the media itself in the collection of mindless idiots.

Marc Rubin said...

"I'm not disagreeing with your thoughts, but like the media, you dont have all of your facts straight. Pennsylvania state police have jurisdiction."

Youre wrong. The first jurisdiction is the Penn State campus police. If they want to call in the state police for assistance after the fact or to assist in an investigation, of if the attorney general wants to do it that is their call after the fact. You didnt see any state police on campus when the students demonstrated did you?

Marc Rubin said...

"1. Shultz is NOT the Chief of police. He has no legal policing authority whatsoever."

Why is it that all the people attacking Paterno share the same characteristic? Reading comprehension that would embarrass a Chinese kindergarten student. I wasnt making the point that Shultz WAS the chief of police but like it, the overseer of the campus police, the person who is in ultimate charge of the campus police and the highest authority anyone can go to with a police matter on campus. Feel better?

Marc Rubin said...

"Seriously? You’re ragging on journalists and you can’t even correctly spell the name of one of THE KEY FIGURES IN THIS CASE?? "

Thanks for helping me focus on whats really important. And dont forget that the dessert fork goes on the right.

Marc Rubin said...

"As someone who was abused as child and other adults suspected, but did nothing to stop it, I take great offense to this article. Adults have a moral AND legal obligation to protect innocent children by reporting suspected abuse."

Interesting to me that you want to focus on Paterno and have nothing to say about the boy's own mother who, after Ray Gricar declined to prosecute in 1998 did absolutely nothing about it for 13 years when she could have gotten her own lawyer or gone to the news media.

If anyone didnt do enough, how about starting with the boy' own mother and not a football coach who had no first hand knowledge of what happened.

Mike L said...

Marc: Paterno simply did not go to the police - to have a discussion between two high ranking Penn State officials about the possible illegal activity of a third official is collusion, not reporting a crime. He didn't file a report, period.

Mike L said...

Your assumptions about what the mother did or didn't do is completely self serving. You have already suggested that Joe Paterno - one of the most powerful men on campus - already "reported" it to "the highest ranking" authority and got no results - so now it's the mothers fault that she can't get a prosecution started? Huh?

Marc Rubin said...

"Suggesting that telling Shultz was equivalent to telling the Police is a seriously flawed notion. He is not the police; he is an administrator overseeing the police. This was collusion among powerful men with a lot to lose"

Taking McQueary (happy Robyn?) and his allegation to the administrator who oversees the police is not enough for you? It has to look like an episode of Law and Order SVU for it to be valid? Are you forgetting it was McQueary who was the eyewitness and not Paterno? As far as collussion this is just a fantasy you have, a musing, with no facts to back it up. If it were true it would be one thing, but without any facts its a silly assumption, if anything because anyone smart enough to collude would be smart enough to know there was more to lose covering it up and no one owned Sandusky anything.

Mike L said...

@Marc: you are right - I don't know that it was collusion - anymore than you know it wasn't. The point it is that he didn't file a report, and short of that it was a discussion among colleagues - and no, that doesn't satisfy me one bit.

Marc Rubin said...

"The notion that a 10 year old showering with a middle aged man who is not his father or grandfather is the same as showering with your father or grandfather is a preposterous suspension of journalistic integrity."

Unfortunately you join the ranks of those who suffer from a lack of reading comprehension. I was pointing out that Jay Bailes statement was absurd when he said," a 60 year old man showering with a 10 year old boy, thats all you have to know." And my point, sticking up for the rational among us, is, obviously that isnt all you have to know. Its a knee jerk statement without any rational thought behind it and the results of knee jerk statements with no rational thought habe been apparent in the media almost two weeks. Jay Bailes is a journalist who had no first hand knowledge of anything, no idea what Paterno was told and no facts on which to base his opinions and my point was that someone like Bailes would go running to the cops first and find out later it was the kids grandfather. It's what people do when they think they dont need to have facts to formulate an opinion.

Mike L said...

@Marc: your point is an irrelevant semantic idea about Bailes' remark having left out the phrase "who is not his father or grandfather" from the quip you found so offensive. I will submit to you that if indeed, Paterno knew that he was showering with a child, that is indeed enough to go to the police and file a report.

Marc Rubin said...

"Your assumptions about what the mother did or didn't do is completely self serving"

Self serving? I thought this was about moral responsibility and who was responsible and who wasnt. Paterno was supposed to "follow up" and is being held morally responsible for not doing it but the mother who didnt follow up gets a pass? Its just easier to attack someone in Paterno's position because it makes the attackers feel better and more self-rightous about themselves than pointing out the failings of the boy's mother.

Mike L said...

Now you're attacking the mother, and you have this fantasy that she did nothing - again nothing you can prove. So fine, throw the mother under the bus, this article isn't about her or even the pedophile, it's about a supposed injustice towards Paterno - and we point out the shortcomings in your argument, you attack the mother? You can do better than that.

Marc Rubin said...

"..your point is an irrelevant semantic idea about Bailes' remark having left out the phrase "who is not his father or grandfather" from the quip you found so offensive.."

I didnt find it offensive I found it stupid and symptomatic of the level of thought given to all of this by the news media as well as Bailes' indefensible justification for why it's not neccessary to know facts. If there was any statement that defined how and why it all quickly turned into a media circus it was that one. And to this day, amazingly no one knows what McQueary told Paterno which is at the heart of everything. For everyone but Bailes.

Marc Rubin said...

"Now you're attacking the mother, and you have this fantasy that she did nothing - again nothing you can prove."

Thank you for making my point about the sanctimonious too afraid to hold the mother accountable. Also thank you making me laugh out loud by saying. "nothing you can prove..." when it comes to the mother as if you or anyone who thinks like you do needed, wanted or asked for any proof before attacking Paterno. Hypocrisy knows no bounds.

As for my proof regarding the mother,my proof comes from the fact that the mother herself who has spoken out extensively in the last two weeks to many major media outlets gives no account and makes no statements regarding doing anything or going to see anyone after Ray Gricar declined to prosecute in 1998. And the futher proof is if she had actually done so anytime during the last 13 years we wouldnt be talking about this now.

Mike L said...

@Marc - That's great - you're laughing out loud at your own hypocrisy. We can't advocate for the firing of a football coach who failed to report possible inappropriate behavior without substantiated first hand knowledge, but you can admonish the mother with a lower standard?

Mike L said...

But let's not get off topic, unless you think the mother's alleged inaction justifies Paterno's? Let me state for the record that I don't believe the mother is fit to be coach of the team, either!

Anonymous said...

If we are to assume the premise of this article, that Paterno did not know the actual facts when he went to Schultz, then what are you assuming went down during that first home visit from McCreary?

M: (visibly distraught) Joe, I saw Sandusky doing a really bad thing to a young boy.

P: (hands over ears) I don't want to know any of the details. You should go up the proper chain of command with this. I'll send you to Shultz.

Seriously, that is the only way this could have gone down in your version. Paterno states in Grand Jury report that McCreary was visibly distraught. Why didn't he want to know more details then? Does a true leader not want to know why someone is so upset that he requests a home meeting on the weekend? Is it because he already knew about Sandusky due to the 1998 investigation? Kinda a coinky dink that he had him retire early in 1999, no?

Sorry, but his initial statement about being "shocked and surprised" by the Saturday arrests is a total lie considering he testified 10 months prior to this, not to mention the 1998 investigation!

He knew in 1999 just as he knew in 2002. The only way he could be telling the truth about not knowing it was an actual rape is if he basically told McCreary to stop talking until he passed it up to Schultz. That seems plausible to me from an 84 yr old man who doesn't want to hear anything "gay". (And no, I don't believe pedophilia has anything to do with being gay, just looking at it from his old man perspective)

But putting his hands to his hears and saying "stop, I don't want to hear any more details even though you are visibly distraught" is just as morally vacant as leaving it with Schultz and not following up on it.

I went to PSU in the 80s, at Main Campus, and the worship attitude towards Paterno was sickening then. He should have retired years ago, or especially prior to this season, when he saw what was going down with the Grand Jury. But that danged record was more important, I guess.

I agree that Sandusky should be the main story but cover-ups have a way of making things worse, which is why Paterno's front and center of the scandal now.

Anonymous said...

The chief of campus police was Tom Harmon. he moved from state college about 2 months ago. Coincidence? I think the media was egregious in their attacks on Paterno. The details will confirm it when they come out.

Anonymous said...

"Youre wrong. The first jurisdiction is the Penn State campus police. If they want to call in the state police for assistance after the fact or to assist in an investigation, of if the attorney general wants to do it that is their call after the fact. You didnt see any state police on campus when the students demonstrated did you?"

I wasnt saying psp first over psu. Just that the writer said no one else had jurisdiction and that is false.and yes state police were at the riot. A lot of them from all over the state including friends and my husband. So I'm very well aware of how it works. Try reading usa today or several other places, psp was there most of the week. I'm done arguing since everyone is just proving people speak before they know facts.

Anonymous said...

JOEPA's name should never have come off the staggering trophy.. he earned that. Well a lot of people don't care what really happen as long as Joe was going down. Psu wouldn't bee what it is if it wasn't for Joe..

Anonymous said...

Do journalists advance stories for their self-serving purpose absolutely? Did JoePa fulfill his legal responsibility? You bet. So what's the problem? Laws aren't always moral and morality is always protected by the law. While Paterno was not required to do more than he did, the Penn State police was not the final authority when it comes to child abuse, even if suspected. Maybe the local authorities didn't have authority, but state agencies do. Unfortunately in the state of PA, colleges are required to report suspected child abuse, just K-12. But Paterno had the power and moral responsibility to push this higher had he decided to do it.

Jill said...

You took the words right out of my mouth. I keep telling people this exaxt thing but they just ignore it or don;t get it!!!!!!!! So frustrating!!!!!!!!!!

Anonymous said...

What would be anyone's motive for wanting to take down Paterno, absent this controversy? He is supposedly beloved.

He is gone because the buck stops with the guy in charge and that was him. I too do not understand why you are defending Paterno. He either knew or should have known because there was opportunity to know. I agree with those who are suggesting that a blind eye is routine when it comes to sexual misbehavior by athletes and those surrounding them (largely former athletes who came up in the same culture). I have no doubt you defended Kobe too.

The ugliness of your responses to those critical of your views troubles me. Why are you so abusive toward people commenting on your blog?

Would you like to be defending Sandusky but don't quite have the nerve? You defend the concept of a 60 year old man in the shower with a 10 year old. I don't see any reason for a boy's father or grandfather to be in there with him, but that doesn't bother you.

You don't seem to understand that guys who abuse kids justify their behavior to themselves in ways similar to those you use here. It is troubling that you do not express the disgust most people feel about the crime central to this case and instead have focused on Paterno as the victim.

I don't have the stomach to read a blog by someone without the natural moral conscience that keeps people from fondling children, even if you did support Hillary in 2008.

Marc Rubin said...

"..He is gone because the buck stops with the guy in charge and that was him.."

I'm sorry to burst your bubble or your thinking but he is NOT and was not "the guy in charge". This seems to be part of the fantasy people seem to have about Paterno because of his stature and accomplishment.

He is a football coach.Period. He is in charge of the football team. That is all he is in charge of. The AD is in charge of the athletic facilities at Penn State, Shultz was in charge of the Penn State campus police, the boy's mother was in charge of the boy, Paterno was in charge of reporting what McQueary told him. Those are all the people involved and what they were in charge of. Except of course for Sandusky.

Anonymous said...

A couple of facts:

1. Schultz was the VP of the PSU police. Even so, an official report was never filed.
2. University Park and State College are actually separate towns with different zip codes. Each have separate police forces w/ the same authoritative powers within their jurisdictions.
3. McQueary is the only individual that could have alerted the authorities due to him being the direct witness. Joe Paterno doing so constitutes hearsay and would be dismissible in court.

Anonymous said...

You must have missed the part, pre-firing, where Paterno himself said "I should have done more".

tyadbojo@aol.com said...

Seven years ago Joe Pa was asked by the board to stop coaching it was said he was out of touch can not keep up so forth and so on... Now 2011 he is a god he ran the entire school . The only thing this man knew was football. You cant have it both ways.Lets not forget HLN news and its rants. There is not one jounalist out there anymore that does not give their own spin on a story. Unbiased reporting is a thing of the past. And off with their heads type of attitude has prevailed.

Anonymous said...

It is amazing to me how willfully ignorant American citizens can be when it comes to the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and the rule of law.

In cases involving the most heinous of charges, due process and the rule of law must prevail.

The public lynching of Joe and everyone else at Penn State is predicated on one key assumption - a guilty verdict for Sandusky’s on 40 counts of sexual battery and assault of children.

There is one simple problem - the state has not presented their case, there has been no rigorous defense by the defendant, a jury has rendered no verdict and a judge has issued no sentence.

A free press is supposed to be the last line of defense against tyranny. They have been the champions of the lynch mob. The free press is dead in America.

As Americans, guilty until proven innocent is supposed to be NON-NEGOTIABLE! The lynch mob will destroy the republic if you let it.

Don't turn around and find that we are living in 1984.

From A US Marine; PSU '96.

Anonymous said...

The Second Mile gave $620,000 to Corbetts election Fund !!! Just how deep does this BS go .. the Attorney who helped Sandusky with his early retirement is also on the Board of Trusties at PSU and is on the Board of Directors of the Second Mile.
Again.. JoePA was Sanduskied BIG TIME.

Anonymous said...

Ok great, he went to the police. Most people didn't doubt that he did what he was required to do to keep his job. But after NO ACTION was taken against Sandusky, he never worried about it again? Just let it go, b/c someone else was going to handle it?! I call BS. I do NOT blame JoePa for what happened. I am DISAPPOINTED that such a powerful, otherwise seemingly moral man let this continue thereby tarnishing his own life, legend, and reputation.

Tomkat said...

"Ok great, he went to the police. Most people didn't doubt that he did what he was required to do to keep his job. But after NO ACTION was taken against Sandusky, he never worried about it again? Just let it go, b/c someone else was going to handle it?! I call BS. I do NOT blame JoePa for what happened. I am DISAPPOINTED that such a powerful, otherwise seemingly moral man let this continue thereby tarnishing his own life, legend, and reputation."

For you to assert that "Joe Paterno should have done more after NO ACTION was taken" means that you were expecting him to PRESUME Sandusky was GUILTY. Remember, back in 2002 there was NO PROOF of that! Only suspicion.
It would have been IRRESPONSIBLE of him to "act further" based on POSSIBLY FALSE allegations! Doesn't anyone realize this?
FALSE ACCUSATION is a crime, too!

Anonymous said...

Unfortunately, the first amendment would bar any suit.

Marc Rubin said...

"I went to PSU in the 80s, at Main Campus, and the worship attitude towards Paterno was sickening then.."

think that maybe some people might draw the conclusion that you have an agenda? Or maybe have been predisposed in your thinking? If this was a court and you were a potential juror you would be excused.

Marc Rubin said...

"You must have missed the part, pre-firing, where Paterno himself said "I should have done more"."

you must have missed the part where you got it wrong. You also must have missed the part where you didnt actually hear what Paterno said but are relying on what you read or heard which means you really shouldnt use quotation marks unless you are sure you are quoting correctly.

You are the poster child for people who simply want to swallow whole or believe everything you hear and read. Maybe you wont in the future.

Your quotes aside Paterno never said " I should have done more".

What he said was, " In hindsight (i.e. if I knew then what I know now) I WISH I had done more".

A very different quote without the spin the media chose to give it by taking that quote and translating it into Paterno said he should have done more to fit the news media's narrative.

As for Paterno's actual quote, tell me, who wouldnt wish they had done more when presented with facts now they didnt have at the time? That is hardly the admission you and the media want to pretend it is.

Maybe you missed all that.

Marc Rubin said...

I do NOT blame JoePa for what happened. I am DISAPPOINTED that such a powerful, otherwise seemingly moral man let this continue..."

Let me remind you and others for the upteenth time, Paterno said unequivocally that he did NOT have ANY of the specifics or details that McQueary gave to the grand jury. You either believe him or you dont.

Given that fact, the boy's mother had an awful lot more information than the Penn State head football coach who had no details or specifics. The mother said, if you want to believe her, that Sandusky "admitted to my face" that he molested her son. She also said she had things her son had told her and witnessed a change in his behavior. That is a lot more information that Paterno had and the mother STILL did nothing for 13 years after Ray Gricar declined to prosecute. She didnt go to child protective services, she didnt go to the State police, she didnt get her own lawyer, and she didnt go to the news media with what would have been a huge story. She did nothing with all the information she had. To expect Paterno to do more than the boys own mother when he didnt have a fraction of the information she had is lunatic.

If you want to be disappointed start with the boy's own mother.

Anonymous said...

"You must have missed the part, pre-firing, where Paterno himself said "I should have done more"."

Nope, didn't miss it because he never said it. The quote was "With the benefit of hindsight, I wish I would have done more.", but don't let facts get in the way of your witch hunt.

So by your logic if a Boston TSA agent said "With the benefit of hindsight, I wish I would have done more to stop 9/11", that somehow makes him or her responsible for what occurred on 9/11?

I am not saying Paterno is innocent in all of this, but the "facts" people are throwing out there are nuts! I will make my decision when the real facts come out and if he is gulty I hope he burns. If not every media outlet that slandered the man should burn.

Marc Rubin said...

"Unfortunately, the first amendment would bar any suit..."

The first amendment does not protect libel or defamation. Which is why there are libel and defamnation suits.

The prerequites for proving libel is in the article and it can easily be applied in a few cases related to Paterno one specifically against Sean Gregory at Time Magazine who wrote in Time Magazine, "Joe Paterno knew a 10 year old boy had been raped in the shower at Penn State and didnt report it to authorities".

Time-Warner would have to write a big fat check for that one.

Jay said...

In a shower with a 10 year old boy. Really...you okay with that?

Jeeze!

Anonymous said...

Public opinion has already decided that JoePa failed adequately to report child rape. In particular, some victims of child rape agree with this conclusion. They may be, as you say, completely wrong (let us hope so). However, when you defend JoePa, you revictimize those victims of child rape who, rightly or wrongly, believe JoePa to be at fault. JoePa would be the first person to say that if it's a choice between loss of his reputation and further emotional suffering by victims, loss of his reputation is a small price to pay.

So please stop defending JoePa. It's what JoePa would do. That's the kind of guy he is.

Marc Rubin said...

"However, when you defend JoePa, you revictimize those victims of child rape who, rightly or wrongly, believe JoePa to be at fault. "

Rightly or wrongly? seriously? If a victim of rape is wrong about who is to be held accountable they will have to accept that they were wrong and that innocent people are not to be wrongly victimized just to make them feel better.

Anonymous said...

Joe did not say "I SHOULD, have done more"...he said he wished he COULD have done more....The meaning is quite different.

Anonymous said...

Marc Rubin,

JoePa would say that making child rape victims "feel better" is more important than his reputation.

That's what JoePa would say and that's plenty good enough for me.

pyewacket60 said...

Most readers of the news, be it in print or online, might expect editorials to be confined to the editorial page. Most of what has been said about the current Penn State situation is PURE editorializing...opinion, not fact. This kind of reporting has become commonplace in the 24/7 news cycle. Get something out there, the more sensational the better...it's the Fox News way...'we report, you decide'. What many people don't realize is that they are basing their 'decisions' on are conjectures and rumor, not facts.

Anonymous said...

I agree that Joe Paterno would never put his interests ahead of those of child rape victims. Certainly, there may be "innocent" people, even you or I, who would say "If clearing my name makes a child shed a few more tears, that's just too bad". But I like to think that Joe Paterno is made of finer stuff.

Before anyone starts talking about libel suits, they should ask themselves "What would Joe Paterno do?"

Anonymous said...

At what point in the Grand Jury report does it indicate that Joe Paterno went to Schultz? According to the summary of his testimony, he went to Curley. It also states that he was not present at the meeting between Curley, Schultz and McQueary. If the fact is that Paterno spoke directly to Schultz, where is that information? According to Schultz's testimony, Paterno was present, but he is charged with perjury, so how credible is that?

Anonymous said...

I am amazed at the amount of BS I happened to read in this article. Paterno couldn't have gone to any other police department? Really?? If it was your son who was assaulted and someone had even the vaguest of details and didn't follow up on them, would you still feel the same way? And to make the comparison of a father or grandfather showering with his son or grandson to that of a grown man unrelated to a 10-year old and showering with him, alone, shows your complete grasp of the gravity of this situation. This article makes you appear callous and ignorant as well as dismissive of the fact that children were assaulted. But, hey, Paterno WAS a good coach, right? *sigh*

Anonymous said...

Libel makes Baby JoePa cry.

Anonymous said...

My daughter is a sexual predator. I knew it since she was a teenager. I reported it to District Attorneys, detectives, Children and Youth, caseworkers at the mental health unit were she received services. None of them did anything for years while she continued to victimize others and I kept reporting it. She molested 3 children that I know of, two of them being my own sons.

I couldn't force them to stop her and put her in jail. She is not in jail to this day. She is finally on the sexual offender's list. The ignorant people that speak with authority on what Joe "should" have done has obviously never been in that situation. You can't "make" them arrest a predator. All you can do is report it and pray that some one who has the authority to stop it does so.

Anonymous said...

Where do the Penn State University Police have police powers?
University Police have police powers in their primary jurisdiction, which is defined as any grounds (property owned, controlled, leased, or managed by Penn State University) or within 500 yards of the grounds. University Police are also entered into mutual aid agreements with all surrounding police jurisdictions and may respond to police calls when requested to do so.

http://www.police.psu.edu/statestatutes/

Marc Rubin said...

"JoePa would say that making child rape victims "feel better" is more important than his reputation.

That's what JoePa would say and that's plenty good enough for me."

Im glad its good enough for you. Unfortunately it is a fantasy you have about what he would say and you've managed to take that and turn it into a fact. You should be a journalist.

And I dont think Paterno would approve of making anyone feel better by lying about someone else and dragging their reputation through the mud unjustly just to keep them from realizing they were wrong about what they believed was true.

I sincerely hope for everyone's sake you never get picked to serve on a jury. Your heart might be in the right place but your head isnt.

Marc Rubin said...

" Paterno couldn't have gone to any other police department? Really?"

You are so dense its amazing your body can carry your head around without collapsing. First no one ever said "he couldnt" so try getting your reading comprehension up a little higher. Secondly, you miss the point that the campus police is THE authority that had jurisdiction over crime or allegation of a crime committed on the campus of Penn State. Not State College police, not the FBI, not some fantasy you have of who he should have gone to, but the Penn State police. They are the police agency of jurisdiction. Get it now? Or maybe you think he should have gone through the Yellow Pages under "crime reporting".

Marc Rubin said...

"And to make the comparison of a father or grandfather showering with his son or grandson to that of a grown man unrelated to a 10-year old and showering with him, "

You might want to try elevating your reading comprehension on this one too. I never made that comparison. Not once. I simply pointed out that an ESPN commentator named Jay Bailes who had no facts whatsoever about anything that happened was condemning Paterno by saying that you didnt need to know more than that a 60 year old man was in the shower with a ten year old boy, a statement to me so absurd as a general statement of principle that it needed to be pointed out that in some circumstances yes it you do need to know more before filing a police report. This is not to mitigate anything Sandusky did. This is to point out that this is mob thinking and when you are told that a 26 year friend and colleague who you have worked with every day for 26 years and who has never given any indication of what he was eventually charged with without any of the details McQueary even remotely related to the grand jury I think Paterno actually rose to the occassion by not calling Sandusky to get his side of it, and going right to the authorities. I doubt that 99% of those criticizing Paterno in the same situation wouldnt have called the 26 year friend and colleague first. Paterno didnt. And Im going to have more to say on that point.

In the meantime there are those still criticizing Paterno without a single fact to back up their point of view, only, as we have seen, imagingings, fantasies, and assumptions and taking as fact, pure fiction generated by the news media who don;t have the facts either. Which is why,after it was too late and the damage done, ESPN did a segement called " Was Firing Joe Paterno a Mistake"?

Marc Rubin said...

"Public opinion has already decided that JoePa failed adequately to report child rape..So please stop defending JoePa"


Hopefully you too will never get to serve on a jury or in any official capacity where you have any authority over others. And in case you couldnt tell, Im not defending Joe Paterno, Im defending the concepts of truth and justice something you are clearly not familiar with and worse do not even seem to matter to you.

Marc Rubin said...

"Public opinion has already decided that JoePa failed adequately to report child rape.."

By the way, you are wrong about this too. Public opinion didnt decide that. The media decided that. There is a vast difference between what the media decides is true and what they say, and what people out in the world actually think. Well many people anyway.It's people who swallow whole what the media writes or says without knowing if any of it is true that makes it a problem

Marc Rubin said...

"..Paterno couldn't have gone to any other police department? Really??."

Obviously you didnt get the memo from the Attorney General who, after reviewing the evidence stated that Paterno fullfilled all his legal obligations meaning he reported ALL that he had to report, held nothing back,covered nothing up, and reported it to the proper authorities. Maybe you should write to the Attorney General pointing out where she is wrong.

And to this day neither you nor anyone else knows exactly what Paterno was told, now do you.

And as for moral obligations

Anonymous said...

You are sad. Another article by the Penn State Mafia.

Anonymous said...

I don't know whether or not the media did it, but public opinion has not only condemned Sandusky and Paterno but the entire Penn State community as well. If you doubt this, ask yourself "Can you imagine any adult male, outside of State College, who would attend his 10 year-old son's soccer match wearing a Penn State sweat shirt?" Perhaps a few fanatical (and masochistic) alumni would do so but that is all. At the very least, the other parents would shun him. The best thing for Penn State students and alumni is to get that toxic reference to Penn State off their resumes. I suspect that when things get bad enough, Penn State will be merged with one of the other quasi-public schools in PA, probably Pitt. Penn State will become just another Pitt satellite campus.

Anonymous said...

You, as well as the journalistic mob, should do your homework before screaming your idiot opinions all over the internet. You should research the laws protecting children before moralizing over the moralizers. But you're busy so I'll tell you anyway: Paterno was legally bound to report what he was told "immediately", but he didn't. And even if Curley and Schultz weren't available, the law says he was perfectly free to make a report on his own. Immediately. Gary Schultz was a financial guy, and never a sworn police officer who would be authorized to conduct investigations. Furthermore, a simple call to Childline would have ensured the report got to the proper police agency. But because failed this particular responsibility, he became a liability, and like most companies, PSU got rid of their liabilities.

Anonymous said...

"It would have been IRRESPONSIBLE of him to "act further" based on POSSIBLY FALSE allegations! Doesn't anyone realize this?
FALSE ACCUSATION is a crime, too!"

The Child Protective Services Law of PA makes a mandated reporter, which is what Paterno was, immune from all lawsuits, for reporting even suspected SUSPECTED child abuse. And to suspect child abuse, you don't need ponderous details. That's the investigators' job.

After you've all read the law and then read Paterno's testimony, I defy anyone to define "next day" as "immediately", especially when it's children's safety on the line. And this is all from the standpoint of cold hard law and recorded testimony, not school loyalty to PSU (Admin. Justice, '97) or what the media told me to think.

Anonymous said...

This is great! Loved your column! I goggled "Paterno sues media" and up your column came.
I left a comment at a news article yesterday saying that Paterno sues, and creates scholarship for Penn Sports Journalism students. He really should sue and give the money to charity! The media did more than destroy this man's reputation. They stirred up every mental patient off their meds in the whole U.S.! It was dangerous and irresponsible of the media! What was that about yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre? And no disrespect to mental patients. I have family members similarly afflicted.
spinf

Deb in central PA said...

Well done is right!! I'm glad someone finally has the guts to put this in print!! I've been saying these exact things all along. How could Joe Paterno live all his 80-something years as honorably, religiously, and dignified as he has, and just let this abuse go on without speaking up? Because he wasn't told the details. Sandusky is the devil, not JoePa. Paterno should've never been fired before this has even gone through the legal process to convict those who are guilty. Thank you Tom In Paine!!

Anonymous said...

"Obviously you didnt get the memo from the Attorney General who, after reviewing the evidence stated that Paterno fullfilled all his legal obligations meaning he reported ALL that he had to report, held nothing back,covered nothing up, and reported it to the proper authorities. Maybe you should write to the Attorney General pointing out where she is wrong."

True, but he wasn't fired for breaking the law. I believe it is PSU's policy that faculty must report to the police AND administration. If grand jury summary report is true, he only reported to Curley so he did not complete his duties as a penn state employee. He also never talked Shultz according the report, so you can't use that as police. And I'm sure you will say we don't know that and I agree completely. BUT it works both ways, you can't defend saying he did what he should because like the media condeming, you don't know. Unless you were there of course, then I apologize.

Cathy H said...

I have been reading this conversation for quite a while tonight. Marc, you are right. You are saying all the things I too would like to say. However, I would like to add something.

Actions speak louder than words.

First, I want to commend Lou Holtz and Franco Harris. I saw both of their statements televised. I'm sorry the Meadows and Pittsburgh Promise feel the way they do. One place and one charity will never get my support. What happened to free speech?!

AS you have pointed out Joe did what he was required and I believe what he felt was morally correct. Don't forget his other actions. He put many kids through school. He was not just all about football, he required his athletes to attend classes and keep up a GPA. He inspired the campus because of his beliefs in education. He contributed for the new library as well as huge donations for the school. He contributed more that he was paid and certainly more than can be quatified. (I wonder if the people critical of him and claim even 1/4 of what he has done.)

For those that condemn PSU in general, get real. Focus on the issue. Look at the other facts that rank PSU number one in various studies, others in the top percentages. Name ONE other student run philanthropic fundraising that raised 9.6 million dollars ($9,600,000) for charity in 2010 alone. Is there another non-student organization that claims the same continuous success? Not many if any. THON is a reflection of the morals, and the giving spirit of the Penn State community not an individual.

I haven't heard comments about the students also raising money for child victims. I don't have the last number but within the first week I believe it was 4.3 million.

I am not a PSU alum. I actually went to WVU, however I have been going up to Penn State for 35 years. For those of you who are not PSU alums you don't know how strong that school is. And Yes, Joe is a Leader NOT just for football, As a constant his actions influenced the morality, actions and ethics of many. (Not all - there are always black sheep)

If Paterno means father, I believe it's appropriate. He and Sue cared about student athletes as well as academic students and the communty.

For those of you who are alums and are now saying you are ashamed. Please, do take PSU off your resumes.

I am a proud WVU Mountaineer and a PROUD PSU advocate. I am proud to be the wife of a PSU Alum, the mother of an PSU undergrad and a PSU Masters Candidate, as well as a friend of many other PSU friends.

Focus on fixing what Sandusky may have done and those victims. Don't create more.

Anonymous said...

Thank you, Thank you, Thank you.
JOE BETTER SUE!

Anonymous said...

Don't forget to mention 'ALL" ESPN Commentators (except Matt Millen)but especially MARK MAY. His carrying on was Horrific. He should be taken of College Football Coverage for life.

tom sheepandgoats said...

Now that Joe has been fired, do you think media folk will pull down his statue, then up and stomp on it like the Iraquis did to Saddam Hussein?

Anonymous said...

Very accurate article.

Pretty ironic that some of the comments are just as myopic and knee-jerk as the ESPN reporters the article talks about.

Want to accuse Paterno? Have some proof or STFU.

Don Williams said...

It is just a shame that Joe Public is entrenched in their limited knowledge of the facts as they blithely peruse innuendo and hearsay. The factual truths are available to anyone who cares enough to investigate them. But, sadly, they will settle for media tidbits that pervert the truth and accept them as gospel. That is just one of the MANY injustices rampant in this saga which falsely, erroneously and unfairly mar the legacy of a great coach, man and philanthropist! God bless you, Joe Pa and your family