A new poll released late Tuesday reveals that news media disinformation,misinformation and biased and sloppy reporting has led to a gross misconception and perception by the public of Joe Paterno and his relationship to the Sandusky scandal.
The poll results reveal, perhaps not so surprisingly that as many as 43% of respondents when asked if Joe Paterno had molested children answered either "yes" or "unsure".When asked if Sandusky was still a coach at Penn State when the shower incident occurred 41% said he was and 34% said they weren't sure ( he wasn't). When the poll asked if Joe Paterno had arranged for McQueary to report his allegations to Schultz as head of Penn State police services, only 25% said he did.
This is solely the result of the news media trying to capitalize and cash in on the Paterno name since November, painting him as a villian still to this day without a shred of actual proof of any allegation against him, and why Joe Paterno's picture made a full front page of the Philadelphia Daily News with the word "Shame" and Monsignor William Lynn who was convicted and sentenced to 6 years in prison for burning a list of 34 pedophile priests never got The Paterno Treatment. It wasnt' good business or good politics for William Lynn but Paterno was where the money was.Both in terms of actually dollars and their sanctimony.
I've written many times, and for some perhaps it made them feel that the shoe fits a little too tight, that what the news media did with regards to Joe Paterno and Penn State as a whole in the Sandusky scandal and the nonsense people believed and accepted without proof, is reminiscent of how fascism got a foothold in Europe in the 1930's. Maybe I've been watching too many documentaries on the Military Channel. Or maybe its a good thing I am. But the influence of a dishonest media simply spouting what an authority figure tells them, who all stampede in the same direction like cattle, results in a public who doesn't have the truth and for some who won't or can't think for themselves, leads them to believe what is not true. And that leads to serious consequences.
The poll results reveal, perhaps not so surprisingly that as many as 43% of respondents when asked if Joe Paterno had molested children answered either "yes" or "unsure".When asked if Sandusky was still a coach at Penn State when the shower incident occurred 41% said he was and 34% said they weren't sure ( he wasn't). When the poll asked if Joe Paterno had arranged for McQueary to report his allegations to Schultz as head of Penn State police services, only 25% said he did.
This is solely the result of the news media trying to capitalize and cash in on the Paterno name since November, painting him as a villian still to this day without a shred of actual proof of any allegation against him, and why Joe Paterno's picture made a full front page of the Philadelphia Daily News with the word "Shame" and Monsignor William Lynn who was convicted and sentenced to 6 years in prison for burning a list of 34 pedophile priests never got The Paterno Treatment. It wasnt' good business or good politics for William Lynn but Paterno was where the money was.Both in terms of actually dollars and their sanctimony.
I've written many times, and for some perhaps it made them feel that the shoe fits a little too tight, that what the news media did with regards to Joe Paterno and Penn State as a whole in the Sandusky scandal and the nonsense people believed and accepted without proof, is reminiscent of how fascism got a foothold in Europe in the 1930's. Maybe I've been watching too many documentaries on the Military Channel. Or maybe its a good thing I am. But the influence of a dishonest media simply spouting what an authority figure tells them, who all stampede in the same direction like cattle, results in a public who doesn't have the truth and for some who won't or can't think for themselves, leads them to believe what is not true. And that leads to serious consequences.
We went to war in Iraq over the incompetence and unwillingness
of the media to tell the truth, being fed false information by Dick Cheney that Judith Miller and the New York Times splashed all over the front page helping to beat the drums for war. This wasn't
ideological or partisan. The New York Times did it. The Philadelphia Inquirer
did it. Most in the media did it. And it was gross malefeasance on the part of the media, the same malefeasance that has been evident regarding Paterno and Penn State. Why let facts get in the way of a goldmine of a story? Without the Paterno name this would have been a one day minor story. And everyone knows it.
Bush never could have won re-election had the press did the job they are paid to do and treated his lapse in judgement regarding the "imminent" attack he was informed of by both Richard Clarke and George Tenant at CIA in August of 2001 ( he was even told the Al-Qaeda plot involved the hijacking of US airliners) with the scrutiny it deserved. Like the way they scrutinized Anthony Weiner for the picture of him in his underwear. Going after a politician over a picture of him in his underwear, yes. Going after a president's gross negligence resulting in the worst attack on US soil by a foreign enemy in history? No way.
They were AWOL when it came to 911 and Iraq but with sex they get brave. And when it comes to a revolting subject like child abuse, they get even braver, thinking they can get away with anything by trying to hold themselves up as some kind of pillars of morality, all the while committing the worst kinds of journalistic abuse themselves.
The new poll shows just how much misinformation the news media has put out
over what happened at Penn State and with Joe Paterno and the effect it has had on perceptions and
beliefs which affects public opinion
which in turn affects policy made by people more concerned with public opinion than the truth.
For me, who didn't go to Penn State and who has nothing at stake one way or the other in any of this, the issue was always simple justice and truth and how the lies and distorting of the truth pose a threat to our democracy. And how those distortions of truth has now affected Penn State, Joe Paterno, tens of thousands of students and graduates, all because a few spineless bureaucrats like Mark Emmert at the NCAA, Rodeny Erickson Penn State president and their Board of Trustees, acted on a baseless and empty Freeh Report that had no facts to substantiate its findings but instead made decisions more concerned about public opinion that was influenced by shoddy and dishonest reporting.
The poll re-enforces how the media can alter perceptions of reality, either intentionally or through their incompetence and lack of principles, especially with people who have neither the time nor the inclination to find out the facts for themselves. These same journalists through their lack of principle and competence, can affect the lives of not just millions, but hundreds of millions when it comes to issues like war, the economy or the country's healthcare system.
The issues surrounding Paterno and Penn State and Sandusky is just the bigger problem in
microcosm. And why more than 70% in a Pew Research Poll a few years ago said the
media cant be trusted. This poll is one more proof of that and how the media's
dishonesty, lack of principle and lack of anything that can be called journalism,
simply behaving like trained seals and swallowing what's thrown to them, or stampeding cattle more concerned with their own self interests than the truth,
affects the lives of many innocent people. And always as history has shown, for the
worse.
NOTE: As if to prove the point, the well respected Pew Research Organization released a new study on August 16, revealing a further decline in the news media's credibility as a whole. Its no suprise.
The poll," Further Decline in Credibility Ratings For Most News Organizations" can be read by clicking on the link.
NOTE: As if to prove the point, the well respected Pew Research Organization released a new study on August 16, revealing a further decline in the news media's credibility as a whole. Its no suprise.
The poll," Further Decline in Credibility Ratings For Most News Organizations" can be read by clicking on the link.
Posts
63 comments:
Marc Rubin said...
"The poll re-enforces how the media can alter perceptions of reality, either intentionally or through their incompetence and lack of principles, especially with people who have neither the time nor the inclination to find out the facts for themselves."
The media absolutely can do exactly what you are saying. Out of curiosity, what is the single worst piece of journalism you have seen on CNN/ESPN/etc. relating to the PSU scandal?
-MC
The media can be faulted for many things in connection with the Sandusky affair but are not at least certain members of the media the HEROS of the affair?
The difference between the investigations made in 1998 and 2001 and that begun in 2009 (which ended in Sandusky's conviction) was the absence of the media in 1998 and 2001 and the relentless pressure of Sara Ganim at the Patriot-News in 2009.
When Ganim picked up the phone on September 16, 2010 and called Spanier, the PA AG and everyone else involved, the 2009 investigation was going nowhere. A few subpoenas for documents had bee issued months before, but otherwise, nothing was happening. The 2009 investigation was headed for the same death by neglect as those in 1998 and 2001. As soon as the media, in the form of Ganim, made its presence known, formerly untouchable figures at Penn State and TSM found themselves testifying before the Grand Jury. The floodgates opened.
The media has certainly committed a few "errors of enthusiasm" in their coverage, but the bottom line is that thanks to Sara Ganim and her colleagues, there are children who have been spared from rape by Jerry Sandusky.
No. They are not the heroes of the affair. If they were, they would have gone after law enforcement for dropping the ball during the initial investigation. They would have gone after the alleged child molestation experts from the welfare department who dropped the ball during the investigation. They would have gone after the Attorney General and D.A. who did nothing to stop Sandusky when they had the ability to do so. They would have gone after Mike McQueary's father and his friend Dr. Darnov ( both mandated reporters who, if McQueary is telling the truth about what he allegedly witnessed, and that is very unclear by his own actions and testimony). (Both of those doctors should be facing criminal allegations right now for failing to report this crime). The media (if heroic) would be questioning the Governor for his inept handling of the case and continued acceptance of monies from Second Mile while he was the A.G. and his time as a member of the Board of Trustees. The heroic media would be questioning Freeh for his inept investigation. And further, the media would have called into question Syracuse University, and especially E.S.P.N. 's knowledge of the potential molestation by Coach Fine of that program, rather than hiding a story they had knowledge about for approximately a decade. They have instead stopped covering Syracuse whatsoever and may have facilitated a decade of molest by Coach Fine where release of that story when the heroic ESPN learned of it could have done a mountain of difference. But one of the great "heroes" of this fiasco, ESPN, would likely need to punish itself for their own inaction. (Possibly they need to cancel their own programming and return any profits they made during that time perid to charities or some other source of good?).
The media has not been a hero by dismissing the facts as they have for fiction. The media jumped on Paterno and decided he was to blame for this affair. Fiction sold papers and gave them ratings and allowed them to appear heroic by disseminating their pious opinions, but these opinions are based in a complete lack of understanding of what really went on there. It is clear from the heroic media's reporting that they did not read the Grand Jury Transcripts and did not read the Freeh Report, but provided personal opinions to make themselves seem like moral champions. And you are a fool for looking at the press in such a heroic fashion here. This is so dammed dangerous and persecutes the wrong target while allowing the actual culprits of this situation to keep doing what they have done. By not calling the people who actually blew the investigation (doctors, prosecutors, psychologists, law enforcement officials, a governor of a state) to the carpet for their mishandling of Sandusky, they are allowing these agencies to continue facilitating child molestation, as are you. The media is anythng but heroic here.
Has the meidcal board begun an action against McQueary's father and his friend Dr. Darnov for their failire to report an allegation of child molestation? Have criminal allegations been filed against them?
If McQueary really told his father and father's friend what he stated he saw, isn't it likely that one of them would have contacted Law Enforcement (either using their name or in the very least would have contacted law enforcement as a confidential reporter which is usually authorized under the law)? The fact that they did not and instead told Mike to just take it to Paterno is either completely disgusting on their behalf, or more likely McQueary did not recount such explicit details to them as he later alleged in the Grand Jury Testimony.
It seems just as likely that McQueary provided his detailed testimony (not consistent with what Paterno testified to hearing from McQueary) as a deal with the A.G. who may have threatened to bring criminal charges against his father if he did not. Additionally, remember that McQueary's own story of witnessing such an explicit act and leaving the young boy alone with Sandusky afterward (to be molested further) is either not that trustworthy accounting (or in the very least shows McQueary to be an absolute scumbag who cares nothing about anyone except his own career, and likely has no credibility whatsoever and is willing to state whatever he can to avoid looking bad at this time). It seems clear that the A.G. told McQueary that Coach Paterno was not a subject of the investigation so McQueary probably had no idea that the fallout against Paterno would be so nuclear.
I have no direct proof of this theory, and it is only a theory, but lack of proof has not stopped anyone in this case from going forward anyway at full speed, so i might as well just throw it out there.
At some point I hope McQueary has the guts to come clean because there are some very bizarre missing pieces from his story ( his credibility is a serious issue), as well as the rest of this story. However the press seems to be happy ending their investigation where they have (which makes a great sports story and a tidy little ending) when there is so much more that needs to be looked into. If the media is truly concerned about stopping predators like Sandusky, then the entire leal system (law enforcement, child welfare services etc..all alleged experts in this type of investigation.) needs to be investigated, not just Paterno and a football program.
"The media is anything but heroic here."
I never said that the media in general were heroic. I said that CERTAIN of the media were heroic. Your rant against the media does not explain why in 1998 and 2001, with the media absent, Sandusky went free to rape again and in 2009, with Sara Ganim hectoring the powerful, Sandusky ended up in prison. Without the pressure of CERTAIN of the media, Sandusky would still be raping kids. You've said nothing to contradict that simple statement.
If only one, ONE, of the participants in the 1998 and 2001 investigations, including Joe, had simply gone to a pay phone and made an anonymous call to a reporter, children would have been spared a decade of suffering.
As far the "failure" to pursue other potential miscreants in the scandal is concerned, why are you so sure that the slew of investigative and sports journalists now working on books about the scandal won't root out the wrongdoers? Five years from now, books on the scandal will fill shelf after shelf in bookstores. None of the players in this drama will escape scrutiny.
I never said that the media had exposed EVERYONE responsible for the scandal. I only gave praise where it was due. How does praising CERTAIN of the media for bringing Sandusky to justice mean that I am "facilitating child abuse", as you say? Must every reference to the role of the media include an encyclopedic review of the cast of characters in the scandal?
"Fiction sold papers and gave them ratings and allowed them to appear heroic by disseminating their pious opinions, but these opinions are based in a complete lack of understanding of what really went on there. It is clear from the heroic media's reporting that they did not read the Grand Jury Transcripts and did not read the Freeh Report, but provided personal opinions to make themselves seem like moral champions."
Do you have a link to an article or video clip that supports this claim?
Let's assume the Freeh report is just a bunch of fascist bologna, the media is comprised of a bunch of crooks and everyone who knew about 1998 also failed... Does that change anything about Paterno, Schultz, Spanier and Curley? No. They still CHOSE inaction over even the tiniest bit of responsibility regarding the 2001 incident and let a predator roam free. All deserved to be fired and all deserve their day in court.
I also love how this post is based on a "scientific" poll conducted FOR a website called framingpaterno.com... Sounds like a completely unbiased study performed for people who would be okay with the outcome either way... And you complain about the "sheep" who swallow CNN and ESPN's reporting. Provide a link or stop whining.
-MC
Read the transcripts. Read the Freeh Report. (however from your comments driectly above you might have a lot of difficulty understanding them, please read them). What evidence is there that Paterno knew what was happening and did not report it? What evidence is there that he was involved in a cover up? You should stop whining and stop repostng Freeh's conclusions. That is the problem. Everyone has assumed that Freeh's conclusions are supported by the evidence and they are not (the heroic media immediately reported Freeh's conclusions as though they were indisputable fact as soon as he gave his press conference, before anyone even had time to read the report or conclusions or even analyze the evidence in the report). Use your own brain rather than theirs.
If this was a report about a politician, approximately 1/2 of the press and approximately 1/2 of the public would read this critically rather than just swallow the conclusions without any analysis. You would swallow one portion of the media's conclusions and completely dismiss the others.
Regarding the Poll, it merely shows that a lot ofeople completely misunderstand the alleged evidence. The reason is that they just believed what they were fed and did not look at the actual reports and transcripts. You are proof of the poll, and proof that you have no understanding of what occurred. There is so much more evidence that needs to be gathered and analysis that needs to be done in this case, but it does not really matter to you and so many others. Whatever Freeh and the heroic media say is good enough for you.
The guy above who calls the media heroic for stopping Sandusky is so wrong. By the time the media got involved, there was already a grand jury indictment and the criminal proceedings were well under way. Sandusky was done.
This is the same media who covered Michael Jackson's funeral as if he were a hero. Look at the grand jury reports on him, an actual child molester per the grand jury and prosecutors, and how he was lionized rather than demonized.
"What evidence is there that Paterno knew what was happening and did not report it? What evidence is there that he was involved in a cover up? You should stop whining and stop repostng Freeh's conclusions."
Evidence: "According to a grand jury presentment, Paterno was made aware of an alleged incident involving Sandusky and a 10-year-old boy in the shower by a graduate assistant. The alleged incident took place on Penn State property."
http://pittsburgh.cbslocal.com/2011/11/09/joe-paterno-i-wish-i-had-done-more/
More: "Mr. Sandusky has been charged with sexually abusing eight boys over a 15-year span, and two top university officials — Tim Curley, the athletic director, and Gary Schultz, the senior vice president for finance and business — have been charged with perjury and failing to report to authorities what they knew of the allegations. Neither Mr. Paterno nor Mr. Spanier was charged in the case, though questions have been raised about if they did as much as they could to stop Mr. Sandusky."
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/10/sports/ncaafootball/-joe-paterno-and-graham-spanier-out-at-penn-state.html?pagewanted=all
Your response was like a watered down version of Marc's typical hate-filled rants. You did not engage in conversation by answering a question. You went back to the you-swallow-Freeh's-report well like Marc does, even though I never cited him or his report. I even said, "Let's assume the Freeh report is just a bunch of fascist bologna".
You said: "The reason is that they just believed what they were fed and did not look at the actual reports and transcripts. You are proof of the poll, and proof that you have no understanding of what occurred."
This is what I am asking for. You guys are really good at Google; Google something and post an article or video that unfairly damns Paterno and PSU. And what did I believe only because I was fed it? That Paterno and four other adults knew about child sex abuse and did nothing? Was that made up by the fascist media?
-MC
You are again merely posting the conclusions.you are not providing any evidence. Look at the actual evidence. Oh wait, there is really not enough to come up with the conclusions Freeh and the grand jury came up with. ( by the way, do you even understand how a grand jury operates? As soon as the grand jury report came out the heroic media was actually making comments that Sandusky had his day in court already and that he was foud to be a child molester). In the Grand Jury proceeding, Sandusky (and more importantlyPaterno) had no one representing him. In the Freeh investigation, Paterno had no one representing him. These are both strictly prosecutorial proceedings with prosecutorial conclusions.
When Paterno leaned of the incident in 2001 he reported it. If the men he reported it to did not take appropriate avtion, that was their mistake. McQueary reported (most likely) horseplay, and Paterno reported it. what else was he supposed to do? Interferre in a police investigation and contaminate a child molestation investigation? Do you know how inappropriate that would have been.
Regarding "questions being raised " that is not evidence. Again, a conclusion that has not been flushed out by the facts. Sandusky was acquitted on the alleged molest in the shower (why? Likely because of lack of evidence). Perjury charges are mere charges.
This has nothing to do with Google. All you are doing is reprinting allegations in a grand jury presentment and conclusions from the Freeh Report, and conclusions from the media. Those are interpretations of 2 prosecutors ( that truly are not supported by the evidence). Questions are raised, and i want to know a lot more, but they are still merely questions. Read the evidence rather tha the conclusions. What i find humorous is that you accuse me of reposting Google when all you do is repost conclusions. It seems real clear that all you do is post other people's conclusions without analyzing the actual evidence, and it seems clear that you have not read the grand jury present,ent and the Freeh report. Please do so with a critical eye if you even have the capacity to do so.
As if to prove my point, the well respected Pew Research Organization released a new study on August 16. The title of the study, "Further Decline in Credibility Ratings of Most News Organizations" can be seen using this link. it comes as no surprise.
http://www.people-press.org/2012/08/16/further-decline-in-credibility-ratings-for-most-news-organizations/
"And why more than 70% in a Pew Research Poll a few years ago said the media cant be trusted."
The August 16, 2012 Pew report which you cite actually says exactly the OPPOSITE:
"Across all 13 news organizations included in the survey, the average POSITIVE BELIEVABILITY rating (3 or 4 on a 4-point scale) is 56%. In 2010, the average positive rating was 62%. A decade ago, the average rating for the news organizations tested was 71%."
You say that the BOT "made decisions more concerned about public opinion that was influenced by shoddy and dishonest reporting". You're certainly right that the BOT's decision to accept the NCAA sanctions was influenced by public opinion. As Trustee, Ken Frazier, has said,
"The advice of knowledgeable and experienced counsel is preferable to me versus a cathartic but quixotic exercise of "appealing" against a backdrop of public opinion which shows that 75% of Americans believe the sanctions were either "just right" or "too light".
What I find difficult to reconcile are this 75% condemnation of PSU and Joe resulting from "shoddy and dishonest reporting" and your statement that "more than 70% in a Pew Research Poll a few years ago said the media cant(sic) be trusted."
If 70% of the public DON'T believe the media, why DO 75% of the public agree with the media's condemnation of PSU and Joe? Could it be that the public which, as you say, does not trust the media in general, did not trust the media with respect to Penn State and Joe in particular? Could it be that the public reached its own INDEPENDENT conclusion condemning PSU and Joe? How else do you reconcile the 75% and 70%?
Marc Rubin....thank you so much for continuing to cover the Penn State story when pretty much every major news outlet has abandoned it, having told the story they WANTED to tell and having cashed in on it big time! It's hard to debate with people on your blog because they all prefer to remain anonymous, but I was captured by "anonymous" who signed "MC". "MC" makes his case quite logically by illogically citing media reports which support his opinion on this matter. "MC" misses, entirely, your point, that it's the media who spins information to suit their needs for the big story. "MC" also misses the parts about how most of the information he spews, via his media links, has already been shown to be embellished, or in some cases, blatantly untrue. Come out from behind the curtain "anonymous MC"! Marc Rubin hits the nail on the head EVERY TIME he posts to his blog regarding Penn State and Joe Paterno but you've been too blinded by information spoon fed to you by the media to be able to recognize it! THAT was his point in writing this article. Thank you for proving his point!
""MC" makes his case quite logically by illogically citing media reports which support his opinion on this matter. "
People like MC like to delude themselves into thinking they are standing up for something when its clear from the arguments of people who think like he does that he (or she), far from standing up for anything are laying down for the most provably and documented corrupt investigator of the last 20 years and so have basically checked out as an American citizen since they will believe anything even a bogus authority figure like Freeh tells them without asking for proof. Or in many cases not even knowing what the word "proof",means just as another annoymous commenter didnt know the difference between the words, "accept" and "admit" and then offered a bogus definition he claimed was the Websters dictionary definition when it wasnt.
When people have to lie to make their points ( and it seems that is what eveyrone defending the Freeh report resorts to) whether its here on a smaller scale or as Freeh did on a larger scale, it has more to do with what made a good German in 1939 than what makes an American citizen. This isnt even a question anymore of debating a point of view -- its about who cares about proof and whats true and who doesnt.
If you want to know whether two words are synonyms, you should look in a thesaurus, not a dictionary. The English Collins Dictionary-English Synonyms and Thesaurus provides as follows :
"ACCEPT
1 acquire, gain, get, have, obtain, receive, secure, take
2 accede, acknowledge, acquiesce, ADMIT, adopt, affirm, agree to, approve, believe, buy (slang) buy into (slang) concur with, consent to, cooperate with, recognize, swallow (informal) take on board
3 bear, bow to, brook, defer to, LIKE IT OR LUMP IT (informal) put up with, stand, submit to, suffer, take, yield to
4 acknowledge, ADMIT, assume, avow, bear, take on, undertake"
Clearly, this thesaurus supports the argument that PSU did not say that the Freeh conclusions were true but that PSU was merely saying that they were forced to "like it or lump it", hardly a confession. Equally clearly, this thesaurus supports the argument that by "accepting" the Freeh report, PSU was "admitting" to the conclusions therein. PSU supporters prefer the former construction while the public prefers the latter, but both constructions are legitimate. I, for one, can "accept" either one.
The relevant sentence of the Consent Decree reads :
"Penn State has communicated to the NCAA that it accepts the findings of the Freeh Report for purposes of this resolution and acknowledges that those facts constitute violations of the Constitutional and Bylaw principles described in the letter."
The first part of this sentence suggests that Penn State is reserving the right to question the conclusions in the Freeh Report for purposes other than the resolution, for example, in suits by the victims. But the reference in the second part of the sentence to the conclusions as "those facts" suggests that Penn State does not consider such conclusions to be mere opinions.
Does it really matter what Penn State meant in this sentence? When Ken Frazier, acting on behalf of the BOT, the legal representatives of Penn State, delivered his "We are ashamed" speech upon receipt of the Freeh Report, he expressly accepted its conclusions. In fact, he said :
"Spanier, Paterno, Curley and Schultz did not put the welfare of children first."
In light of Frazier's "confession", does it really matter whether the Consent Decree constitutes an additional "confession"?
"This has nothing to do with Google. All you are doing is reprinting allegations in a grand jury presentment and conclusions from the Freeh Report, and conclusions from the media."
I posted four guilty charges related to Sandusky, a small boy and Penn State showers. Again, where did I post something from the Freeh report?
I asked you, Marc and others to back your claim about the media misrepresenting Paterno as a child molester or something to that effect. Again, your best response is "You are again merely posting the conclusions.you are not providing any evidence. Look at the actual evidence. Oh wait, there is really not enough to come up with the conclusions Freeh and the grand jury came up with."
Stop worrying about a grand jury report and the Freeh report. That "horseplay" you mention put a man in jail.
-MC
Linda Berkland said...
""MC" makes his case quite logically by illogically citing media reports which support his opinion on this matter."
What media reports are you citing and what opinion are you supporting? That the media misrepresented Paterno and PSU? I have asked half a dozen times for ONE link to ANY article or video from a major media outlet that unfairly represents Paterno and PSU. I presume this is a fair request but I guess it does prove your point as to how illogical I am by expecting a decent conversation on this thread.
""MC" misses, entirely, your point, that it's the media who spins information to suit their needs for the big story."
Link please, then we can discuss.
"MC" also misses the parts about how most of the information he spews, via his media links, has already been shown to be embellished, or in some cases, blatantly untrue."
Are you in the "McQueary only saw what he wanted to see" or "Sandusky was too tall/big to rape a young boy" camp? Here is the terrible media's initial response to the firing: http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/7214380/joe-paterno-president-graham-spanier-penn-state
"Come out from behind the curtain "anonymous MC"! Marc Rubin hits the nail on the head EVERY TIME he posts to his blog regarding Penn State and Joe Paterno but you've been too blinded by information spoon fed to you by the media to be able to recognize it! THAT was his point in writing this article. Thank you for proving his point!"
Ah the classic "thank you for proving my point". I seem to do that a lot here because no one is willing to have a reasonable discussion. Keep going to that well though while adding nothing to the debate. Your response in a nutshell:
- You make your case illogically by logically being illogical
- The media sucks but I don't have any links
- Your points on guilty counts in a court of law were embellished
- You're blind
- You proved my point!
-MC
Marc Rubin said...
"People like MC like to delude themselves into thinking they are standing up for something when its clear from the arguments of people who think like he does that he (or she), far from standing up for anything are laying down for the most provably and documented corrupt investigator of the last 20 years and so have basically checked out as an American citizen since they will believe anything even a bogus authority figure like Freeh tells them without asking for proof."
Please quote where I cited Freeh as my source for any information. Nice run on sentence, by the way.
"Or in many cases not even knowing what the word "proof",means"
We have already come to the conclusion on here that I am not allowed to use counts against Sandusky in the court of law or Paterno's own words as "proof". We also know McQueary's sworn testimony is not allowed in these debates. However, we MUST wait for the extremely VALUABLE testimony of the two men who are on trial for perjury. I apologize for forgetting the rules we laid out before.
"When people have to lie to make their points ( and it seems that is what eveyrone defending the Freeh report resorts to) whether its here on a smaller scale or as Freeh did on a larger scale, it has more to do with what made a good German in 1939 than what makes an American citizen. This isnt even a question anymore of debating a point of view -- its about who cares about proof and whats true and who doesnt."
Please quote one lie I told. While you're at it, try answering a question I ask. You and Linda are doing your best to defend Paterno, PSU, proof, facts, etc. I get that. I respect that. I am honestly trying to understand your point of view. It is just a little tough to do so when you two have so much pent up hatred for Freeh that you assume my responses are from him when none are.
Marc, Linda, etc.:
- What is the worst media report you have seen regarding Sandusky, PSU, Paterno or others?
- Should Paterno have kept his job?
I will keep it to just those two because anything else seems like too large a request at this point.
-MC
MC's comments are not worth reading. I think MC should stick to somethng else, like home and garen issues.
-not MC
"MC's comments are not worth reading. I think MC should stick to somethng else, like home and garen issues.
-not MC"
Like Marc, Lind and others, you come after me without bringing anything to the table. This shows a lack of maturity and a weak basis for a vague argument.
-MC
MC has provided no evidence and does not even understand what evidence is apparently.
One of the problems anyone would have in providing the "proof" you need, MC, is that you are only interested in what can be provided by "major media outlets". The Ziegler poll shows how the media's coverage affected public opinion. Information on this case is being discovered on a daily basis, but you won't see any "major media outlets" covering it because it doesn't fit with the story they've already told. The Grand Jury presentment has been shown to be embellished! The "horseplay" you mention didn't put a man in jail....JS was acquitted on charges relating to victim #2. The Freeh report is full of conclusions with no evidence to back them up. www.notpsu.blogspot.com does an excellent job of shooting holes in the conclusions of the Freeh report, however the only major media coverage on the report simply spewed out the conclusions. And, obviously you swallowed their vomit! Every article written about Vicky Triponey "standing up to" Joe Paterno is an article that misrepresents Joe Paterno! Why was this woman such a big part of the coverage of the Freeh report when she wasn't even on campus during the time under investigation? Because Freeh needed someone to make the case that Paterno "ran" the university and she was the only one who would do that for him. Get out from underneath the freaking covers and educate yourself on the other side of the story! Fair journalism ALWAYS looks at both sides. Because the coverage of this story didn't do that, we now have a very misinformed public. I will no longer argue with you, not because I can't, but because you're simply not worth it.
Linda Berkland said...
"One of the problems anyone would have in providing the "proof" you need, MC, is that you are only interested in what can be provided by "major media outlets"."
You guys are the ones bashing the media as swallowing Freeh's report. You guys are the ones bashing the media for putting pressure on the board to fire Joe Paterno. I am asking for one article or video to back either claim.
"The Ziegler poll shows how the media's coverage affected public opinion. Information on this case is being discovered on a daily basis, but you won't see any "major media outlets" covering it because it doesn't fit with the story they've already told."
What discoveries have been made in recent weeks that can be deemed newsworthy on CNN, ESPN, etc.? I know from watching ESPN the focus has been on the players who have left or transferred TO PSU. They are now covering the recovery effort of a football program and university trying to rebuild its reputation.
"The Grand Jury presentment has been shown to be embellished! The "horseplay" you mention didn't put a man in jail....JS was acquitted on charges relating to victim #2."
What is your source that says the presentment was embellished? Also, you have to be kidding me. If this is what "acquitted on charges relating to victim #2" looks like, I am sorry but this discussion is over:
VICTIM 2
Count 7: Involuntary deviate sexual intercourse
Verdict: Not guilty.
Count 8: Indecent assault
Verdict: Guilty.
Count 9: Unlawful contact with minors
Verdict: Guilty.
Count 10: Corruption of minors
Verdict: Guilty.
Count 11: Endangering welfare of children
Verdict: Guilty.
Source: http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2012/06/jerry_sandusky_verdict_complet.html
"The Freeh report is full of conclusions with no evidence to back them up."
Still never cited the Freeh report but okay...
"www.notpsu.blogspot.com does an excellent job of shooting holes in the conclusions of the Freeh report, however the only major media coverage on the report simply spewed out the conclusions. And, obviously you swallowed their vomit!"
A .blogspot.com link is the best you can do? But yea, I swallowed their vomit...
"Get out from underneath the freaking covers and educate yourself on the other side of the story! Fair journalism ALWAYS looks at both sides. Because the coverage of this story didn't do that, we now have a very misinformed public. I will no longer argue with you, not because I can't, but because you're simply not worth it."
You tell me to educate myself on the other side of the story as I ask questions to understand that side, yet you say I am not worth the argument? Sounds like you came here looking for a fair discussion that ALWAYS looks at both sides to me...
-MC
What discoveries have been made in recent weeks that can be deemed newsworthy on CNN, ESPN, etc.?
You see Marc Rubin, you are quite correct about media malfeasance! The discoveries have not been newsworthy on CNN, ESPN because they don't want to report on stories that don't support their agenda! Period! Thanks for your excellent blog! And thank you MC for continuing to prove Marc's point.
Linda is correct. No point discussing anything with MC because MC has no ability to rationalize anything. MC continues to prove Marc's point over and over again. Thanks MC.
I checked Marc's postings since the scandal broke last November and found a grand total of three, THREE, hyperlinks to media articles: one was the "Shame" photo of Joe on the cover of The Philly Daily News, one was to a Huff Post article about a victim's mother and one was to a NYT article about MF Global. With the exception of the photo, these references were not made to illustrate media bias.
Most of his criticisms of the media are just general rants without any specifics. He'll name some journalists and savage them for what HE said they said without directing the reader to the sources of his statements. Even when he quotes somebody, he doesn't hyperlink to the source of the quote. He almost never gives the date of any statement.
He also has this irritating habit of holding media responsible for the accuracy of OPINIONS which that media source is merely reporting as part of its news responsibilities. For example, when the NYT reports that North Korea believes that the US is about to invade North Korea, the NYT is NOT saying that the US is about to invade North Korea. Similarly, Marc doesn't seem to understand that when a media source reports the Freeh conclusions as a NEWS item, it is NOT guaranteeing the accuracy of those conclusions.
But as I said, most of his criticisms are unsupported rants against the media where he ASSUMES bias without providing any examples. It would be very helpful if, in the future, Marc could hyperlink to examples of the media's intentional misrepresentation of FACTS, not examples where the media just reaches a different conclusion than Marc does. For example, a media source agreeing with the Freeh conclusions is not an example of bias just because Marc disagrees with the Freeh conclusions. An example of media bias would be reporting that JOE molested children, which, I believe, no reputable media has done. Supply the examples so MC can have something specific to which to speak.
I'm enjoying the MC-Marc-Linda back-and forth but without specific examples, it's going nowhere.
A media source doesn't have to say "Joe Paterno is a pedophile" for someone listening to take that away from the story. Are you familiar with subliminal messages? While covering the Sandusky arrest in November, EVERY headline read Penn State Sex Abuse Scandal and the reporting was all done in front of Old Main. What was the message from that reporting? Jerry Sandusky represented The Second Mile NOT PSU for the entire time that this particular investigation covered. Why weren't they standing in front of TSM headquarters? Because no one knows who TSM is! This isn't rocket science guys! Opinion reported by what are considered "reputable" media outlets is considered fact. Perhaps you're more highly evolved than are most of the general population, although MC continues to prove that he/she is NOT, but most of the news watching population gets the headlines on their way out to work or from the homepage on their preferred web browser. The media covered Freeh's press conference and reiterated it's conclusions at nauseaum, but they haven't spent ONE SECOND covering the FACT that the Freeh report lacks FACTS! I don't have to post a link to an article in order for you to understand this very simple concept!
Here's another example...
http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/15/us/triponey-paterno-penn-state/index.html
The headline reads "The Woman Who Stood Up to Joe Paterno" on CNN. What if the headline read "The Woman Who Joe Paterno Stood Up To"? Freeh uses Triponey to make his case that the football program at PSU was king and Joe Paterno was all powerful. The press jumped on this story like hungry tigers to raw meat. The truth about Vicky Triponey depends on who you talk to but the press didn't cover the flip side and there most certainly is a flip side.
http://safeguardoldstate.org/the-vicky-triponey-timeline-of-terror/
http://ps4rs.wordpress.com/2012/08/05/who-is-vicky-triponey/
The bottom line is that sometimes the press can influence public opinion not by what they write, but by what they fail to write!
Linda Berkland said...
"A media source doesn't have to say "Joe Paterno is a pedophile" for someone listening to take that away from the story. Are you familiar with subliminal messages? While covering the Sandusky arrest in November, EVERY headline read Penn State Sex Abuse Scandal and the reporting was all done in front of Old Main. What was the message from that reporting? Jerry Sandusky represented The Second Mile NOT PSU for the entire time that this particular investigation covered. Why weren't they standing in front of TSM headquarters? Because no one knows who TSM is! This isn't rocket science guys!"
Because the biggest incident involved a former PSU defensive coordinator. Because that incident occurred in a PSU locker room shower? Because a former PSU QB witnessed the abuse and reported it to the legendary PSU head coach? Because that coach took it to other leaders at PSU? Because none of those leaders reported the incident to authorities?
Do you know of an incident that took place at Second Mile? Sounds like setting up cameras there would have misrepresented that organization.
"Opinion reported by what are considered "reputable" media outlets is considered fact."
No, it's not. Not even close.
"Perhaps you're more highly evolved than are most of the general population, although MC continues to prove that he/she is NOT"
How am I not as "highly evolved" as you? Because I try to understand the other side of an argument by asking questions? Because I refuse to stoop to the level of name calling you and Marc and others are at? Because you and others don't need to back your claims with sources but, when I do, it only proves your point?
"but most of the news watching population gets the headlines on their way out to work or from the homepage on their preferred web browser."
Ladies and gentlemen... Rocket science.
"The media covered Freeh's press conference and reiterated it's conclusions at nauseaum, but they haven't spent ONE SECOND covering the FACT that the Freeh report lacks FACTS! I don't have to post a link to an article in order for you to understand this very simple concept!"
Here's a simple concept - search for answers to the questions I am asking and you will find fair reporting.
Right after the Freeh report: http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/8169773/penn-state-nittany-lions-paternos-conduct-own-review-freeh-data
Franco Harris has been all over the news arguing another point of view: http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/8207532/franco-harris-ex-penn-state-nittany-lions-players-criticize-freeh-report
Franco was on outside the lines for 30 minutes and discussed this matter in a much more civilized manner.
And here's the main Freeh report story: http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/8159195/report-says-penn-state-nittany-lions-senior-officials-disregarded-children-welfare
Note the headline. "Report:"... Also note things like "according to conclusions" or "according to the report". There is nothing subliminal about it. That's reporting. Look at every article about even the most obvious of crimes. The movie theater killer still gets the benefit of words like "allegedly". Someone more highly evolved than I told me so.
-MC
Linda! Links! Possibly meaningful discussion! Thank you!
Interesting points on Triponey. I never really followed her part in this story so it was good to read up.
Linda Berkland said...
"The bottom line is that sometimes the press can influence public opinion not by what they write, but by what they fail to write!"
I would argue this by pointing out links that are in the middle of your Triponey CNN article:
PSU still admires Paterno and wants to move forward: http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/12/us/penn-state-reaction/index.html
Opinion on the need to look at second mile: http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/13/opinion/jones-penn-state/index.html
And a quote from another CNN article: ""After giving it more thought and talking it over with Joe yesterday, I am uncomfortable with what we agreed were the next steps," Curley wrote the next day, according to Freeh's report."
Notice how it doesn't just stop after "Curley wrote the next day"? CNN is not taking a stance or claiming it as a fact. It is stating what the report states. That's the news.
-MC
"Interesting points on Triponey. I never really followed her part in this story so it was good to read up."
Vicky Triponey was a HUGE part of the story after the Freeh report was released and has continued her Joe bashing via the WSJ and CNN!
"Do you know of an incident that took place at Second Mile? Sounds like setting up cameras there would have misrepresented that organization."
You're joking right?? You absolutely have to be joking! Do the names Raykovitz, Pool, Chambers, Seasock, Gricar mean anything to you? How about a new name that's cropped up in the past two weeks....Savitz?
You've shown your true colors and your lack of knowledge of this case. I had said before that I was not debating you because you're not worth it and until you actually do the real homework necessary to talk intelligently on this topic, I am indeed done! Looking forward to Marc Rubin's next entry!
Linda Berkland said...
"You've shown your true colors and your lack of knowledge of this case. I had said before that I was not debating you because you're not worth it and until you actually do the real homework necessary to talk intelligently on this topic, I am indeed done! Looking forward to Marc Rubin's next entry!"
You are not debating me because you do not know how to debate. I know TSM is where Sandusky met his kids for decades, but I am not familiar with an incident that occurred ON its grounds like PSU? You suggest cameras should have been setup there, not PSU. Back it up. Enlighten us, oh righteous one!
You're the one who said Sandusky was acquitted on charges relating to victim 2... Rock solid info, Linda.
And what about this gem of factual info: "Opinion reported by what are considered "reputable" media outlets is considered fact."
You also said, "Jerry Sandusky represented The Second Mile NOT PSU for the entire time that this particular investigation covered." How? I already listed guilty counts from a shower incident at PSU. Those came down in a court of law, not public opinion. Another good try from a well-informed PSU alum.
Sorry my links and information from reputable sources doesn't hold a candle to your "I'm so right I don't need to cite MY sources" argument.
Please refute one thing I have said here and back it up. Post a link to a non-Triponey article that unfairly damns Joe or PSU. Say definitively that Paterno should have kept his job. until then, I also look forward to Marc's next rant that attacks everyone but PSU without presenting any sources to back his "facts", "proof", etc..
-MC
MC provided the following quote:
And a quote from another CNN article: ""After giving it
more thought and talking it over with Joe yesterday, I am
uncomfortable with what we agreed were the next steps,"
Curley wrote the next day, according to Freeh's report."
I have not read the entire string of emails too closely, but this seems to be the only evidence MC ever refers to, and is one of the few that Freeh has in his report that he alleges shows Paterno was involved in a huge coverup. Although this email raises questions, it is not the piece of Perry Mason evidence Freeh attempts to make it.
First off, it is hearsay.
Additionally, We do not know if Curley actually spoke to Joe. Because Curley said he did does not mean it actually happened, and even if he did, we do not know what they spoke about or what the specifics of the conversations related to or what the context truly is. Remember, Curley is facing criminal charges for perjury, and Freeh and the government attorneys and the grand jury believe Curley has no credibility, so if he does not, why is it assumed he is telling the truth here? If Curley is truly capable of perjury and covering up a crime, isn't he capale of using Joe's name to support his master cover up? Finally, Cyurley's comment makes it clear that "I" ( being Curley) made the decision, not Paterno or we.
Of course this raises questions, but to use this piece pfmevidence as a smoking gun and condemn Paterno and remove his statue and wins at lightning speed is completely unfair and makes absolutely no sense.
One of the problems with this case was as soon as it broke, there were people like Dan Patrick, Colin Cowherd and Mark May on daily telling everyone that Paterno was the master puppeteer oh Happy Valley and that anythng occurring there was done with his knowledge. They made statements comparing Sandusky's case to the Syracuse case ( which broke at the same time) and indicated that everyone should wait for the legal process to handle the Syracuse Case, whereas Patrick actually said Paterno already had his day in court ( referring to the grand jury proceeding). They misquoted the facts from the Grand Jury Presentment, after admittedly not reading it in its entirety (but rather reading conclusions). From that point on, they worked to prove their hypothesis rather than analyze the evidence rationally, and sports fans (as well as other fans) followed their opinions because of the fact molestation occurred. There are still many questions that need to be looked in to, but Feeh's conclusions are sweeping and exaggerated.
If you have ever dealt with prosecutors, and I do on a daily basis, many will adocate for a conviction no matter what and will exaggerate the allegations (look at the Michael Jackson case where the allegations were terrible, the case was over charged, and the D.A. Could ultimately not prove its case). That may very well be what happened here.
To the last anonymous poster who directed his comments to "MC", save your breath! "MC" is a media lap dog who just sits and waits for a knock on his front door so he can bark, and bark and bark! He doesn't know who he's barking at or even what he's barking about, but he sure likes to make a lot of noise. You are being way too logical in pointing to the FACTS in this case but since "MC" hasn't actually seen these facts presented by NBC, CBS, ABC, FOX, CNN, ESPN, blah, blah, blah, then it simply isn't true! The best thing about "MC" is that he continues to prove Marc Rubin's point about media malfeasance because he's to unintelligent to see beyond what he reads or hears from "major media" outlets and form his own opinions.
Anonymous - Thanks for the thorough response. Your six paragraphs are based on me using this email as evidence. What I said was:
"And a quote from another CNN article: ""After giving it more thought and talking it over with Joe yesterday, I am uncomfortable with what we agreed were the next steps," Curley wrote the next day, according to Freeh's report."
Notice how it doesn't just stop after "Curley wrote the next day"? CNN is not taking a stance or claiming it as a fact. It is stating what the report states. That's the news."
I was merely pointing out the "according to Freeh's report" portion as that is how news is typically reported. I hardly see this as using an email as a smoking gun.
-MC
Linda Berkland said...
"To the last anonymous poster who directed his comments to "MC", save your breath! "MC" is a media lap dog who just sits and waits for a knock on his front door so he can bark, and bark and bark! He doesn't know who he's barking at or even what he's barking about, but he sure likes to make a lot of noise."
Oh, Linda. You are too sweet. Any answers from my last point or are you just going to go the attack route from here on out?
-What incidents that occurred ON TSM's grounds helped put Sandusky behind bars?
-Do you have anything to back your point that news cameras should have been at TSM and not PSU where four guilty verdicts came from?
-Was Sandusky really acquitted on charges relating to Victim 2? Or was he found not guilty on one and guilty on four others?
-How did Sandusky represent TSM and not PSU during this investigation?
-Do you have a link to an article or video that unfairly and I accurately damns PSU and/or Paterno?
-Should Paterno have kept his job?
"You are being way too logical in pointing to the FACTS in this case but since "MC" hasn't actually seen these facts presented by NBC, CBS, ABC, FOX, CNN, ESPN, blah, blah, blah, then it simply isn't true!"
You have posted a blogspot and a Wordpress link in this thread. Marc posted a poll that was conducted for a site called framingpaterno.com. Excuse me for assuming those sites are a tad one-sided.
"The best thing about "MC" is that he continues to prove Marc Rubin's point about media malfeasance because he's to unintelligent to see beyond what he reads or hears from "major media" outlets and form his own opinions."
'because he's TOO unintelligent'
'from "major media" outlets TO form his own opinions'
But yea, I see your point about the whole unintelligence thing.
-MC
MC continues to prove that MC has no ability to read or rationalize anything. Sorry MC, but the criticism of you above is spot on.
MC may wish to read some of the articles on the framingpaterno web site (from MC's comments it is clear they have not looked at those articles). Contrary to the general media's perception of anyone who supports Paterno (including his family, Franco Harris etc...) being aidiot, there are real questions about how this case has been handled, the actual evidence against Paterno, and the conclusions of Freeh and the conclusions of the Grand Jury. The reports are terribly one sided and most media sources will not run any counter articles because they fear public reaction to doing so (and public reaction results in lost revenues, lost customers, lost sponsors). The general media will continue to post negative articles about Paterno because it is popular to do so. The mainstream media has not been concerned with truth for a very long time because of corporate obligations, and if they were to actually demonstrate support for Paterno they would be committing financial suicide. Theywould be demonized for supporting child molestation. Thanks to Marc and others for figthing against this type of propaganda and trying to get the actual facts out there before the knee jerk reactions.
I assume MC will respond to this, and MC's response will be based not on carefully reading the Freeh Report or Grand Jury presentment (truly they should be read in their entirety and analyzed critically) and not on the multiplle articles which demonstrate the problems with them, but with the general media's analysis of this case. Sadly, most people and the press will continue to act like MC and their pre-conceived notions and equation of defending Paterno meaning defending Sandusky will not allow them to change their opinion no matter what is revealed.
ESPN sat on the Syracuse/Bernie Fine scandal for over a decade. They did not report it to law enforcement and did not even run the story. How many potential molest victims are there based on their actions? They have not condemned that reporter (he still works for them and was quite vocal about his disdain for Joe Paterno) and have not condemned ESPN's actions whatsoever. ESPN protects itself, and ESPN is owned by Disney (who also owns ABC). If ESPN had any morals whatsoever, that reporter would be fired and they would ask that their organization be treated like Paterno and Penn State. But they will not.
Anonymous said...
"I assume MC will respond to this, and MC's response will be based not on carefully reading the Freeh Report or Grand Jury presentment (truly they should be read in their entirety and analyzed critically) and not on the multiplle articles which demonstrate the problems with them, but with the general media's analysis of this case"
We already determined who hasn't read the Freeh report: http://tominpaine.blogspot.com/2012/08/why-freeh-didnt-interview-paterno.html
Marc says, "The fact that Freeh declined to interview Paterno and every other principal involved should have made his report worthless and reveal Freeh as worthless as an investigator."
In response, I posted an article from the Washington Post that says Curley and Shultz both declined to be interviewed based on advice from their lawyers. Other respondents posted excerpts from the Freeh report that explain why McQueary and Paterno were not interviewed. Let's put it this way - there is zero evidence to support the claim that "Freeh wanted nothing on the record to contradict or interfere with his preconceived agenda of targeting Paterno as the biggest name associated with these events".
For the record, I have read plenty of your very reputable articles on the unbiased framingpaterno.com website. Here is one that is well researched: http://www.walter-c-uhler.com/?p=40
Unlike Marc and the rest of you who cannot answer questions or cite sources, the author of the above post does a fine job of backing his information. His biggest downfall, however, is that every claim he makes towards the media can only be supported by editorial and opinion pieces. Considering the fact that no one here has posted even just ONE link to anything, I assume the case is very weak.
You also said, "The general media will continue to post negative articles about Paterno because it is popular to do so. The mainstream media has not been concerned with truth for a very long time because of corporate obligations, and if they were to actually demonstrate support for Paterno they would be committing financial suicide."
Do you have any evidence to support this or will you just respond with a "Thanks, MC, for proving Marc's point!" like the rest of respondents?
-MC
Hmm... This post was just deleted for some reason:
Anonymous said...
"I assume MC will respond to this, and MC's response will be based not on carefully reading the Freeh Report or Grand Jury presentment (truly they should be read in their entirety and analyzed critically) and not on the multiplle articles which demonstrate the problems with them, but with the general media's analysis of this case"
We already determined who hasn't read the Freeh report: http://tominpaine.blogspot.com/2012/08/why-freeh-didnt-interview-paterno.html
Marc says, "The fact that Freeh declined to interview Paterno and every other principal involved should have made his report worthless and reveal Freeh as worthless as an investigator."
In response, I posted an article from the Washington Post that says Curley and Shultz both declined to be interviewed based on advice from their lawyers. Other respondents posted excerpts from the Freeh report that explain why McQueary and Paterno were not interviewed. Let's put it this way - there is zero evidence to support the claim that "Freeh wanted nothing on the record to contradict or interfere with his preconceived agenda of targeting Paterno as the biggest name associated with these events".
For the record, I have read plenty of your very reputable articles on the unbiased framingpaterno.com website. Here is one that is well researched: http://www.walter-c-uhler.com/?p=40
Unlike Marc and the rest of you who cannot answer questions or cite sources, the author of the above post does a fine job of backing his information. His biggest downfall, however, is that every claim he makes towards the media can only be supported by editorial and opinion pieces. Considering the fact that no one here has posted even just ONE link to anything, I assume the case is very weak.
You also said, "The general media will continue to post negative articles about Paterno because it is popular to do so. The mainstream media has not been concerned with truth for a very long time because of corporate obligations, and if they were to actually demonstrate support for Paterno they would be committing financial suicide."
Do you have any evidence to support this or will you just respond with a "Thanks, MC, for proving Marc's point!" like the rest of respondents?
-MC
Anonymous said...
"MC continues to prove that MC has no ability to read or rationalize anything. Sorry MC, but the criticism of you above is spot on."
Thank you. Another thorough and well thought out response that attacks me without refuting any of my points. Very productive.
Hmm... And deleted a second time:
Anonymous said...
"I assume MC will respond to this, and MC's response will be based not on carefully reading the Freeh Report or Grand Jury presentment (truly they should be read in their entirety and analyzed critically) and not on the multiplle articles which demonstrate the problems with them, but with the general media's analysis of this case"
We already determined who hasn't read the Freeh report: http://tominpaine.blogspot.com/2012/08/why-freeh-didnt-interview-paterno.html
Marc says, "The fact that Freeh declined to interview Paterno and every other principal involved should have made his report worthless and reveal Freeh as worthless as an investigator."
In response, I posted an article from the Washington Post that says Curley and Shultz both declined to be interviewed based on advice from their lawyers. Other respondents posted excerpts from the Freeh report that explain why McQueary and Paterno were not interviewed. Let's put it this way - there is zero evidence to support the claim that "Freeh wanted nothing on the record to contradict or interfere with his preconceived agenda of targeting Paterno as the biggest name associated with these events".
For the record, I have read plenty of your very reputable articles on the unbiased framingpaterno.com website. Here is one that is well researched: http://www.walter-c-uhler.com/?p=40
Unlike Marc and the rest of you who cannot answer questions or cite sources, the author of the above post does a fine job of backing his information. His biggest downfall, however, is that every claim he makes towards the media can only be supported by editorial and opinion pieces. Considering the fact that no one here has posted even just ONE link to anything, I assume the case is very weak.
You also said, "The general media will continue to post negative articles about Paterno because it is popular to do so. The mainstream media has not been concerned with truth for a very long time because of corporate obligations, and if they were to actually demonstrate support for Paterno they would be committing financial suicide."
Do you have any evidence to support this or will you just respond with a "Thanks, MC, for proving Marc's point!" like the rest of respondents?
-MC
Anonymous said...
"I assume MC will respond to this, and MC's response will be based not on carefully reading the Freeh Report or Grand Jury presentment (truly they should be read in their entirety and analyzed critically) and not on the multiplle articles which demonstrate the problems with them, but with the general media's analysis of this case"
We already determined who hasn't read the Freeh report: http://tominpaine.blogspot.com/2012/08/why-freeh-didnt-interview-paterno.html
The author of that post says, "The fact that Freeh declined to interview Paterno and every other principal involved should have made his report worthless and reveal Freeh as worthless as an investigator."
In response, I posted an article from the Washington Post that says Curley and Shultz both declined to be interviewed based on advice from their lawyers. Other respondents posted excerpts from the Freeh report that explain why McQueary and Paterno were not interviewed. Let's put it this way - there is zero evidence to support the claim that "Freeh wanted nothing on the record to contradict or interfere with his preconceived agenda of targeting Paterno as the biggest name associated with these events".
For the record, I have read plenty of your very reputable articles on the unbiased framingpaterno.com website. Here is one that is well researched: http://www.walter-c-uhler.com/?p=40
Unlike Marc and the rest of you who cannot answer questions or cite sources, the author of the above post does a fine job of backing his information. His biggest downfall, however, is that every claim he makes towards the media can only be supported by editorial and opinion pieces. Considering the fact that no one here has posted even just ONE link to anything, I assume the case is very weak.
You also said, "The general media will continue to post negative articles about Paterno because it is popular to do so. The mainstream media has not been concerned with truth for a very long time because of corporate obligations, and if they were to actually demonstrate support for Paterno they would be committing financial suicide."
Do you have any evidence to support this or will you just respond with a "Thanks, MC, for proving Marc's point!" like the rest of respondents?
-MC
Looks like we are at the point now where posting evidence that goes against the author's claims will get your comments deleted multiple times. It is a pleasure debating topics with such open minded people who never attack the poster and always provide detailed support to their claims...
-MC
Another try at this one:
Anonymous said...
"I assume MC will respond to this, and MC's response will be based not on carefully reading the Freeh Report or Grand Jury presentment (truly they should be read in their entirety and analyzed critically) and not on the multiplle articles which demonstrate the problems with them, but with the general media's analysis of this case"
We already determined who hasn't read the Freeh report: http://tominpaine.blogspot.com/2012/08/why-freeh-didnt-interview-paterno.html
Marc says, "The fact that Freeh declined to interview Paterno and every other principal involved should have made his report worthless and reveal Freeh as worthless as an investigator."
In response, I posted an article from the Washington Post that says Curley and Shultz both declined to be interviewed based on advice from their lawyers. Other respondents posted excerpts from the Freeh report that explain why McQueary and Paterno were not interviewed. Let's put it this way - there is zero evidence to support the claim that "Freeh wanted nothing on the record to contradict or interfere with his preconceived agenda of targeting Paterno as the biggest name associated with these events".
For the record, I have read plenty of your very reputable articles on the unbiased framingpaterno.com website. Here is one that is well researched: http://www.walter-c-uhler.com/?p=40
Unlike Marc and the rest of you who cannot answer questions or cite sources, the author of the above post does a fine job of backing his information. His biggest downfall, however, is that every claim he makes towards the media can only be supported by editorial and opinion pieces. Considering the fact that no one here has posted even just ONE link to anything, I assume the case is very weak.
You also said, "The general media will continue to post negative articles about Paterno because it is popular to do so. The mainstream media has not been concerned with truth for a very long time because of corporate obligations, and if they were to actually demonstrate support for Paterno they would be committing financial suicide."
Do you have any evidence to support this or will you just respond with a "Thanks, MC, for proving Marc's point!" like the rest of respondents?
-M C
Watching ESPN now and Spanier's attorney was given about a 60-second clip on SportsCenter explaining how Freeh's report would not be accepted in the court of law... Lewis says Freeh was not an independent investigator but a self-anointed accuser. He also said Freeh recklessly and without justification created victims of him own...
This article is currently the third-most popular article on ESPN.com: http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/8292444/ex-penn-state-nittany-lions-president-graham-spanier-lawyer-blasts-freeh-report
CNN and SI.com have the the same story from the associated press.
Get off framingpaterno.com for just a minute and actually research the media claim no one can back up with links.
-MC
Anonymous said...
"I assume MC will respond to this, and MC's response will be based not on carefully reading the Freeh Report or Grand Jury presentment (truly they should be read in their entirety and analyzed critically) and not on the multiplle articles which demonstrate the problems with them, but with the general media's analysis of this case"
We already determined who hasn't read the Freeh report: http://tominpaine.blogspot.com/2012/08/why-freeh-didnt-interview-paterno.html
Marc says, "The fact that Freeh declined to interview Paterno and every other principal involved should have made his report worthless and reveal Freeh as worthless as an investigator."
In response, I posted an article from the Washington Post that says Curley and Shultz both declined to be interviewed based on advice from their lawyers. Other respondents posted excerpts from the Freeh report that explain why McQueary and Paterno were not interviewed. Let's put it this way - there is zero evidence to support the claim that "Freeh wanted nothing on the record to contradict or interfere with his preconceived agenda of targeting Paterno as the biggest name associated with these events".
For the record, I have read plenty of your very reputable articles on the unbiased framingpaterno.com website. Here is one that is well researched: http://www.walter-c-uhler.com/?p=40
Unlike Marc and the rest of you who cannot answer questions or cite sources, the author of the above post does a fine job of backing his information. His biggest downfall, however, is that every claim he makes towards the media can only be supported by editorial and opinion pieces. Considering the fact that no one here has posted even just ONE link to anything, I assume the case is very weak.
You also said, "The general media will continue to post negative articles about Paterno because it is popular to do so. The mainstream media has not been concerned with truth for a very long time because of corporate obligations, and if they were to actually demonstrate support for Paterno they would be committing financial suicide."
Do you have any evidence to support this or will you just respond with a "Thanks, MC, for proving Marc's point!" like the rest of respondents?
-MC
Anonymous said...
"I assume MC will respond to this, and MC's response will be based not on carefully reading the Freeh Report or Grand Jury presentment (truly they should be read in their entirety and analyzed critically) and not on the multiplle articles which demonstrate the problems with them, but with the general media's analysis of this case"
We already determined who hasn't read the Freeh report: http://tominpaine.blogspot.com/2012/08/why-freeh-didnt-interview-paterno.html
Marc says, "The fact that Freeh declined to interview Paterno and every other principal involved should have made his report worthless and reveal Freeh as worthless as an investigator."
In response, I posted an article from the Washington Post that says Curley and Shultz both declined to be interviewed based on advice from their lawyers. Other respondents posted excerpts from the Freeh report that explain why McQueary and Paterno were not interviewed. Let's put it this way - there is zero evidence to support the claim that "Freeh wanted nothing on the record to contradict or interfere with his preconceived agenda of targeting Paterno as the biggest name associated with these events".
For the record, I have read plenty of your very reputable articles on the unbiased framingpaterno.com website. Here is one that is well researched: http://www.walter-c-uhler.com/?p=40
Unlike Marc and the rest of you who cannot answer questions or cite sources, the author of the above post does a fine job of backing his information. His biggest downfall, however, is that every claim he makes towards the media can only be supported by editorial and opinion pieces. Considering the fact that no one here has posted even just ONE link to anything, I assume the case is very weak.
You also said, "The general media will continue to post negative articles about Paterno because it is popular to do so. The mainstream media has not been concerned with truth for a very long time because of corporate obligations, and if they were to actually demonstrate support for Paterno they would be committing financial suicide."
Do you have any evidence to support this or will you just respond with a "Thanks, MC, for proving Marc's point!" like the rest of respondents?
-MC
MC. your 1 article was posted this morning, after the above string. Wow, you really got me here.
Wasn't trying to get you. Simply backing my claims with evidence.
More of that - "Outside the Lines" just covered the Spanier attorney statement for about 8 minutes.
-MC
Let's see how long this one lasts:
Anonymous said...
"I assume MC will respond to this, and MC's response will be based not on carefully reading the Freeh Report or Grand Jury presentment (truly they should be read in their entirety and analyzed critically) and not on the multiplle articles which demonstrate the problems with them, but with the general media's analysis of this case"
We already determined who hasn't read the Freeh report: http://tominpaine.blogspot.com/2012/08/why-freeh-didnt-interview-paterno.html
Marc says, "The fact that Freeh declined to interview Paterno and every other principal involved should have made his report worthless and reveal Freeh as worthless as an investigator."
In response, I posted an article from the Washington Post that says Curley and Shultz both declined to be interviewed based on advice from their lawyers. Other respondents posted excerpts from the Freeh report that explain why McQueary and Paterno were not interviewed. Let's put it this way - there is zero evidence to support the claim that "Freeh wanted nothing on the record to contradict or interfere with his preconceived agenda of targeting Paterno as the biggest name associated with these events".
For the record, I have read plenty of your very reputable articles on the unbiased framingpaterno.com website. Here is one that is well researched: http://www.walter-c-uhler.com/?p=40
Unlike Marc and the rest of you who cannot answer questions or cite sources, the author of the above post does a fine job of backing his information. His biggest downfall, however, is that every claim he makes towards the media can only be supported by editorial and opinion pieces. Considering the fact that no one here has posted even just ONE link to anything, I assume the case is very weak.
You also said, "The general media will continue to post negative articles about Paterno because it is popular to do so. The mainstream media has not been concerned with truth for a very long time because of corporate obligations, and if they were to actually demonstrate support for Paterno they would be committing financial suicide."
Do you have any evidence to support this or will you just respond with a "Thanks, MC, for proving Marc's point!" like the rest of respondents?
-MC
Anonymous said...
"I assume MC will respond to this, and MC's response will be based not on carefully reading the Freeh Report or Grand Jury presentment (truly they should be read in their entirety and analyzed critically) and not on the multiplle articles which demonstrate the problems with them, but with the general media's analysis of this case"
In a previous post on this blog, the author says, "The fact that Freeh declined to interview Paterno and every other principal involved should have made his report worthless and reveal Freeh as worthless as an investigator."
In response, I posted an article from the Washington Post that says Curley and Shultz both declined to be interviewed based on advice from their lawyers. Other respondents posted excerpts from the Freeh report that explain why McQueary and Paterno were not interviewed. There is zero evidence to support the claim that "Freeh wanted nothing on the record to contradict or interfere with his preconceived agenda of targeting Paterno as the biggest name associated with these events".
For the record, I have read plenty of your very reputable articles on the unbiased framingpaterno.com website. Here is one that is well researched: http://www.walter-c-uhler.com/?p=40
The author of the above post does a fine job of backing his information. I don't know what his post does to discount the fact that Sandusky was seen harassing a young boy in a PSU locker room shower by a former PSU QB/current PSU grad assistant who reported what he saw to the PSU head coach and other PSU leaders. It seems like a lot of "the grand jury reported it one way in 2002 but McQueary said it slightly different in 2011". Great research and fact checking. It just does not account for the lack of inaction on the part of PSU's leaders.
You also said, "The general media will continue to post negative articles about Paterno because it is popular to do so. The mainstream media has not been concerned with truth for a very long time because of corporate obligations, and if they were to actually demonstrate support for Paterno they would be committing financial suicide."
Do you have any evidence to support this? I recently posted a number of articles and mentioned a few long video clips that say otherwise.
-MC
To the anonymous poster from 9:15 AM today - I am trying to respond to your comments with a pretty reasonable post, but it strangely seems to disappear about 30 seconds after I click "publish your comment".
I find it a bit odd that this issue has come up during a conversation centered around fair and balanced reporting. I do not use any profanity nor do I attack anyone. Sorry for this inconvenience.
-MC
Anonymous said...
"I assume MC will respond to this, and MC's response will be based not on carefully reading the Freeh Report or Grand Jury presentment (truly they should be read in their entirety and analyzed critically) and not on the multiplle articles which demonstrate the problems with them, but with the general media's analysis of this case"
We already determined who hasn't read the Freeh report. In a previous post on this blog, the author says, "The fact that Freeh declined to interview Paterno and every other principal involved should have made his report worthless and reveal Freeh as worthless as an investigator."
In response, I posted an article from the Washington Post that says Curley and Shultz both declined to be interviewed based on advice from their lawyers. Other respondents posted excerpts from the Freeh report that explain why McQueary and Paterno were not interviewed. Let's put it this way - there is zero evidence to support the claim that "Freeh wanted nothing on the record to contradict or interfere with his preconceived agenda of targeting Paterno as the biggest name associated with these events".
For the record, I have read plenty of your very reputable articles on the unbiased framingpaterno.com website. Here is one that is well researched: http://www.walter-c-uhler.com/?p=40
The author of the above post does a fine job of backing his information. I don't know what his post does to discount the fact that Sandusky was seen harassing a young boy in a PSU locker room shower by a former PSU QB/current PSU grad assistant who reported what he saw to the PSU head coach and other PSU leaders. It seems like a lot of "the grand jury reported it one way in 2002 but McQueary said it slightly different in 2011". Great research and fact checking. It just does not account for the lack of inaction on the part of PSU's leaders.
You also said, "The general media will continue to post negative articles about Paterno because it is popular to do so. The mainstream media has not been concerned with truth for a very long time because of corporate obligations, and if they were to actually demonstrate support for Paterno they would be committing financial suicide."
Do you have any evidence to support this? I recently posted a number of articles and mentioned a few long video clips that say otherwise.
-MC
I read the 18 page report by Spanier's lawyer (ex judge and prosecutor). He did a very good job of analyzing the Freeh Report and showing the countless weaknesses. It should be read closely, as it clearly demonstrates that the Freeh report is anything but independent. Hopefully more will come from this because there are so many questions that need to be answered, and Freeh did not answer them.
Spanier interview aired on ABC last night. Clips have been re-airing all day on various news networks.
-MC
Yes. I have not seen much analysis of the report his lawyers submitted to the public (referred to in Marc Rubin's opinion today). That report goes through the evidence quite well. The stories i have seen are mainly just focussing on Spanier's statements and his interview on ABC. I hope that the press reads the report and points out that Spanier's lawyers have done a very good job of demonstrating that the Freeh Report has gaping holes in it. I think it can also be argued that he eidence against Spanier is even weaker than that against Spanier, and that against Spanier is really rather questionable.
Meant to say "that against Paterno" aove in the last sentence.
Post a Comment