The day of Joe Paterno's death, many in the sports world who knew him speaking to the media said they thought he died of a broken heart. Lou Holtz said it. Bobby Bowden said it. Brent Musburger said it. Todd Blackledge said it. But none of that is true. Joe Paterno had more heart dying than all of his critics had living. So, aside from the ravages of cancer afflicting a man of 85, it had nothing to do with a broken heart. But a case can be made that a contributing factor were the injuries he sustained from the beating he took in a back alley from a gang of punks otherwise known as journalists.
The reason the journalistic punks attacked Paterno is for the same reason punks anywhere attack anyone. Because they felt he was vulnerable, that it was safe for them to attack, and the biggest reason and most importantly of all, because of what they knew he had and going after it was for their own benefit.
A gang of punks would never attack anyone if they thought there was a risk the person they are attacking would fight back and cause them real harm. And of course they never attack anyone unless they feel they have something of real value they can take.
That's why it was Paterno who was jumped on by the punks in media and not Steve Turchetta, the coach at the high school where Sandusky's shower victim was a student even though Turchetta, even after complaints by the boy's mother, continued to allow Sandusky to take the kid out of school over the mother's objections. Its why Karen Probst, the principal at the boy's school, and other school offcials, didn't have their picture on the front of page of the Philadelphia Daily News with the words "Shame" even though when told of Sandusky's abuse, according to the mother, tried to talk her out of going to the police.
Ray Gricar was also left alone. He was the DA who the mother went to with the same complaints about Sandusky as far back as 1998 and decided he didn't have enough to prosecute. And without ascribing any negligence at all to the Penn State police, it has never been adequately explained why, when the mother went to the police in 1998 and detectives set up a sting ,eavesdropping on a conversation between Sandusky and the boy's mother where Sandusky allegedly confessed, nothing further was done.
But the roving gangs of punks in the news media ignored all of them. Because none of them had anything worth taking. None had anything near what Paterno had. And what Paterno had that was worth taking was the whole point.
Everyone knew Joe Paterno was a rich man, rich in all of the values he taught and inspired, and all his contributions and accomplishments that made his life and those who came contact with him as rich in their own way. If you're a journalistic punk like Sean Gregory at Time magazine or Jason Whitlock at Foxsports.com and you want to make a name for yourself, you want attention, you want to elevate yourself, who are you going to go after? Steve Turchetta? Karen Probst? Time Curly or Gary Schultz? What did they have of value worth ?
So the roving gang of journalistic punks they left them alone. For the most part they even left Jerry Sandusky alone. And went after Paterno. Because that's where the money was.
The media's excuse, their cover story for their attacks was they were sticking up for children and standing up against child abuse. No one should be fooled by that. Or believe a word of it. They weren't. As has been pointed out before, none of them, including the Philadelphia Daily News ever took on the Catholic church or the present Pope, who, as a cardinal knew about countless instances of sexual abuse by priests and made not reporting it to the police official policy so he church could handle it in house. And it doesn't take Sherlock Holmes to know that the reason the church wasnt attacked is because those who say they care about child abuse felt it wasn't safe enough for them. There might be backlash, retribution, the church, even in a weakened state could hit back. There also might be financial damage in the form of boycotts in attacking the church.
So instead of going after all of the people who didn't report or act on Sandusky's abuse, they went after the one person who did Joe Paterno. And said it was because he didn't do enough ( it seems to escaped all these people that even if you wanted to believe that Paterno didn't do enough, it would only be because everyone else did nothing).
Okay, so how ludicrous really was the media's narrative and reporting?
The mantra of the media that Joe Paterno "didn't do enough" was the fiction used to justify their attacks for their own self-serving reasons. But this is how ludicrous their empty fiction was. ESPN reported:
"Tim Curley and Gary Schultz have been indicted for perjury and failing to report a crime after being informed of the allegations of Sandusky's child sexual abuse." Anyone notice what they left out?
ESPN conveniently omitted three crucial words, "by Joe Paterno".
Was it because pointing out that two Penn State officials were indicted for failing to report a crime of which they were informed of by Joe Paterno would make the media's attacks on Paterno look idiotic? How could Paterno not have done enough when a grand jury handed down two indictments based on what Paterno did do? If what Joe Paterno did was inadequate, if what he reported was inadequate, how could a grand jury indict these officials for a felony for failing to act on inadequate information?
That's a conundrum the news media would rather not deal with, so in reporting on Curley and Schultz's indictment, let's just forget that the root of their indictment is based onwhat Joe Paterno told them and what they failed to do with it.
Here is something else for the non-thinkers in the press to think about. If Curley and Schultz had acted on what Paterno told them, there would be no stories about Joe Paterno having "not done enough".
Instead the press kept their narrative going, even so far as to twist and distort Paterno's own words, saying that "even Joe Paterno said he hadn't done enough". Joe Paterno said no such thing, at any time anywhere. What he actually said was " with the benefit of hindsight I wish I had done more".
Saying "I wish I had done more" is what anyone would say who looks back on an event and wished they could have done something to prevent it or fix it. Its not an admission of guilt. Its an admission of humanity. We have heard it from parents going through the heartbreak of losing a child because of bullying wishing they had seen the warning signs and wishing they could have done more to prevent it.
One further thing to keep in mind about the fiction of how Joe Paterno "didn't do enough". After almost three months later there hasn't been one person anywhere who has actually said with any specificity and detail what they think Paterno should have done. They haven't because they don't know. And never did.
Now that Paterno is gone, and the damage was done, it seems that journalistic reflection and remorse is starting to set in.
Jim Litke, who has a byline as sports writer for the Associated Press wrote on the day of Paterno's death:
"On the other end( after speaking highly of Paterno's legacy) was John Surma, vice chairman for a Penn State board of trustees that couldn't muster enough courage or decency to fire Paterno in person."
Litke went on to write " Now all those people who rushed to judgement (italics mine) about Paterno's role in the Sandusky case will have to find their way out from under the sordid scandal without their longtime coach".
The problem with all this is that every word of it could have been written two months ago when it all happened and when it might have had an influence, when it might have done some good when it might have thrown some water on the fire the news media had set and continued to fan. Writing it now is saying it after the fact, after Paterno is gone, after the injustice and damage was done
Brent Musburger, in an ESPN interview on the day of Paterno's death, was now referring to what he characterized as "a slight lapse in judgement" on the part of Paterno. So what Musburger is saying is even if you wanted to believe Paterno should have done more, ( and there is no evidence that he or anyone else in his position should have or have been reasonably expected to), not doing more was now a " slight lapse in judgement".
So the revisionism, the corrections that newspapers always put on page 63 are starting to appear. Maybe they'll decide it's a matter of better late than never. Maybe.
But one can only wonder after Paterno's death, if Jim Litke and other members of the press who are now writing the truth, almost three months later, and seeing the attacks on Paterno for what they really were, aren't now thinking to themselves, "with the benefit of hindsight I wish I had done more".
Posts
39 comments:
Well said... and you were right on every count.
I can't help but to also see the "free pass" that was given to so many in the State agencies who knew what Sandusky had done in 1998, yet never followed up. The Pa Dept of Public Welfare knew, the Centre County Child Protection knew, the office of Prosecution knew, the Second Mile knew. Nobody ever followed up. Yet it is the employees of these very agencies that will scream the loudest that Joe did not do enough. His job was to report so that the likes of they could do something - the same thing they never followed up with in 1998 .
Thank you... so true.
Thank you. Excellent points, in both the original article and from "Anonymous."
Bravo!!! Finally, a journalist with integrity that cares to speak the TRUTH!!
I am part of the group "PSU Alumni for the Reorganization for the Board of Trustees." From day one, we have stated pretty much the same points as anonymous and Mr. Rubin. Joe was a scapegoat, plain and simple. The PSU board of trustees, cowards to a fault, used to Joe to deflect their incompetence and malfeasance regarding the handling of the whole Sandusky mess. Without giving specifics, they claimed Paterno, "based on the facts" could no longer lead PSu football effectively. Of course, PSU was 8-1 and at the top of the leaders division of the Big Ten, so Joe's "failure to lead" was obvious-NOT! But the board did everything they could to make Joe APPEAR to be guilty of something, even though he followed PS rules and regulations for reporting a crime by an employee to the letter. That was abundantly confirmed by PA AG Kelly, he was consistent in saying Paterno cooperated fully, agreed to testify against Sandusky as a prosecution witness, and was at NO time a subject criminal investigation for any wrongdoing. All FACTS conveniently ignored by the liars in the press, especially the jerks at ESPN. The board at PSU would have you believe that Tom Corbett, the AG at the time of the beginning of Sandusky's investigation into alleged felony child sexual abuse, never told PS officials about Sandusky when he became an ex-officio member of the board after he became Gov. Or that the board didn't know about Sandusky, even though 4 top officials of the institution over which they are responsible for oversight were testifying for days at a time in Harrisburg back in the spring of 2011, months before Sandusky's arrest, when the board was supposedly "shocked" over the "revelations" about Sandusky's. Yeah, pull the other one!
Very well written. Someone who understands what the "kool-aid" drinking Penn State alums have been saying all along. When a desire to make a name for yourself requires you to omit the facts or to cut them and paste them for tabloid readers, you know longer have journalism you have narcissism".
I disagree on one point. As the person who writes a blog on the Gricar disappearance, there has been criticism of the then DA's decision, even very early on in this.
Within 24 hours of the presentment, I had written of the 1998 decision that it might have "colossal lapse of judgment on Mr. Gricar’s part."
There were other blogs where his role were looked at in depth.
I should point out, however, that Mr. Paterno was unaware of the 1998 incident and Mr. Gricar was unaware of the 2002 incident. Further, the 1998 did not, and does not, include any suggestion of rape. The bulk of the charges are misdemeanor offenses in the 1998 incident.
Journalistic integrity. Sadly for most journos, such a construct is an oxymoron. Lots and lots of regrets already and still to be expressed; and yet, it all smacks of far too little, far too late. From the ivory towers of self-righteous journalists (who, nearly across the board, lacked any integrity in the way in which they approached this story) to the Board of Trustees whose judgment was informed by public emotional hyperbole instead of facts...the whole thing was an awful lot like circling vultures picking over a vulnerable carcass. It was and remains shameful in the extreme. And a great man, to whom none of us can ever express our regrets as would be appropriate, was left with his dignity in tatters. How profoundly sad. For Joe yes, but for all of us.
Your reporting on this has been outstanding since November:
Facts instead of "dude, like, you don't get, man" ranting like the Paterno-haters.
PS Alum
I don't know whether Paterno enabled Sandusky. Hell, I don't even know if Sandusky is guilty. What I do know is that if you simply type "child rape enabler" into the Google search engine without any reference to PSU or Paterno or Sandusky, just the words "child rape enabler", you get nothing but an endless list of links about Paterno. The court of public opinion has issued its verdict on Paterno, Sandusky et al. Was that verdict shaped by the media? Maybe. I don't know. I do know that defense of Paterno has quickly become as unacceptable as Holocaust denial. Is there someone out there who can make at least a superficially plausible case for Holocaust denial? I doubt it but even if there is someone, I just don't want to hear it. Is there some basis for the hairsplitting distinction between Paterno's legal and moral obligations? Maybe, but do I want to hear it? Hell no. I just want the Holocaust deniers and the Paterno defenders to go away.
Great analysis. Very cathartic for me as well. A minor point of contention though. Two, actually. First, I believe then Cardinal Ratzinger as the Prefect of The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, had no administrative oversight with regard to the clerical abuse of minors. Second, the contention that the media feared and backed off going after the Church is absolutely absurd. I am trying to be charitable here but really, it's just plain inaccurate to suggest the church got a pass from the media. To the contrary, despite that studies show that sexual abuse of minors occurs with the same and in some cases, more frequency in other Christian denominations, public s bool systems and other organizations, it is precisely because of the churches unpopular stances on social issues and her size and assets which have made her a prize target of a morally bankrupt media. I hope that just as an ardent defender of Joe Paterno and as a practicing Roman Catholic, I won't have to put in A disclaimer about my opposition to the sexual abuse of minors. I am quite fatigued by suggestions that I do not care about the victims. I like clean air, fresh water and safe streets too! Oh, and I don'tt like poverty. Does that give me the moral high ground?
This incident requires a defamation of character lawsuit to be filed. It needs this high-profile case so that the media thinks twice before it ever does this again. Facts - not conjecture. Facts not speculation or opinion. It is essential that the media gets sued for this.
Thanks for keeping up the fight.
As a point of correction, you mention that Curley and Shultz have been indicted for a felony of failing to report the crime. I'm embarrassed to say this, being a PA resident, but failure by a "required reporter" to report suspected child abuse is actually only a summary offense in PA (kind of like a speeding ticket). The felony offenses are for perjury related to their Grand Jury testimony.
You also question why Ray Gricar did not prosecute. I heard an interview with the DA from Montour Co., PA who said that he would not have prosecuted either. He said that he could tell from the GJ presentment that the mother who was part of the Sandusky sting had been coached by Gricar. She specifically asked Sandusky if he had any sexual feeling while showering/bear hugging her son. The DA explained that this is a key element in sexual assault cases in PA. Sandusky did not admit that he did.
One thing that I find strange is that Mike McQueary spoke to both his father, Dr. John McQueary and his father's friend, Dr. Jonathan Dranov, both medical doctors, immediately after the incident and before he spoke with Paterno. Being medical doctors, they are both "required reporters" according to PA law. It makes no sense that Curley and Shultz would be charged with failure to report, yet they are not. There is a legitimate question whether or not Curley and Shultz can be considered "required reporters" since they do not have interaction with children as normal part of their jobs.
I think you have your facts a little jumbled in paragraph 4.
"I think you have your facts a little jumbled in paragraph 4."
My facts in paragraph 4 are correct as reported, at least according to an interview given by the boy's mother. And as reported by the media outlet who did the story, calls to Turchetta, Probst and other officals at the boy's high school asking for comment on the mother's accusations were not returned.
"The court of public opinion has issued its verdict on Paterno,.. I just want the Holocaust deniers and the Paterno defenders to go away..."
Your ignorance is your own problem but If you think Googling somehow reflects public opinion youre not just ignorant youre dumb. Public opinion seems to be overwhelmingly on the side of Paterno and for good reason. And your comparisons to the Holocaust says more about you and just how desperate and low some truly stupid people will go to try and keep from looking as stupid as they really are.
"..the contention that the media feared and backed off going after the Church is absolutely absurd. I am trying to be charitable here but really, it's just plain inaccurate to suggest the church got a pass.."
I never said they got a pass. The Boston newspapers were relentless in exposing the child abuse in the Boston diocese a few years ago. My point was those who went after Paterno, including many in the mainstream media never went after the Vatican or the church heirarchy over proven incidents of church covers ups with anywher near the ferocity with which they went after Paterno like the Philadelphia Daily News and their "Shame" front page, even though Paterno did in fact report the abuse and church policy was not to report it but to protect the church not the victims of abuse. And anyone familiar with how the media works will tell you that yes, fear of backlash and financial consequences in many quarters will affect the reporting of the news.And so will going after the "name" that they think will boost sales, ratings and web hits.Which is why Paterno's name and likeness was displayed about 50times more than that of Jerry Sandusky. The Boston news media however was the exception in their intense coverage of child sexual abuse in the church, not the rule.
"The Boston news media however was the exception in their intense coverage of child sexual abuse in the church, not the rule."
I suppose that is fairer to say than what I had originally inferred you to say. However, I draw a direct parallel between the way the media went after Joe so viciously and how then almost daily demonstrate a comtempt for the Catholic Church. I live in DC and the Post is so unabashedly hostile to the Church that they don't even seem to hide it. That dovetails with your premise that it is precisely what they can take from Paterno. I would attribute it to a simple business approach. JoePa's name made the story compelling. The Church is attractive simply because it is so large, so universal and ubiqitous. The consumer of media is compelled to read, watch, etc... That sells advertising. Reporting that Jerry Sandusky is the real villain or that, oh, by the way, the public school system in the US has a problem with pedophiles, well, that doesn't gin up the business, does it?
What a powerfull article.As a penn state fan all my life it is a disgrace the way Paterno was treated by the media and his university. My hope is that the university and the so called board of trusties will look back at the actions they took. They used one of the greatest coachs in history as a scape goat to cover there inaction in this so called scandal.Shame on the University.Just look at the outpoaring of love and affection the fans had for this great man and his family during a week of tributes to honor his memory.My family and I made the trip to Joes' statue at the stadium this past weekend to pay our respect to the greatest coach and a truely caring man.Hundreds of people are still giving tribute to him daily.His loss and his contributions will not soon be forgotten.He can rest in peace knowing how much he meant to so many.
JoePa's legacy is a mixed bag. Clearly, to PSU alumni and even to college football fans in general, such as myself, his name evokes fond memories. Just as clearly, to parents on the sidelines at Under 12 soccer and in the waiting rooms of pediatricians, he is anathema. Great men always attract extremes of opinion, regardless of media bias.
Thank you, Tom!
Anonymous: John McQueary is not a physician. He's trained as a PA, but works primarily as a practice manager now, not a clinician.
So true...I just got done writing a letter to Pres. Erickson and on the last line I wrote..."you and the other members of the BOT can now say to yourselves with the benefit of hindsight", but sadly, it is too late.
"..Just as clearly, to parents on the sidelines at Under 12 soccer and in the waiting rooms of pediatricians, he is anathema..."
This is part of the problem isnt it. You really dont know if this is the case at all, youre just assuming, and jumping to conclusions without really knowing, which is the common thread among everyone who attacked Paterno, opinions I might add that are in a distinct minority outside the sleazy world of modern journalism.
While by no means scientific,and not a poll, I've gotten a lot of email from precisely those parents you mention and everyone of them without exception thanked me for what I had written and felt it was those in the media who attacked Paterno who was the anathema.
"I just want the Holocaust deniers and the Paterno defenders to go away."
The Paterno defenders will go away as soon as the self-righteous media thugs (and the ill-informed yet judgmental Paterno haters they've created) stop spewing the libelous vitriol that makes JoePa the centerpiece of the media's coverage of the Sandusky case.
Thank you, Thank You, THANK YOU! Anyone who knows anything about Joe Paterno and the way he lived his life has no doubt that the accusations of the media punks were pure hogwash if not outright lies.
And let's not forget the support those cowardly hoodlums received from supposedly reputable professionals who didn't do their jobs either -- a former state police detective and a former state attorney general -- both of whom reaped the benefits of keeping the Second Mile out of the news when accusations about Sandusky were first raised.
Then there are the ESPN thugs who hid evidence of criminal child abuse for EIGHT YEARS!! I can't find the words to describe people like that, who live so far down the sewer they can never see the light of day.
Perhaps that's why they couldn't see the truth about Joe Paterno. It was the bright light they couldn't see beyond...
I can understand that some journalists at ESPN or at newspapers in Pittsburgh or Philadelphia may have harbored some sort of grudge against JoePa over the years but the condemnation of JoePa for moral cowardice extends to newspapers, TV stations, etc in New York, London, Paris and on and on and on. Do you really think that some guy at the Manchester Guardian in the UK or at the Paris Match suddenly woke up one morning last November and said "At last I can have my vengeance on Joe Paterno!" All of these disinterested, professional journalists from around the world came to the same damn conclusion. You just don't like the conclusion. That's no reason to question their motives or character.
If oncologists in Pittsburgh, Philadelphia, New York, London and Paris all tell you that you have a malignant but operable tumor, are you really going to say "I don't have any tumor. Those sleazy bastards just want to make money from cutting me open."? Of course not and you know it. Why are you so quick to reject the opinion of professional journalists when you would never, NEVER do so to medical professionals?
By the way, the only basis any of us have for all of the positive acts (donations to PSU, etc) JoePa did were contemporaneous reports of such acts in the media. Were the media lying then? I don't think so.
"...the condemnation of JoePa for moral cowardice extends to newspapers, TV stations, etc in New York, London, Paris and on and on and on. Do you really think that some guy at the Manchester Guardian in the UK or at the Paris Match suddenly woke up one morning last November and said "At last I can have my vengeance on Joe Paterno!" All of these disinterested, professional journalists from around the world came to the same damn conclusion. You just don't like the conclusion. That's no reason to question their motives or character."
The one thing I'd question is your sanity and reading comprehension based on these comments. I dont know where you got the idea that anyone thinks the news media's gross incompetence and sanctimonious, inept factually dishonest representations has a thing to do with vengence. No one ever said it did. And by the way no one accused Paterno of moral cowardice so on that point you live in your own world as well. But just to enlighten you, it has to do with all that I mentioned -- self-serving sanctimony, rank dishonesty, incompetence and money since Paterno was the big name in the story, attracted more attention and received more coverage than the man who committed the abuse, something you seem to think makes a great deal of senses.
Obviously you yourself are woefully uninformed of the facts which is in keeping with your defense of journalists since you seem to be unaware of the gross factual misrepresentations and outright lies told by the press. You also seem to have no knowledge of how the press works, that they run in herds and all tend to say the same things at the same time regardless of facts. In the end your characterization of these people as "professional" implying some kind of lofty standard is simply a joke. If plumbers did their job with the same degree of professionalism as journalists we'd all be walking around waist deep in water.
Every morning I read The New York Times (except the editorials, 'cause they infuriate me) and The Wall Street Journal. If I stop reading them because they're "incompetent" "dishonest" and "avaricious", I could, I suppose, get my news from CNN or Fox or the networks, but they too, as parts of the media, are apparently incompetent, dishonest, etc. If, as you say, the press is fundamentally corrupt, what other sources of information are left to me? The Penn State alumni magazine? What I overhear in elevators?
:..If, as you say, the press is fundamentally corrupt, what other sources of information are left to me? The Penn State alumni magazine? What I overhear in elevators?"
Based on my experience in tracking the reliability and honesty of news organizations I get my news from two main sources which has proved to be competent, reliable and willing to be held accountable:
BBC News, the British News agency which has no commercial or monetary motives to slant the news one way or the other or to sensationalize, and the other is Bloomberg News which actually publishes the direct contact information under every article for both the reporter who wrote the article and his or her editor.
you also might be interested in knowing that based on a Pew Research study asking the same question of respondents for each news organizaton, about 70% of the people in this country do not trust main stream news to accurately report the facts. When it came to Joe Paterno, they substituted their own opinions for facts and when they did talk facts that got all of them almost all wrong almost all the time.
Bloomberg News is owned by Bloomberg LP which is 85% owned by Mike Bloomberg, the Mayor of New York City. BBC News is owned by the British government. I'm supposed to rely on new sources owned by a POLITICIAN and a FOREIGN power??? I'd rather rely on the Penn State alumni magazine.
"Bloomberg News is owned by Bloomberg LP which is 85% owned by Mike Bloomberg, the Mayor of New York City. BBC News is owned by the British government. I'm supposed to rely on new sources owned by a POLITICIAN and a FOREIGN power??? "
Since I live in New York City Id like to personally thank you for telling me who Mike Bloomberg is. You must have found that out watching CNN. Youre not "supposed" to do anything. You can rely on whatever homegrown dishonesty, incompetence and ineptitude you like. Sounds like you are living proof of the recent poll that showed that people who watch no news at all were better informed than people who watched CNN, Fox News and MSNBC. Maybe you believe there was WMD in Iraq also.
I might believe that there were WMD in Iraq if I relied on BBC News, which is owned by the British government that so believed in WMD that it sent its own troops to Iraq expressly to eliminate the WMD or if I relied on Bloomberg News which is owned by one of the most prominent leaders of the party that thought up the whole idea of WMD in the first place.
Someone with the means will at some point do an expose on this whole case and blow it all open. There may even be more people that should be charged.
Victims and their parents at some point will go on the record and share the details that no one yet has. This is far from over.
You should have mentioned the State Police Commissioner, with words IMO put in his mouth by Tom Corbett, stated the comment that set off the incendiary press "Paterno may met his legal responsibility, but failed his moral one". Who were the State Police to make non-legal subjective comments at all? ESPECIALLY, given their prior knowledge of the '98 incident?? Tom Corbetts role in both that comment, AND his possible involvement in Gricar's disappearance is the REAL cover-up going on. Using Paterno as a smokescreen was brilliant on his part.
I really feel that Noonan's incendiary comments will come back to haunt him. Notice he has not been seen or heard from since. I think the AG knew he was out of line as soon as the words were uttered. He has been muzzled.
Great post. Agreed.
I appreciate your ability to present all the facts in an unbiased light and give a honest opinion. You are a jewel for your industry.
I made the 4-hr trip and visited Joe Pa on Wednesday before he was buried to tell him that I was sorry. I was not sure why I needed to say I was sorry but I had a compelling feeling that I had let him down. He had done so much to make my 5 years in college the best I've ever experienced. What did he do? His fundraising ensured my tuition was low and facilities were top-notch. His leadership gave me the feeling that someone in a place of authority had integrity and accountability for their actions. And his pep rallies at Rec Hall were just awesome.
Ever since reading the 23-pg report that weekend in November, I never imagined how cruel and jealous the world could be as to demean and haunt a good man that meant so much to me. What I learned was that media doesn't air the people who don't provide the evidence proving their story. It's only their story, fact or fiction.
Since witnessing the injustice given to my coach, I've decided to change whom I receive news and opinion from. Maybe in that small way, I can repent for not having the means to speak up for him when he needed me most.
Thank you for your journalism.
Post a Comment