Do you and WHCANole share the same bed?I believe that some day you will be wandering the streets of some town wearing rags and preaching the gospel of Sandusky's innocence.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Do you and WHCANole share the same bed?I believe that some day you will be wandering the streets of some town wearing rags and preaching the gospel of Sandusky's innocence.
It's fine if you feel that way as a fan. But I don't believe the school admins and BOT members are going to want to be held responsible for what would likely become a PR sh*t show. They'd be accountable for PSU getting drug through the mud for who knows how long and depending on how it turns out it could have implications on applications and so on. It's a lot easier to say you don't care if that happens as a fan, but a lot more difficult if you are the one that might someday have to stand up in front of the national media and explain why you thought it was a good idea after all of the negative repercussions have surfaced. Had they simply left the statue alone in the first place it may not have been as bad, but by removing it the BOT added to or confirmed a public perception that praising Paterno wasn't acceptable. Putting it back up would be backtracking on a very public decision that has already been made, and is unlikely to ever happen without some sort of smoking gun evidence in Paterno's favor that can be used as leverage to justify the change in the BOT's stance. If that smoking gun existed, we'd have already heard about it.
All WHCANole does is hit the Like button. Has nothing to add.Do you and WHCANole share the same bed?
All WHCANole does is hit the Like button. Has nothing to add.
All WHCANole does is hit the Like button. Has nothing to add.
Do you and WHCANole share the same bed?
All WHCANole does is hit the Like button. Has nothing to add.
The only reason the BOT isn't rewriting this narrative is because it doesn't want to. The question is why? Is it something stupid and petty or is there more to it than that? Can anyone say TSM?The negative backlash is still apparent years later with the awesome approach of giving in completely to public opinion. It was a bad approach. There’s numerous well respected public figures who have backed Paterno based on their actual research of the case. Make that public and the basis for restoring the statue and freaking stand by it. The strategy of waiting for everyone that knows who Joe Paterno is to die sucks.
The trial was patently unfair. The results of an unfair trial are inherently unreliable.
Nah, much deeper.The only reason the BOT isn't rewriting this narrative is because it doesn't want to. The question is why? Is it something stupid and petty or is there more to it than that? Can anyone say TSM?
Holy shit, The Bird is fired up. Mrs.Bird better break out the body armor.
John Ziegler had some interesting takes on Gladwell's visit in his weekly podcast. The segment starts a little after the 42 minute mark and runs about 10 minutes. Highlights include:
-Graham Spanier, Sue Paterno, and the purposely fake accuser were in the audience for Gladwell's talk
-Gladwell tempers his comments and is unable to say he believes that Sandusky is innocent because he has too much to lose, but he encourages people to thoroughly research the topic before coming to any conclusions
-Gladwell said the media blew it big time and created a moral panic
-Gladwell's talk received a favorable response from the audience
-JZ was beside himself over a critical article in Newsweek that headlined that Gladwell caused a backlash on twitter over his suggestion that the Paterno statue be brought back given that Newsweek squashed his cover story at the last minute that would have exposed the entire scandal as a myth
-JZ stated that his optimism level is low concerning a couple of projects in the works concerning changing the prevailing opinions in the saga. JZ said that Gladwell's book opened the door for the projects and that if the projects were to be viable, that Gladwell would take on an incredibly important role. He was unsure if Gladwell was willing and able to perform that role.
Here is a link to the Newsweek article that bashes Gladwell. It is truly amazing to me that a publication that was so close to blowing the lid off the false narratives that permeate the fiasco would publish a story that highlights opinions from people who are ignorant of the facts of the case. At least the comments on the article come from people who know what they are talking about.
https://www.newsweek.com/malcolm-gladwell-joe-paterno-backlash-1484882
The statue was horrible. I don’t need to see a statue to know what Joe did or who he was. The idea of putting the statue back up is more symbolic than anything. They’d be far better off to find another way to honor him.
Good observation.
Agree about the comments. That Tim Berton seems to have a good handle on this. I've seen his name pop up before.
And jury's never make mistakes? What a dumb... stupid comment if that is the primary reason that you believe he is guilty.I read the jury's verdict.
If you let them, I suppose.Symbols mean a lot.
Truth be told, I'm thinking most of those from this board falling into this category, who have bothered to read any of this, harbor at least some doubt. They just won't admit it. Too much invested in their stance. In this regard they're no different than the mainstream media.What’s crazy is how many Penn Staters are admitting that the case was full of prosecutor misconduct and that lawyers such as Andrew Shubin and Ben Andreozzi drastically embellished the abuse claims of their clients. But won’t even entertain the possibility that Sandusky could be innocent.
Truth be told, I'm thinking most of those from this board falling into this category, who have bothered to read any of this, harbor at least some doubt. They just won't admit it. Too much invested in their stance. In this regard they're no different than the mainstream media.
Never said he is innocent. I don't know, and I try to look at all sides. And, unlike yourself, I'm not concerned so much with optics. I will say that those here that do lean toward his innocence have presented a heck of a lot more than someone like you who has nothing to say but "that's what the jury decided". Pretty lame in light of the many shortcomings of the trial. Clearly, you and your lackey are here only to agitate.You and your Sandusky cult has never had anything to add. You and your ilk are just an embarrassment to PSU. And the fact that your cult continues to prattle on about Sandusky's innocence is just fodder for those that dislike my alma mater.
I don't understand why it is so hard for some to face reality.
The statue should have never been removed.Nice article by Anthony Colucci in Onward State
-----------
Journalist and bestselling author Malcolm Gladwell visited State College to discuss the future of journalism and his latest book Talking to Strangers on Wednesday night at an event at the State Theatre hosted by the Centre Daily Times and Daily Collegian.
The premise of Talking to Strangers revolves around the dangers people encounter every day by “defaulting to the truth” and assuming the best in others they don’t know very well. One chapter, in particular, focuses on the Jerry Sandusky sex abuse scandal at Penn State, and Gladwell spent a bit of time during his talk discussing its implications and what, he believes, led university leaders to act as they did.
“People defaulted to the truth about Penn State and Joe Paterno because they believed that powerful institutions always cover up crimes,” he wrote in the book, which was released this past fall. “The misleading Grand Jury presentment led to a mismatched university response driving a media and society default to misplaced guilt.”
On Wednesday, he added that “Learning how to forgive people who’ve been deceived is really hard. Sometimes they’re negligent. Other times they’re not.”
When asked about the chapter on Wednesday, Gladwell answered with a question of his own, asking if Joe Paterno’s statue, which was taken down shortly after the scandal surfaced, had been put back up. When he was informed that it hadn’t, Gladwell affirmed, on two separate occasions, that he thinks it should return. Both times, Gladwell received a round of applause from the sold-out the State Theatre. He also went as far as to call the prosecution of university leadership “egregious.”
“I don’t know on what basis you’d take a man’s statue down for following his university’s policies,” he said. “Put the statue back up, because that statue is in honor of someone’s skill, integrity, accomplishments as a football coach. None of those things are in question here.”
Gladwell, who didn’t spend much time in the book discussing Paterno, elaborated that he believes that the late coach did what he was expected to do and shouldn’t be held to the same standard as someone with an advanced degree in clinical psychology.
“There’s a reason psychologists go and get years of training,” he said. It’s because human psychology is complicated. We default to truth when we don’t have the necessary training.”
Because the event was focused on promoting student journalism, Gladwell also discussed his opinions on the coverage of the Sandusky scandal. He said while the case was unfolding, he emailed several sportswriters to ask questions and could tell many hadn’t done all their research, which he described as reading every court transcript end to end and footnote by footnote.
“One of the things has always disturbed me about my profession, is in high-profile cases, journalists aren’t as scrupulous as they should be in their reporting,” he said. “Having read everything there is to read on this case, it’s not clear to me [Paterno] did anything wrong. He did everything he was reasonably expected to do.”
https://onwardstate.com/2020/01/30/malcolm-gladwell-calls-for-penn-state-to-bring-back-joe-paterno-statue-at-state-theatre-event/