Getting a little off topic here, but I think the "agenda" for most news outlets are "clicks/viewership." I don't think there is a significant "grand agenda" for most of them (few exceptions) other than they often publish things that lack journalistic integrity because they know they will be popular/controversial/generate revenue.
FC: ESPN takes on Penn State once again
- Thread starter GulfCoastLion
- Start date
Can you refresh people's memories about Howard Stern and exactly what he said? Was he believable? An actual insider? Or just full of excrement?
See my other post. Ask the Centre County police, District Attorney and DPW why Sandusky wasn’t arrested for a similar incident 10 years earlier or why DPW had a second evaluation done which concluded Sandusky was harmless after the first one concluded he fit the profile of a classic groomer. Maybe you should ask why McQueary refused to tell his father, a physician, when asked 3 times that he saw or heard a sexual assault in the shower that night. Maybe yoy should ask why the administration didn’t heed Paterno’s recommendation when asked his thoughts regarding Sandusky’s retirement package that he not be permitted to bring Second Mile kids on campus because as ESPN “knows” in its “reporting” on Sandusky and infers in the hatchet job regarding Hodne, Paterno “ran” the University. Maybe you should ask why the Second Mile, a child protective agency, permitted Sandusky to take kids off the property up until the time he was arrested despite being told by PSU after the shower incident that Sandusky was no longer permitted to bring Second Mile kids on campus. Maybe you should ask the AG’s office, which has oversight responsibilities over both DPW and the Second Mile, why it never investigated either
This is a really sad story. Here are some of my takes on it:
- Rape wasn’t taken nearly as seriously then as it should have been. That includes judges, law enforcement, doctors/nurses, university administrators, and football players/coaches.
- I give the writers credit for the work they did on this. A lot of research and they brought an important story to light.
- However, they seemed to really stretch to make Paterno a bad guy in this. They chose to quote a victim who was upset Joe never reached out to her, which seems like an unfair expectation to me. And they repeatedly pointed out that PSU was continuing to play football while all this went on and Joe never chose to hold a press conference or something to tell the world about Hodne. I was imagining them saying, “if you’re really such an ethical guy, why didn’t you use this opportunity to start a conversation about rape culture on college campuses?”
- One of the passages that struck me as showing a “Paterno bad” bias was this:
———
Irv [Pankey] did not feel that Paterno had prohibited him from standing up for Betsy, but he did know he was taking a risk by breaking ranks: "Penn State football—we were winning, we were nationally ranked, we were doing well. It was a close-knit brotherhood, so to speak, kind of like an army platoon."
———
I’d really like to hear the Q&A between the writers and Pankey here. They chose to imply that Joe didn’t like Pankey befriending one of Hodne’s victims — he “didn’t prohibit him” — but the quote they used talked about a “brotherhood.” That seems to me to be talking about pressure Pankey felt from his teammates, not wanting to cause bad feelings in the locker room, but they slid it in to make it seem like a pressure Joe was responsible for. Pankey was the hero of the story, so it would be interesting to hear what he said about Joe’s role. I’m guessing it wasn’t damning, so wasn’t included.
- Rape wasn’t taken nearly as seriously then as it should have been. That includes judges, law enforcement, doctors/nurses, university administrators, and football players/coaches.
- I give the writers credit for the work they did on this. A lot of research and they brought an important story to light.
- However, they seemed to really stretch to make Paterno a bad guy in this. They chose to quote a victim who was upset Joe never reached out to her, which seems like an unfair expectation to me. And they repeatedly pointed out that PSU was continuing to play football while all this went on and Joe never chose to hold a press conference or something to tell the world about Hodne. I was imagining them saying, “if you’re really such an ethical guy, why didn’t you use this opportunity to start a conversation about rape culture on college campuses?”
- One of the passages that struck me as showing a “Paterno bad” bias was this:
———
Irv [Pankey] did not feel that Paterno had prohibited him from standing up for Betsy, but he did know he was taking a risk by breaking ranks: "Penn State football—we were winning, we were nationally ranked, we were doing well. It was a close-knit brotherhood, so to speak, kind of like an army platoon."
———
I’d really like to hear the Q&A between the writers and Pankey here. They chose to imply that Joe didn’t like Pankey befriending one of Hodne’s victims — he “didn’t prohibit him” — but the quote they used talked about a “brotherhood.” That seems to me to be talking about pressure Pankey felt from his teammates, not wanting to cause bad feelings in the locker room, but they slid it in to make it seem like a pressure Joe was responsible for. Pankey was the hero of the story, so it would be interesting to hear what he said about Joe’s role. I’m guessing it wasn’t damning, so wasn’t included.
I may be wrong but HS posted something on premium that was cryptic but made some kind of insinuation about Sandusky. I believe it was about MM. I do not know what was posted or said. That post caught the attention of law enforcement, somehow. That led to law enforcement meeting MM to get his review. MM dumped on the entire shower incident. Law enforcement then started to put together the puzzle pieces of several different events so that JS' behaviors became clearer over several incidents and not any one singularly. I really don't think JS would have been convicted of any one/single event. It was the totality of events that got him convicted.
Drop the mic please sir. And send this response to the front page of ESPN.COM-this eloquently and accurately is the argument I always try to make when supporting Joe and you just knocked it out of the park. Thank you!
Last edited:
Great post. I'd only add that being a "classic groomer" isn't against the law (except now in Florida if you are an elementary school teacher).
All of those things you state, in individuality, were not going to get JS convicted. It could have contained him, I guess, but not convicted. What did get him convicted was the sum of all of the events.
After that, the reality is that the media and law enforcement saw Paterno as a way to fame and fortune (and possibly a governorship) and the board saw him as a scapegoat to avoid scrutiny.
Second Mile was in another world.
It turns out that the U.S. Attorney's office and the FBI had already conducted a federal investigation of The Second Mile. It's an investigation that's apparently been closed since at least 2014, with the result that no charges were ever filed.
In response to FOI requests filed by Ryan Bagwell, a former newspaper reporter and unsuccessful candidate for Penn State trustee, the U.S. Attorney's Office in Washington, D.C. released some 1,000 pages of documents from the closed files of The Second Mile probe.
What's the bottom line?
"It's a big nothing burger," said John Snedden, a former NCIS and FIS special agent who just got through reviewing the documents. "There was an investigation and there was nothing to pursue, and no charges were filed."
Most of the notes in the released files appear to be FBI interviews conducted in 2012 with Second Mile board members in both the State College office and other regional offices. The interviews described how Second Mile board members reacted to the Sandusky revelations dating back to as early as 2010 and 2011.
"Not a single person admitted to knowing about Sandusky's crimes prior to the presentment," Snedden said. Two people claim to know about "missing donor money," but nothing else is said about that subject in the rest of the released files.
The documents released by the feds are heavily redacted, but there are many references to Second Mile board members circling the wagons. References were made in the documents to false allegations being made by a "disgruntled mother" and a "disgruntled kid."
The documents are more noticeable for what they don't say. Such as in the issue of jurisdiction involving the Sandusky investigation. If, for example, in their investigation of The Second Mile, if the feds any found any evidence of a federal crime, such as Sandusky crossing state lines with sex abuse victims, "They would have taken it [the investigation] away from the state for prosecution," Snedden said.
"But they [the feds] didn't do any of that," Snedden said after reviewing the documents. "There's no indication they did that."
Instead, the attorney general pursued the Sandusky investigation, and the feds pursued The Second File.
"Sadly, neither focused on political vindictiveness and corruption, which is exactly what happened here," Snedden said.
Snedden has his own experience with a previous secret federal investigation into the Penn State scandal. In 2012, working as a special agent for the Federal Investigative Services, Snedden did a background investigation of former Penn State President Graham Spanier, to see if Spanier's high level security clearance should be renewed by the government.
As part of that investigation, Snedden investigated whether Spanier had orchestrated a coverup of Sandusky's crimes. Snedden's investigation concluded that there was no cover up at Penn State, because there was no sex crime to cover up. As far as Snedden was concerned, Mike McQueary, the guy who witnessed a naked Sandusky allegedly abusing a boy in the Penn State showers, was not a credible witness.
Spanier's clearance was renewed as the result of an 110-page report that Snedden wrote back in 2012, a report that was declassified earlier this year.
In the investigation of The Second Mile, the released files include copies of FBI interviews with eight witnesses whose identities are redacted. The interviews are recorded on FBI "302s," the number of the form that interview summaries were typed on by FBI agents.
"I see a lot of interviews with a lot of different people, a wide range of positions in the Second Mile hierarchy," Snedden said. "And I don't see any people admitting to knowing anything concrete about Sandusky."
In the interviews, there are quotes from woman who "had always heard positive things about the organization. She had never heard anything bad about TSM founder Jerry Sandusky."
Another woman interviewed by the FBI described Sandusky's "nondescript entrance and presence" at a March 25, 2011 "Celebration of Excellence" event in Hershey.
"Sandusky was not acknowledged during the event formally by TSM," the woman told the FBI.
"On March 31, 2011, the Patriot News published an article about the grand jury investigation" of Sandusky," the woman told the FBI. "The article was everywhere and everyone was talking about it."
"She didn't recall seeing any evidence of financial improprieties or anything otherwise questionable," the FBI 302 stated. "She did not personally observe any misuse of donations."
"The general mood of the room was that of denial," the woman told the FBI. "Everyone appeared to be in support of Sandusky and TSM."
In another 302, an unidentified witness said, "He did not observe any inappropriate behavior." On the same form, someone, possibly Sandusky himself stated the complainant "was a disgruntled kid, not associated with TSM. He was not aware at the time that the allegation was sexual in nature"
Another 302 notes that one board member was "shocked after reading the indictment." In addition, "four or five board members in particular were upset that they were never notified. The exchange was heated."
In the 302s, there was discussion of an earlier 1998 allegation that Sandusky had abused another youth in the shower, but "the allegations were considered 'unfounded.'"
There is also discussion in the 302s about an alleged allegation involving the Clinton County Children and Youth Services[CYS].
"CYS did have a safety plan in the event a child was a victim of sexual abuse," the 302 stated. "They did not need to enact their safety plan for SANDUSKY's case because the allegation was not founded and all actions taken by CYS were 'by the book.' "
Bagwell said he has filed multiple FOI requests as part of his Penn State Sunshine Fund. Bagwell, a former newspaper reporter who is now a web developer, said he filed his requests because he was seeking primary source documents from the Sandusky investigation.
"What frustrated me about everything since the very beginning was a complete and utter lack of transparency," Bagwell said.
In his court battle with the U.S. Attorney's office, Bagwell said, the feds indicated that there were some 300,000 pages of documents related to The Second Mile investigation. The feds only released 1,000 pages and "withheld tends of thousands more for reasons not apparent at this time," Bagwell said.
Bagwell, himself a former journalist, said the press coverage of the scandal has been "abysmal, reactionary and sensationalistic," as well as "factually incorrect." Bagwell said he hopes the newly released documents will have a calming effect on Penn State Nation.
"Penn Staters are still screaming for an investigation for years of The Second Mile," Bagwell said. "Well, it turns out there was an investigation."
"My overall view is that everything here [in the documents] seems to support the idea that The Second Mile didn't knowingly do anything wrong," Bagwell said. "The Penn Staters who are clamoring for heads at The Second Mile to roll, I don't think that's an outcome that's appropriate at this point in time."
I went to the ESPN site and they have this story headlined as "The most dangerous player in college football history."For those who were wondering what the reported ESPN storyline (long storyline) would be a while back, here it is on the 10th anniversary of the Sandusky scandal from ESPN.
Before Jerry Sandusky, Penn State football had another serial sexual predator. This is the untold story of his crimes and the fight to bring him to justice.
When Jerry Sandusky's crimes came to light in 2011, the world thought it was the first time Joe Paterno and Penn State had faced a serial sexual predator in their midst. But that was not the case. This is the story of the predator who had come before.www.espn.com
EDIT: for those who are already upset, or not wanting to view/dignify ESPN (I understand), clique at your own risk. It’s not flattering and quite lengthy
I guess ESPN never heard of the I-5 killer.
After reading most of the comments on this thread, I simply will state that ESPN is not a journalistic hub. It's an entertainment network that is failing and needs click bait to save face.
You just hit the nail on the head with the word "feeling". In a society where we no longer have absolute or objective truth, feelings are everything. That's what microaggressions are all about. If you "feel" aggressed against, you are. Mind you I'm not trying to diminish real racism. Just the point that not everything one perceives is true. An example: I've had at least two cases in the past couple of years where I've had someone coming at me yelling. Except they weren't. What I could not see was the very small mic and headset they had on. They were actually yelling at someone on the phone and didn't even know I was there. My perceptions were wrong.
they now have a ten years later section and states that McQuery saw the boy being raped. They do add that McQuery later indicated he wasn't sure he saw rape.....
I noticed the same thing....Kind of crazy. Everyone's reaction immediately following the shower incident reeks of what Mcquery saw being in a gray area, not a rape. I believe McQuery heard a noise and saw Jerry and Minor without clothes on and freaked out. I can't imagine he saw rape and decided to leave and leave the victim there.
Ultimately PSU should have reported, even realizing there could have been many things that had occurred that were not criminal. But I don't believe for a second that they knew Jerry was raping kids.
I thought that doc was done well. It certainly didn't just trash Joe
I kind of agree. I thought the piece was surprisingly fair but I was really put off by Franklin's attitude toward even mentioning Joe.
When everything around you, including the fan base, was built by one man - show that man a modicum of respect. Really disappointing.
By the way it still chokes me up to see Joe and what was done to him. Absolute disgrace.
Last edited:
My take...
F'n hit piece...what you get with who's in charge at PSU
They keep repeating the LIE that McQ witnessed a rape in the shower....despite the email stating 1000% otherwise, most of which was blurred for no reason. Why did no one dispute that...editing?
Millen is an a-hole...and a liar...Jerry was his coach...what did HE know?...doubtful his kids were never around Jerry at later PSU events?
Jay should not speak for the family.
I believe that AF had nothing to say, because he really had nothing to say.
They way E60 presented this, it will do no good.
F'n hit piece...what you get with who's in charge at PSU
They keep repeating the LIE that McQ witnessed a rape in the shower....despite the email stating 1000% otherwise, most of which was blurred for no reason. Why did no one dispute that...editing?
Millen is an a-hole...and a liar...Jerry was his coach...what did HE know?...doubtful his kids were never around Jerry at later PSU events?
Jay should not speak for the family.
I believe that AF had nothing to say, because he really had nothing to say.
They way E60 presented this, it will do no good.
I haven't seen it, but wasn't the question asked sometime in November during the week of the 10-year-mark? I can see not wanting to get into that at a weekly PC. Was it possibly edited to make it look worse than it was and fit the ESPN agenda? I haven't given up on Franklin yet like some, but when it comes to X's and O's he couldn't touch Joe in his prime. Unless he's an idiot he knows it.
In keeping with the Easter tradition ESPN had to crucify someone.For those who were wondering what the reported ESPN storyline (long storyline) would be a while back, here it is on the 10th anniversary of the Sandusky scandal from ESPN.Before Jerry Sandusky, Penn State football had another serial sexual predator. This is the untold story of his crimes and the fight to bring him to justice.
When Jerry Sandusky's crimes came to light in 2011, the world thought it was the first time Joe Paterno and Penn State had faced a serial sexual predator in their midst. But that was not the case. This is the story of the predator who had come before.www.espn.com
EDIT: for those who are already upset, or not wanting to view/dignify ESPN (I understand), clique at your own risk. It’s not flattering and quite lengthy
Yes, it was during Rutgers week. I thought Franklin came across as petty and weak. Unless the losers that run Penn State forbid everyone from mentioning.joe.
This was always going to be a a “ no win” situation… simple fact is his reputation will always be tarnished for those not as educated as to what really happened.
But make no mistake about it..Surma the coward that he is , Frazier and other ass clowns that ran the University at that time.. failed in epic proportions.
the documentary should be about failed leadership at Penn State.. and the BOT at that time IMO .. failed in ways that single-handedly destroyed a man and at the time a University so that they would not be implicated .
shame on Surma. Shame on Frazier . Shame on Erickson. And shame on Sandusky .
Could Joe have done more ? Maybe. But at the time… he clearly did exactly what he was supposed to do.
But make no mistake about it..Surma the coward that he is , Frazier and other ass clowns that ran the University at that time.. failed in epic proportions.
the documentary should be about failed leadership at Penn State.. and the BOT at that time IMO .. failed in ways that single-handedly destroyed a man and at the time a University so that they would not be implicated .
shame on Surma. Shame on Frazier . Shame on Erickson. And shame on Sandusky .
Could Joe have done more ? Maybe. But at the time… he clearly did exactly what he was supposed to do.
Remember.., everything is edited for TV… comments and quotes are taken to fill a narrative., some might not like Franklin., but he has also made very positive comments about Joe when he was first names Head Coach.
it’s very easy and their jobs for editors to pull quotes , interviews , statements extracted from a full press conference.
This is TV.. and it’s their jobs to fill a narrative..
Last thing.. in March USC settled on a 1 billion dollar payout made by 250+ women against a school gynecologist..just horrific.
did anyone know or hear about it ?
nice job reporting media..
Absolutely a disgrace - a lifetime stain on the “leaders” of Penn State. Makes it easy to draw a straight line from this failure of leadership and Penn State’s plummeting academics and stagnating athletics.
They could have literally hired a high school principal and AD and have done a better job than Onion Dip and Sandy. It gives me zero comfort to know that Neeli feels she needs to keep Barren around as a consultant. More feeding at the trough by a gross incompetent.
There should be a MBA class on this organizational leadership failure.
What Joe did is literally codified as a best practice.
I didn’t watch the whole hour, I was watching the Sixers game, but I did DVR to watch later.
A couple impressions…..they talked about the AG’s office saying they found no evidence of a coverup by Joe. Then why not play the sound bite of Fina to Armen Katayan saying he found none? Why not show Corbett’s clip where he said Joe shouldn’t have been fired? Interesting in what ESPN left out. I’m interested to find out if they mention that Joe followed current NCAA policy when it comes to reporting sexual assaults.
I also have a problem with Philly lawyer Tom Kline commenting. Of course he is going to say Joe failed in his responsibilities. He represented one of the “Victims” and as a vested interest in keeping a false narrative.
I’ll watch the full program a little later.
A couple impressions…..they talked about the AG’s office saying they found no evidence of a coverup by Joe. Then why not play the sound bite of Fina to Armen Katayan saying he found none? Why not show Corbett’s clip where he said Joe shouldn’t have been fired? Interesting in what ESPN left out. I’m interested to find out if they mention that Joe followed current NCAA policy when it comes to reporting sexual assaults.
I also have a problem with Philly lawyer Tom Kline commenting. Of course he is going to say Joe failed in his responsibilities. He represented one of the “Victims” and as a vested interest in keeping a false narrative.
I’ll watch the full program a little later.
I haven't watched it yet but heard about the Franklin part last week, I think it was in the trailer. ESPN sent some stooge to ask Franklin a random question about Paterno in the middle of a game week press conference. Hardly the time and place and I don't blame Franklin one bit for blowing that question off. A poster on the other site said that ESPN had formally requested an interview through PSU and was denied, so this was ESPN's attempt to bypass that denial. If true, Franklin would understandably be even more annoyed that ESPN simply wouldn't accept that Franklin didn't want to be part of this show, so in return ESPN dropped this in there to make him look bad. Par for the course for ESPN I suppose.
I only saw the second half hour. I'm not sure what the first half hour portrayed, but the second half was hardly a "Paterno Legacy".
Random thoughts from what i recall seeing
Random thoughts from what i recall seeing
- ESPN did Paterno's legacy no favor's. how about some interviews with players who recall the man Paterno was such as the funeral tributes speeches from MRob, Cefalo and others?
- I agree CJF came across terribly.
- Aaron Fisher... In a Paterno legacy show? WTF? That was uncalled for, unnecessary and completely below the belt. Aaron Fisher still cannot tell the truth and look a person in the eye when speaking about his alleged abuse. and give me a break with the crocodile tears and the supposed house of horrors in Sandusky's basement.
- Matt Millen... He puzzles me. He said he'd match Joe up against anyone for honor and respect, yet in the past he has not defended Paterno nearly enough.
- Tom Kline - he's just a scummy
ambulanceabuse chaser. - What his name - Howard Bryant? I think the next comments I ever agree with will the first time I ever agree with him.
McQueary was not an eye witness.....he was an ear witness. Again, one needs to reference the layout of the locker room. Even if he caught a glimpse of the youngster with JS......it's apparent he couldn't tell an 8 year old from an almost 14 year old. Why? That's open to speculation.......whatever he witnessed, it took him 6 weeks to tell Joe. MM became putty in the hands of prosecutors, due to his own frailties.
If ESPIN was looking for facts.....they might have mentioned that Joe didn't like JS.....JS was long retired and Joe objected in writing to JS having carte blanche with the facilities.
It is the media. Once you get it, you won't go back. The media are complete turds. I don't know of an exception. One prominent news source, reporting that Elon Musk might by Twitter said something to the effect of "...he might tell people what to think. That's our job!"
Well they didn't really fail did they? They got exactly what they wanted.
Finally backed Joe into a corner and had their knives sharpened and he had no way to defend himself. They cut down a man who they could never be better than and who they hated for the knowledge of that. They also put the football team in its place, right? Don't forget that WE are in charge here, that was the message
Just posted this on the Twitter. May as well post it here also along with the reminder that President Barron will retire on June 30th with his promise to Penn State alumni & stakeholders of reviewing the Freeh materials still unfulfilled.
Last edited:
I am not going to post who posted this on Twiiter but Geez. They want to build a memorial to the "PSU Victims"
Really hope we can put up a memorial to victims of child sexual abuse in front of/blocking the newly revealed (on @E60) quasi-secret #Paterno memorial on Fraser St. Also hope we can acknowledge that people do both good & bad and we absolutely cannot ignore the bad.
The show was pretty much just re-hashed material with only the "damning" statements reviewed such as the emails with no context and Louie's "reasonable" assumptions. They mentioned the Clemente report and Thornburg's defense of Joe but didn't get into any of it. Schultz basically was on there to admit guilt. Surprised they got Spanier on there. He was a little more defiant but there wasn't any real substance. I liked Franklin's response. It was post practice and you have this idiot from ESPN trying to get a Paterno quote. Basically said gtfo.. in a nice way. Rehashing those 2-3 weeks of chaos followed shortly by Joe's death brought me to tears. The end where they recorded the phone call to Sandusky from prison was interesting but not really insightful, claiming innocence and the only way to exonerate Joe was to exonerate Jerry.
Isn't that the way it is these days? If you're not a victim then you are nobody.
