I just don't understand how you can buy that...if you listen to the tape, the ENTIRE conversation carries with it a context of Fine molesting this kid. It's not an issue of them talking about the latest sale at the market, and then all the sudden, his wife blurts out "So, is Bernie still trying to molest you?"

 

The entire tape is centered on Fine's fascination with young boys, this boy in particular, and were there to be editing involved, they'd have had to basically fabricated the entire conversation.

 

 

People love to play devil's advocate.

People love to play devil's advocate.

And Tex is the master of the slippery slope argument.

 

And Tex is the master of the slippery slope argument.

 

+1

You can't edit interruptions that well. And I know...I'm an editor.

I just heard on the way home that Laurie Fine was sleeping with players since the 1980's...and the third victim apparently shared a bed with both Laurie and Bernie.

 

 

I just heard on the way home that Laurie Fine was sleeping with players since the 1980's...and the third victim apparently shared a bed with both Laurie and Bernie.

 

Im just waiting for a picture of her back in the 80s so I can say "Ok, that makes sense. She was (cute, hot, milf-ish, semi attractive, worth it, pick your adjective). Because I keep seeing the deadspin picture where she looks like Elizabeth Taylor circa 1999 and thinking "OMG what was wrong with those players?!!?!"

I just heard on the way home that Laurie Fine was sleeping with players since the 1980's...and the third victim apparently shared a bed with both Laurie and Bernie.

 

There are now rumors of a "sex tape":

 

http://deadspin.com/5863908/which-syracuse...ith-laurie-fine

I just don't understand how you can buy that...if you listen to the tape, the ENTIRE conversation carries with it a context of Fine molesting this kid. It's not an issue of them talking about the latest sale at the market, and then all the sudden, his wife blurts out "So, is Bernie still trying to molest you?"

 

The entire tape is centered on Fine's fascination with young boys, this boy in particular, and were there to be editing involved, they'd have had to basically fabricated the entire conversation.

 

I am agreeing that it is more likely the tape is real, but as SS and I have said, editing the tapes is about as easy a thing as there is today. I'm not a fan of accuser supplied evidence in a format that is so easily altered. Not playing devil's advocate or anything like that. Accuser supplied evidence is always suspect. I hope they have some collaboration or it's basically hinges on this guys testimony and a tape he made talking to someone who benefits from the accused being locked up.

I am agreeing that it is more likely the tape is real, but as SS and I have said, editing the tapes is about as easy a thing as there is today. I'm not a fan of accuser supplied evidence in a format that is so easily altered. Not playing devil's advocate or anything like that. Accuser supplied evidence is always suspect. I hope they have some collaboration or it's basically hinges on this guys testimony and a tape he made talking to someone who benefits from the accused being locked up.

 

You can't edit interruptions that well. And I know...I'm an editor.

So you're saying this guy edited this tape in 2003, before he gave it to ESPN?

Is there a reason why this hasn't been addressed? The tape wasn't recorded last month, it's been sitting in a file cabinet in Bristol for 8 years. The capabilities of modern audio editing software is moot, the latest the recording could have been edited was 2003, when it first surfaced.

 

What was the most common method of recording phone calls in 2003? I'm gonna say Bobby Davis probably turned a microcassette over to ESPN as opposed to the digital audio files prevalent today, further increasing the degree of difficulty in fabricating such a conversation.

That's a whole other issue...the fact that ESPN sat on this s*** for this many years. They look like a bunch of assholes talking about "journalistic integrity" and all that other bulls***.

All that withstanding, it's a terrible idea to force journalists to report crimes.

All that withstanding, it's a terrible idea to force journalists to report crimes.

I would normally not make an issue of it, except for the fact that ESPN's biggest talking head so righteously explained to us all when the PSU scandal broke how reporting a crime such as child molestation to the police trumps all customary reporting procedures. To not do so is a moral outrage!

Edited December 2, 201114 yr by iamshack

I would normally not make an issue of it, except for the fact that ESPN's biggest talking head so righteously explained to us all when the PSU scandal broke how reporting a crime such as child molestation to the police trumps all customary reporting procedures. To not do so is a moral outrage!

Journalists are given exceptions here that other professions should not be.

Journalists are given exceptions here that other professions should not be.

 

They still look like giant hypocritical assholes.

Balta,

 

What moral exception do reporters have?

 

Reporters have no ethical obligation to keep a story secret (not that they were even asked).

I would normally not make an issue of it, except for the fact that ESPN's biggest talking head so righteously explained to us all when the PSU scandal broke how reporting a crime such as child molestation to the police trumps all customary reporting procedures. To not do so is a moral outrage!

 

I still have a very hard time with sports reporting being considered journalism for the purposes of reporting laws.

I would normally not make an issue of it, except for the fact that ESPN's biggest talking head so righteously explained to us all when the PSU scandal broke how reporting a crime such as child molestation to the police trumps all customary reporting procedures. To not do so is a moral outrage!

Especially when they have tied up millions of dollars arguing a case with the ohio and now the federal supreme court suing Ohio State for student's records and emails. I wouldnt expect any less than total hypocrisy from ESPN to be honest, which has been shown to be the case here.

I still have a very hard time with sports reporting being considered journalism for the purposes of reporting laws.

 

I sort of disagree because this is "sports reporting" only due to the fact that it deals with a basketball coach, but there's no real difference beside that. I don't think espn acted entirely above water...but I worry some self-righteous politician will make a short-sighted law out of this. If espn didn't know about the 2004 investigation, then who knows if they assumed that this tape was given to authorities as well. But I doubt they really didn't follow that investigation (if it was public). But no, I don't think they have a responsibility to give law enforcement that tape. And just keep in mind there are some major differences in this case and paternos.

I still have a very hard time with sports reporting being considered journalism for the purposes of reporting laws.

Should business journalists be required to report hints of business-related crimes to the police for investigation? Because these days, sports is pretty much nothing but a giant business. If there's a shield law of any sort, then it's going to apply to sports journalists too.

ESPN isnt even claiming a journalistic privilege. They just chose not to do anything with the tape.

 

Reporters already have laws protecting them, ESPN isnt using any of them as an excuse. I dont think there needs to be a change of the law, but if you are going to be self-righteous about morals, you should maybe practice what you preach.

Should business journalists be required to report hints of business-related crimes to the police for investigation? Because these days, sports is pretty much nothing but a giant business. If there's a shield law of any sort, then it's going to apply to sports journalists too.

 

Yes.

Should business journalists be required to report hints of business-related crimes to the police for investigation? Because these days, sports is pretty much nothing but a giant business. If there's a shield law of any sort, then it's going to apply to sports journalists too.

 

it would be interesting if Financial Times had proof of Madoffs ponzi scheme 8 years prior to the scandal breaking and chose to do nothing with it.

 

The bottom line is that peoples lives have been affected, and the self riteous entity that is espn is pointing their fingers at McQueary/Curley/Paterno and at the same time saying "we didnt know what we should have done with it" about the Lauri Fine tape. It is bulls***

Yes.

 

But I also think the comparison between business and sports is very weak.