Tuesday, July 3, 2012

Purported emails, Paterno and another black eye for the news media.

The CNN headline read: "purported emails suggest Paterno may have altered decision not to report abuse".

 This is of course from the news organization whose political polling division did a poll asking " Do you think Osama Bin Laden is in hell"? when the only thing that has really gone to hell is CNN as a news source.

 The CNN report which could only appeal to the terminally flat lining brain, was picked up only by one or two other media outlets ( it seems this nonsense was even too much for most other media outlets who so far have ignored it) .

It should also be noted that CNN has changed its headline since yesterday when it read, " Purported emails suggest Paterno may have influenced.." and today its "altered".

 This is what happens when a news organization reports on the contents of an email they cant even verify exists because they haven't seen it and so are reduced to calling it a "purported" email. Which is why CNN is only a purported news organization reporting on purported things, because they not only cant verify one single thing they are reporting on which naturally doesn't stop them from reporting it anyway, they can't even see how preposterous and illogical their "may have's" are.

 They have also referred to these as "alleged" emails, and "alleged contents" because the contents have been leaked by someone in the attorney general's office who obviously wanted to leak them to the media possibly to influence public opinion before jury selection at Curly's trial. The attorney general is now refusing to return phone calls asking about the leaks.

 For those not familiar, the purported email which no journalist has ever seen or held in their hands, and are being headlined based on something being read to them over the phone by an anonymous source, and then drawing a clearly brain dead conclusion is this:

 According to CNN, the email from Curley purportedly allegedly says:

 "After giving it more thought and talking it over with Joe yesterday I am uncomfortable with what we agreed were the next steps".

 Aside from the fact that only the brain dead, which most journalists seem to be, could draw from that email the possibility that Paterno somehow influenced Curley's damning decision not to report the abuse, it needs to be pointed out that ESPN, in also quoting from the same purported alleged email reported a slightly different quote:

 According the ESPN, Curley's email to then Penn State president Spanier said

 "After talking with Joe and giving it more thought I am uncomfortable with going ahead with what we all agreed upon and reporting it to everyone". The "everyone" included Child protective services.

 The "Boy Eats Foot" level of journalism and assumption and insinuation CNN was trying to sell for the sake of a headline  is that "after talking with Joe" means that Joe talked poor Curley into not reporting the abuse, even though every one of Paterno's public statements and his grand jury testimony is to the contrary and would not only mean Paterno lied, somethng not even remotely in his character, it also would have opened Paterno up to perjury and obstruction of justice charges and child endangerment along with the same failure to report abuse Curly and Schultz are facing. Is that what CNN wants everyone to consider is a possibility? That Paterno would lie over something like that and do it at a time when neither Paterno nor anyone else had any idea the Sandusky matter would become the biggest story in the country for more than a month? Is that supposed to make sense?

 When considering that Paterno's honesty and integrity has been beyond question his entire life, this shows the depths that CNN is willing to sink in it's desperate groveling attempts at commercialism.

The obvious conclusion to draw from those emails is that after Paterno met with Curley ( as he testified he did) and told Curley what McQueary had told him, and after everyone including Paterno agreed that it would be reported to who Curley describes as "everyone"  which included Child Protective Services, Curley on his own, "after thinking about it", changed his mind and told that to Spanier in an email, and Spanier supported the decision even mentioning the possibility that it could make them vulnerable for not reporting it.

 Paterno's public statement at the time, supported by his grand jury testimony was that he reported the allegation to his superiors, Curley and Schultz, and according to Paterno's statement, "..that was the last time the matter was brought to my attention until this investigation and I assumed that the men I referred it to ( Curley and Schultz) handled the matter appropriately".
If CNN's new smear attempt of Paterno was the truth, it would have meant Paterno hung Curley, Schultz and Spanier out to dry. And given the charges they were facing they would just let that happen? Is this CNN's idea of crack journalism?

 And while I have no desire or intention of defending Curley on anything ( the email, if it was followed through on, clearly makes him and Spanier culpable for not reporting it and he reversed his decison without bothering to inform Paterno he changed his mind ), it is more than possible that, given the sanitized and vague version of events Paterno passed on from what he was told by McQueary which ranged from "something sexual in nature" without getting specific,  to "horsing around", Curley wasn't comfortable with reporting Sandusky for sexual abuse ( the real problem was nothing was done about the 1998 accusations).

 And if that stirs up the zombies of the brain dead, keep in mind that McQueary's actual trial testimony was so vague and inconclusive, that while Sandusky was convicted of 45 of the 48 counts of abuse against him, one of the three counts of which he was acquitted was the charge of the rape of Victim 2 in the Penn State shower based on McQueary's eye witness testimony.If the jury didn't think what McQueary testified to under oath in court was credible or conclusive enough to convict Sandusky in a court room, one can only imagine the way he presented what he admitted was a sanitized version of what he saw to Paterno, Schultz and Curley.

 But  why this report by CNN is truly gutter journalism, is that without a doubt, if Paterno had in any way influenced or been involved in Curley's reversal of the decision to report it, Curley would said so. And the best case Curley could have made to Spanier to support his decision not to report the abuse, would have been to say that "Joe" agrees, or "Joe suggested". But he didnt.

 Nothing in CNN's report based on "purported emails", "alleged contents", ":maybe's" : "could have's" "suggests", and "may have"s without one shred of actual evidence or testimony or common sense to back it up, would have been allowed to be called news 20 years ago. And is probably why most other news organizations aren't even picking up the story. It is nothing more than incompetent gutter, "Boy Eats Foot" supermarket tabloid journalism to attract attention without a shred of intelligence or journalistic integrity behind it. And is probably why recent Neilsen ratings show CNN at an all time low.
The only real characterization of what CNN has tried to call news isnt that the emails "suggest" anything. Its CNN using them to make, not news, but insinuation. And making it for the sake of attention and commercialism.

After three days of this story appearing on the CNN site, there has not been a single report that anyone at CNN either called or tried to call Curley himself to ask him if Paterno did or suggested anything that caused him to reverse the decision to report the abuse to "everyone" as they had "all agreed on". They didn't call to ask if Paterno had anything to do with his decision to change his mind and not report it. They didnt call to ask if Paterno even knew about it. They could have called and asked about  all of this before they ran the story. But they didnt. Because that would have spoiled all the fun.

NOTE: Subsequet to this being written as of 5pm Eastern on July 3rd it has been noted that CNN has removed the Paterno "may have" emails story from its front page.

ADDENDUM: On July 7, Don Vanatta, a writer for ESPN Magazine, writing on the leaked emails wrote:

'A source who has reveiwed all the early 2001 emails said that the few that have been leaked 'are definitely out of context' " 

Vanatta went on to say that his source who has seen all the emails suggested that the one email used by CNN to make insinuations about Paterno was selectively leaked to put everyone in the worst possible light.


Anonymous said...

One or two other media outlets picked up the CNN email report? How about the NYT, the WSJ, the damn jungle drum telegraph of Burundi? The CNN smoking gun has lapped the planet. It almost knocked the Olympics off the front page of UK newspapers. You like to claim that the media has a vendetta against Paterno and simultaneously claim that the media overwhelmingly agrees with you. The only logical inference from Curley's email is that Paterno ordered a cover-up. Your tortured defense of him now seems cultic.

Anonymous said...

The only logical influence??? You inferred that from a single, unconfirmed leaked e-mail taken out of context? I think the reason that journalism is dead is because brain-dead people like the previous poster have allowed the media to do the "thinking" for them.

Anonymous said...

You seem to have created an irrebuttable presumption of Joe's innocence. If Curley et al testify that Joe ordered a cover-up, you'll say that they're just lying to save themselves. If Freeh turns up a note from Joe to Curley et al in Joe's handwriting recommending a cover-up, you'll say that it's a forgery. If Freeh turns up a recording of Joe recommending a cover-up to Curley et al, you'll say that it's a fake. You'll base all this on your "knowledge" that a man of Joe's character could never do such a thing (I seem to remember people saying the same thing in defense of Jerry). Is there any evidence short of Joe rising from the grave to confess to you in person that would persuade you? You repeatedly dismiss evidence as inadequate. Then tell us what evidence WOULD be adequate. If you cannot, then you are just another Penn State true believer.

Anonymous said...


As usual, you are right on point wrt the garbage being portrayed as legitimate news by the MSM. What can we write to increase ratings? Not what can write to truthfully educate and inform the public?

Why no stories by the MSM on how wrong their pundits got it when they railed that a jury with so many ties to Penn State wouldn't be able to render a fair verdict? Or how wrong the pundits got it when they predicted and expected a guilty on all counts verdict in less than two hours just as the jury entered deliberations? And their railings that Sandusky was going to get off because the deliberations were taking too long? What idiots, how could a two hour deliberation have possibly resulted in honest and fair verdict with 48 separate counts to consider?

Or maybe a story regarding your point that the jury returned a non guilty verdict regarding the alleged shower rape despite McQuery's sworn testimony and the disposition of the jury to find Sandusky guilty? Now that would be eye opening.

Anonymous said...

To Anonymous at 6:50 PM, July 3:

At least Marc believe what he believes using his personal opinions, knowledge and observations as evidence. His evidence isn't based on the presumptions being created by money influenced media. That's really the point; I'm sorry for you that you missed it.

Anonymous said...

I just love this thesis:

When considering that Paterno's honesty and integrity has been beyond question his entire life, this shows the depths that CNN is willing to sink to in a desperate groveling for commercialism.

Solid. Pass the Kool-Aid.

Also, I haven't heard anyone over 11 use the term brain dead since '92. The second poster is definitely Marc in disguise.

Marc Rubin said...

"One or two other media outlets picked up the CNN email report? How about the NYT, the WSJ, the damn jungle drum telegraph of Burundi? You like to claim that the media has a vendetta against Paterno.."

To show how you once again prove my point that people with your point of view are brain dead with you leading the pack, not once anywhere at any time did I ever write anywhere that the media had a "vendetta" against Paterno. You just made it up like the news media you blindly follow does.

Like everything else you claim its just a fantasy, a delusion you have, living inside your head instead of the real world. My point about the media has been well chronicled, from their sheer greed because Paterno was the name that rang cash registers, to people so far down on the food chain that seeing an opportunity to boost their egos by pretending they were morally superior to someone whose accomplishments they will never come close to was too much to pass up.

As for the media, I dont live in Burundi I live in New York city and it was a non-story here. Its routine for newspapers to pick up stories from other media outlets and reprint them to fill space. There hasnt been a word about it in days, no sports columnist I know of has written a word about the story, I get sports reports from all over the country, and CNN has now withdrawn the story from their front pages. And by the way, too add to your resume, I had said "one or two media outlets". Youre vein popping tirade changed it to three or four ( NYT and WSJ)

Say hello to every one for me in Burundi and dont let anyone sell you any vacation land there.

Marc Rubin said...

"You seem to have created an irrebuttable presumption of Joe's innocence.."

You mean like the Founders put in the Constitution? That kind of presumption? Like you are innocent of any accusation or allegation until evidence proves you guilty beyond a reasonable doubt? THAT presumption?

In this case all the evidence (you know what that is dont you? it precludes your opinions) speaks for itself. If and when there is evidence, like maybe Curley himself saying, yes old Joe made me do it,then Paterno's so far irrebuttable statements and testimony along with everyone else's proves that there was nothing but cheap insinuation in CNN's now disappeared story.

According to Paterno he had only one meeting with Curley in which he told him of McQueary's allegations.Not two. One. So after putting on your thinking cap, you think Paterno met with Curley to both tell him about McQueary's allegation and then advised he do nothing about it, then lied about that to the grand jury? Or did he lie about only one meeting with Curley, where the first time he passed on McQueary's allegations, sat in a room where everyone agreed to report it, then had a second meeting that he lied about in which he influenced Curly to reverse the decision to report it and then lied about THAT to the grand jury and in public statements?

Do you see why I call people who swallow this nonsense brain dead?

Marc Rubin said...

"I just love this thesis:

When considering that Paterno's honesty and integrity has been beyond question his entire life, this shows the depths that CNN is willing to sink to in a desperate groveling for commercialism.

Solid. Pass the Kool-Aid.

Also, I haven't heard anyone over 11 use the term brain dead since '92. The second poster is definitely Marc in disguise."

First its not a thesis which moves you up a few pegs on the brain dead meter. Second, maybe you havent heard the term brain dead since '92 because no one around you wants to insult you. And third, when all the evidence comes down on one side and no evidence comes down on the other its using something obviously foreign to you -- reason and logic as well as the rules of evidence used in a court room to come to a conclusion. And maybe you should try Kool-Aid instead of whatever youre drinking that has addled your brain.

Marc Rubin said...

"When considering that Paterno's honesty and integrity has been beyond question his entire life, this shows the depths that CNN is willing to sink to in a desperate groveling for commercialism.

Solid. Pass the Kool-Aid.

Also, I haven't heard anyone over 11 use the term brain dead since '92. The second poster is definitely Marc in disguise"

Two more points (I couldnt resist). You follow the pattern of the brain dead in that you do not and cannot and did not present one single fact (you know what a fact is dont you?)that contradicts or disproves any point I made.

As for my use of the term "brain dead" which I myself havent used in quite some time, I was motivated mostly by another saying.."if the shoe fits.."

Anonymous said...

There is no "irrebuttable presumption" in the Constitution. In fact, the Constitution forbids almost all irrebuttable presumptions under law. Do you know what "irrebuttable" means? It means that no amount of evidence, be it beyond a reasonable doubt or beyond ANY doubt, will overcome the presumption. For example, many states provide that there is an irrebuttable presumption that a child conceived by a wife during marriage was fathered by the husband for support purposes. Even if the husband can prove by DNA evidence beyond ANY doubt (not just reasonable doubt)that he could not possibly be the father, the court will not even consider that evidence. Another irrebuttable presumption states that a 13-year-old cannot consent to intercourse. The court will not even consider a defense of consent. Why would a court act this way? Because these presumptions are IRREBUTTABLE, i.e., incapable of being rebutted.

In much the same way, you have created an irrebuttable presumption that Joe did not participate in a cover-up. You don't apply a reasonable doubt standard; you don't apply ANY standard. You "reason" : Joe is innocent. I don't care what evidence you show me because I know Joe is innocent. In fact, everyone should stop talking about even the possibilty that Joe is not innocent. Why? Because I believe that his innocence is IRREBUTTABLE.

Anonymous said...

Just to add my two cents, the presumption that a defendant is innocent until proven guilty is not and cannot be irrebuttable. If his innocence is irrebuttable, there would be no point to having a trial. The whole point of the trial is to attempt to rebut that presumption of innocence. Some of us need a dictionary.

Anonymous said...

You refer to "Paterno's so far irrebuttable statements". Surely, you mean Paterno's so far "unrebutted" statements. Words mean something.

Marc Rubin said...

"You refer to "Paterno's so far irrebuttable statements". Surely, you mean Paterno's so far "unrebutted" statements. Words mean something."

Yes words mean something and if you bothered to understand their meaning you wouldnt have made this comment. First, try and figure out what the words "so far" means. Then after that see if you can find any evidence or testimony by any one since this whole incident became public that rebutts one word of anything Paterno said either publicly or the grand jury.

His statements are "so far irrebuttable". And in all probablity always will be, since there is nothing that has ever been presented to change that and if they were rebuttable those with the knowledge to rebutt them would have done so months ago. And CNN's now disappeared story based on their own preposterous incompetent insinuations and tortured innuendo to get attention without even an attempt made to see if there was any truth to them maybe because they already knew there wasnt. Instead it seems based on hope there were enough tabloid eaters out there to swallow it and get some web hits and ratings.

Anonymous said...

This entire subject matter, the Sandusky scandal, seems to bring out the worst in people. On one hand, supporters of the victims often seem to hold everyone associated with PSU, even students, faculty and alumni, responsible. You see this nonsense everywhere in the media and web. On the other hand, supporters of PSU often construe even innocent statements in support of the victims as an attack on PSU and its supporters.

For example, someone posted a comment on the CNN site to the effect that if he had a PSU degree on the wall, he would take it down out of respect for the victims. The poster was not suggesting that PSU graduates should not be proud of their accomplishments at PSU; he was simply saying that PSU had become so inextricably linked with pedophilia in the public mind (and in victims' minds) that simple decency dictated the removal of the degree. In much the same way, many people objected to state flags in the South which incorporated certain aspects of Confederate battle flags. Nobody was suggesting that the descendants of Confederate soldiers should not be proud of the sacrifices of their ancestors; people simply thought that Confederate battle regalia had become so inextricably linked with slavery in the public mind that out of respect for the descendants of slaves, those state flags should be taken down. Notwithstanding the CNN poster's modest suggestion, PSU supporters went ballistic all over the web. They claimed that they were being asked to be ashamed of their PSU experience. If they had reflected but a moment, they would have realized that the comment was nothing more than a benign call for consideration of the feelings of the victims.

To paraphrase the recently deceased Mr. King, why can't we all get along?

Anonymous said...

"Two more points (I couldnt resist). You follow the pattern of the brain dead in that you do not and cannot and did not present one single fact (you know what a fact is dont you?)that contradicts or disproves any point I made."

That's the thing - what are your points?

Your first few rants are about how Paterno rose to the occasion, told his superiors and the news media is to blame for his firing... You present "facts" like Schultz being the "head of police services" yet you cannot provide where that fact came from. That's because it was a made up title to help your substanceless post. He was the VP of finance and business with zero authority or even insight into criminal matters. It is well documented that no police were ever told of the shower incident but you back Joe for his noble tattling to his "superiors", who are awaiting trial for lying. Real solid foundation of made up titles and potential criminals as your witnesses.

You also fail to mention any alternative to Joe's firing. You use the "what would you have done" but never have the backbone to lay an argument of how Paterno should have been handled? Let the season play out? Let him retire? What?

You loooooove facts but, even when they stare you in the eye, you ignore them and attack posters as a desperate attempt to legitimize your point of view. Facts - Paterno was the leader of a football program. One of his coaches sexually abused little boys in his facilities. Paterno was told a first hand account of this in his locker room. Sandusky was free to roam campus for ten years without restriction because Joe and others who knew left police and authorities out of it. Sandusky victimized more boys later.

Again, what should the BOT have done? College coaches get fired for 7-6 seasons but Paterno deserved to keep his job because he went to Schultz with sex abuse claims? Really?

And then there is this post. You blab and blab about brain dead journalists and god knows what, but never really make a point other than CNN is wrong for writing about the e-mails. Did their story ever say "Joe told them to keep quiet"? Did any commenter? No. It's you being self conscious and throwing assumptions around. You now say the emails do in fact exist but they were taken out of context. Okay, so what do we know? A meeting went down. Nothing happened.

I honestly don't care about these emails or what was said in them. I hope Joe didn't sway them in the wrong direction. Regardless, the facts are still the facts - nothing came from these meetings. Children were abused by this terrible man because a group of cowards didn't go to police or authorities. Can you dispute that? No amount of hypothetical scenarios you make up will help your campaign to get the smear off Joe. Point fingers at the media, high school officials, etc. all you want. Joe knew. Nothing happened. Even if that's the end of it, I'd call that firing justified on the basis that Paterno was not the one who could turn the page and get the school, state and program going in a better direction. Do you believe he was the man for that job? Would you have been at that Nebraska game cheering Joe on if you knew he and four others failed in their duties as leaders of a university?

I look forward to a factual post that answers none of my questions and attacks me and not my facts/points.

Anonymous said...

"And third, when all the evidence comes down on one side and no evidence comes down on the other its using something obviously foreign to you -- reason and logic as well as the rules of evidence used in a court room to come to a conclusion."

What evidence did you present? You used the word alleged in quotations and bashed CNN using a bunch of bad journalism terms.

Are you calling your references to Paterno's honesty and integrity evidence? I can see that holding up in the court of law... "But your honor, my client could not have committed this crime. He is an honest man of the highest integrity."

Is your evidence the "obvious conclusion" you drew from the emails? You honestly don't see what is so wrong about you viewing people who read the emails contents one way as brain dead but assume you are the righteous one for forming your own conclusion that has no factual basis?

You also hypothesize that Curley was uncomfortable going to authorities because Joe gave him some PG version of an incident on campus in a shower between an old man and a little boy... Again, not based on fact but rather just a theory. You go on to point fingers at the 1998 investigation as the real issue because it's convenient and takes eyes off Joe. Solid.

As for the charges... One resulted in an acquittal because McQeary did not see penetration. He "only" testified that he saw something that was wrong and extremely sexual in nature. forgive him for missing the gory details and thanks for taking it out of context like the two might have just been horsing around. Disgusting. I guess you presented parts of things that could be considered evidence so good start.

The rest lacks substance and is purely hatred for mass media. Suggesting a company calls a man who is awaiting trial for lying to get the truth is merely foot in mouth bloggerism.

Anonymous said...

To follow up - was that email taken out of context?