iamshack

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 9, 2011 -> 02:18 PM) Can you back that one up? Because the reaction of the Penn State folks seems to have been "you can still come on campus just don't bring kids". Well, I don't know exactly what happened yet, but it appears he made Sandusky retire, he refused to speak at his retirement dinner, he refused to be associated with him in any way. Joe Paterno is not the police. He is not the DA. He is not the enforcer of morality on earth. Joe Paterno is a freaking football coach.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Nov 9, 2011 -> 02:18 PM) The point of the speculation is that I can't come up with any plausible scenario that fits with what we already know that a) makes sense and b) casts Paterno in a better light. What additional facts are possibly out there that fit what we already know? I doubt you could have come up with this scenario prior to reading about it either. So why not just wait to hear what it is? What is to be lost by waiting to find out?

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Nov 9, 2011 -> 02:16 PM) This then resulted in the retirement of Sandusky from PSU. However he was still allowed to keep his professor Emeritus status, was still allowed to use PSU money to take children on trips and stay in hotels, and was allowed to bring these children on campus with him without any restrictions. And that is a university issue, not a Joe Paterno issue.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Nov 9, 2011 -> 02:16 PM) PSU doesn't really have anything to do with the victims, though. It's a police/judicial matter at this point. He's trying to deflect attention. Yeah, rightfully so! This should be primarily about the University dealing with Sandusky and his actions on their campus, not how many more football games Paterno coaches this season.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Nov 9, 2011 -> 02:15 PM) Turning a blind eye to sick s*** like that, allowing it to continue unabated, is a moral failing, not a justification. The police, apparently, did their job but the DA failed: Well, I don't make it my business to assess the moral failings of others. I have enough work to do on my own moral failings. As for the police and the DA, that excerpt is the same piece I read. It's a bit ambiguous to know exactly where the ball was dropped. But the DA does not usually make it a habit to just drop things like that...unless the evidence was obtained incorrectly.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 9, 2011 -> 02:10 PM) But he continued allowing that person access to his facilities and presumably continued staying in contact with him. Unless he completely shut the door with him and never spoke to him again after the allegations, he was directly involved in sick s*** like that. It pretty much seems like he did that, Balta.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Nov 9, 2011 -> 02:09 PM) What other efforts could he have made where the following scenario makes sense: A current subordinate and former player of Paterno's comes to him with allegations that Paterno's long-time friend, who happens to spend an inordinate amount of time with young boys, was molesting or raping a young boy in the PSU locker room. Paterno rightfully alerts his AD. These are known facts to this point. Now, let's speculate: Paterno hands the matter off to his AD, trusting him to follow through. Paterno, deeply troubled by these accusations, follows up relentlessly. He is assured repeatedly that the matter is being investigated. Eventually, he is told that it does not appear that Sandusky did molest this young man, but this young man was never found and just to be safe we're going to bar him from bringing boys around campus any more. Paterno can rest easy knowing that his friend didn't really molest those boys, but now he has someone on his staff who accused his life-long friend and colleague of child molestation. How can you keep him around and working for you for almost a decade more? How can you not discuss this manner further with your AD and your GA and get this resolved? But the problem is peoples' opinions are formed using that speculation. And then as time goes by, people forget that it was just speculation that formed their opinions. Why not just wait for the actual facts before I form my opinion?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 9, 2011 -> 02:07 PM) Wait, he said something to that effect? That sounds godawful. Rock's taking it a bit out of context. He said the university has far more important concerns, such as the victims, rather than concerning themselves with his impending retirement.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Nov 9, 2011 -> 02:05 PM) Or his personal PR team keeps letting him make statements that will portray him in a better light somehow. He's already captured at least one person on here because he said he "wished he had done more" aka, I knew about it and didnt do anything at the time. He's been interviewed on this before and I am positive that even more negative pieces of information will come out about his knowledge of the situation if this goes to trial. So what's the harm in me waiting on those negative pieces of information to come to light, rather than simply assuming that they will?

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Nov 9, 2011 -> 02:03 PM) No, its because he was directly involved in the information that was being passed around about his employee and was also directly involved in what happened to said employee more than once in regards to consequences. He's the most powerful man at an institution not only where this happened, but where it was sometime funding and enabling such acts to occur. Well I'm sorry, but I just don't hold him as responsible for not chasing this guy down and the vast majority of you guys. Some people just don't want to be involved in sick s*** like that. Does he deserve to lose his job. Probably so. Do I find it necessary to condemn him personally? No. I have far greater ire towards the police that turned a blind eye. I find it far more disturbing that the organization entrusted by the public and charged with preventing these sort of people from walking around amongst us did nothing than Paterno's inaction. But apparently that is not as big of a story and there are not going to be any threads created to discuss that issue.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Nov 9, 2011 -> 01:59 PM) No, it's dishonest and insulting to the people here, on SoxTalk, not in Bristol, trying to discuss this issue. And how, exactly, is the media's portrayal of this story similar? Are they completely obfuscating the facts surrounding the issue, giving intentionally dishonest and completely inaccurate representations of the story? Oh goodness. It was an oversimplification to make a point. Chill. Again, I've stated several times now how the media's portrayal is similar. As I said, listen to the media reporting it and then we'll debate it.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Nov 9, 2011 -> 01:59 PM) No, it comes from the GJ findings. The findings that say Paterno talked to his AD the next day about accusations of molestation. The findings that say the GA was called into a meeting that Paterno wasn't present at. The findings that say this situation went unreported and uninvestigated for almost a decade, aside from banning Sandusky from bringing children into the locker room. I can't really envision anything Paterno could say that would make me view him in a better light at this point. Jenks' scenarios don't add up. I don't need to hear denials from someone who's getting thrashed for failing to stop this man years ago. I agree with you on most of these points. But Paterno seems to want to present his case quite a bit. I wouldn't be shocked if he made other efforts to deal with this that we are simply unaware of at this early stage in the findings.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Nov 9, 2011 -> 01:56 PM) That's a completely dishonest portrayal and you know it. No, it's just manipulating the portrayal to suit an endgame, the same as the media is doing.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Nov 9, 2011 -> 01:51 PM) The media are exploitative vultures and ESPN is a godless monster. Can we get back to discussing why Joe Paterno doing literally the bare minimum he could in a case involving first-hand accounts of child rape is somehow ok? Again, the problem is the "facts" in your sentence right there came from those exploitative vultures and godless monsters. Some of us want to hear from all significant parties before we rush to damning this guy.

QUOTE (Milkman delivers @ Nov 9, 2011 -> 01:49 PM) But again, that isn't the point of this thread. So, who cares? Someone should start a thread in the Filibuster about sensationalizing the news. So what is the point of the thread? Is it the victims of child molestation in environments that cater to their presence, by people that they should be able to trust and look to as role models? Or is the point that Joe Paterno is getting publicly slayed for being the head coach of a football team at a university where these events happened? I mean, the title of the thread says "Penn State Horror Story." I guess I just inferred from that that the actual "story" and how and why it is being reported was fair game. I guess we should just change the thread title to "Joe Paterno tolerated child molestation at Penn State," since that is really what this thread is about.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Nov 9, 2011 -> 01:37 PM) That's because I don't care about the issue, I care about what we were actually discussing before this "the media is too focused on Joe!" deflection. And just one further point, to you and Balta especially, I really don't believe either of you don't have a problem with the news being reported (and obviously shaped) in a way that is not necessarily accurate, but rather, in the way in which ratings and therefore revenues, will be optimized. Especially when you're dealing with such a sensitive subject matter. I apologize if I keep running in another direction on this than most of you (or deflecting, as you say), but that should be a relevant issue, in my opinion.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Nov 9, 2011 -> 01:37 PM) That's because I don't care about the issue, I care about what we were actually discussing before this "the media is too focused on Joe!" deflection. The problem is that most people you're having this discussion with, have gotten the vast majority of information from that very same media. It may not color your opinion, and it may not even color many people's opinions in here, but it has and will color some peoples', purely due to a desire to make more money on the story, and that bother me. And you are seriously going to accuse me of deflecting something? I've come in here and voiced a very minority opinion on the matter. If I was in the business of deflecting criticism or running from disagreement or even being called a fool, I certainly wouldn't voice that opinion.

QUOTE (Milkman delivers @ Nov 9, 2011 -> 01:33 PM) OK, in my analogy, which is purely hypothetical, Paterno isn't the gang leader. He's a member of a gang that are all responsible for something bad, and he's being crucified in the media as being the ringleader who is the most to blame, all the while he is not. I think that it's actually spot on. He's a freaking football coach! He's not a gangleader. "Gang" has an extremely negative connotation, which is exactly why you're choosing that word. Regardless, I know what you're trying to say...and I agree he should lose his job.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 9, 2011 -> 01:27 PM) GMAB man, you can say this exact same thing about any terrible situation. I guess you have no problem with terrorism since the media made money off of running ads when September 11th happened. I mean, this is nonsense. No, you can't. The distinction is that the media is trying to pretend as though the real story to them is the kids, when in all reality, it is the Penn State legendary football coach going down right in front of us all. Why not just lead the story off with a child molestation scandal has sunk Joe Paterno and then make it all about Paterno as much as they want? Instead, they are acting as though they have such heartfelt condolences for these innocent children...and then after 8 seconds of reflecting on that, we spend the next 59 minutes on just how many stakes we should drive through Joe Paterno's heart. Sorry, to me, that is just entirely disingenuous. I don't know how to make it any more clear for you.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Nov 9, 2011 -> 01:24 PM) Should the media not be reporting this? Should they ignore or downplay that a well-known coach was involved in the supposed investigations and reporting of the abuse? The media makes money off of stories; the bigger the story, the more money that make. That doesn't mean they shouldn't cover big stories or important issues because it is also in their own self-interest to do so. No, the media absolutely should report it. You have admittedly not paid any attention to how they are reporting it though, so I don't really see how we can debate the issue.

QUOTE (Milkman delivers @ Nov 9, 2011 -> 02:22 PM) I led off my statement by saying that it's unfair that he's being labeled as a main bad guy. My point is that there is a group of guys all involved together like a gang (Sandusky, Paterno, AD, GA, etc.). They are all guilty of doing something (failing to alert authorities/robbing), but one guy is guilty of doing something much worse (child molestation/murder). It might be unfair for one of the guys to take the media hit as being the center of it all when he's only guilty of a lesser crime, but that in my opinion, I really don't give a s*** who gets crucified by the media if they all get their just dessert. In no way am I saying that Joe Paterno has ever donned a Richard Nixon mask and robbed a bank only to be thwarted by Keanu Reeves. It's simply an analogy. Your analogy was a s***ty one though, and that is exactly why I am complaining about the media here. Not 4 days after the news breaks, you've got people comparing Paterno to a gang leader of bank robbers. Umm...no. Next we will compare him to the German SS and Heinrich Himmler.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 9, 2011 -> 02:18 PM) Honestly, no. One of these would be a large local story. One of these would be a large national story. Well that's fine then. I guess you have no problem with using the rapes of teenage boys to make money off a story about a football coach.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Nov 9, 2011 -> 02:14 PM) I've read or heard little of this story outside of the GJ testimony and this thread. I generally don't care much about college football and have no real opinion of Paterno outside of this situation. I do not believe that my opinion has been colored or shaped by the media. But, I have to ask, what additional information are you waiting for before you can form your conclusions? The GJ testimony is pretty thorough. But most people are not you, SS. Quite a lot of Americans are going to hear this in passing during the commercials of Wheel of Fortune and stupidly confuse things. As for me, I want to hear Paterno's side of things before I actually condemn him of moral turpitude.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 9, 2011 -> 02:12 PM) Who exactly is labeling him "The main bad guy". He committed a fireable offense. I don't think anyone here has suggested he go to jail. The people above his head are facing legit jail time, as is the actual main bad guy. So you do not see the problem with Paterno losing his job as a freaking football coach being the bigger story than a child molester holding summer camps on the campus of Penn State?

QUOTE (Milkman delivers @ Nov 9, 2011 -> 02:10 PM) I personally have no sympathy for Paterno. It's unfair that he's being labeled as the main bad guy here, but it's like blaming a member of a gang that robs banks for killing a guy when it was one of the other members. The guy is still a bank robber and as long as they all go down, I don't care about the individual sentences. That's just my opinion, though. Oh, so now Paterno is a gang member and a bank robber, because he was the main figurehead? So by your analogy, Paterno is a child molester? Do you see why this being reported this way is a problem?