Best Critique I have seen of the media coverage of Joe Paterno and PSU

[Icebear]

involving the Sandusky coverage. Not everything reported in the media as fact was fact.

Tom in Paine

 

[Blakeon18]

I believe McQueary did in fact testify to the grand jury under oath that he HAD actually seen a sexual assault.
His account to the family friend is significantly different....basically he didn't see it but he assumed it. The media in general have run with the grand jury testimony....being under oath that seems a reasonable way to go. Especially given that the friend's account didn't go public till the last few days [at least that is when I became aware of it.].

If he gave a somewhat vague and non-specific account to Paterno and the two administrators then the subsequent actions of those 3 should certainly be re-evaluated....in all probability in a somewhat less harsh manner.

McQueary is going to have one very hard time in court when Sandusky's attorney cross- examines him. It is a very good thing that many other witnesses will be testifying against Sandsuky....if it was just McQueary this case is going nowhere...imo.

 

[stamfordhusky]

McQueary is testifying under oath as we speak. Here is some of what he has said, from USAToday:

Updated: 10:03 a.m.:

When asked why he did not go to the police, McQueary referenced Gary Schultz's position as a vice president who had overseen the campus police, the AP reports.
Updated 9:48 a.m.:
McQueary said he later talked through details of incident with Gary Schultz and Tim Curley. McQueary said he described what he saw in shower.
It was ten days after he had spoken to Paterno. "There is no question in my mind that I conveyed to them that I saw Jerry Sandusky in the showers with a boy and there was severe sexual acts going on and it was wrong and over the line," McQueary said.
He said Paterno told him he'd "done the right thing" by reporting what he saw. The head coach appeared shocked and saddened and slumped back in his chair, McQueary said on the stand.
Sitting at Paterno's kitchen table McQueary related what he saw. He said Sandusky was involved in 'sexual' act with a child. He did not describe it as sodomy or anal sex. It did describe it as 'extremely sexual,' USA TODAY's Kevin Johnson reports.

Updated 9:41 a.m.:
McQueary said over time that evening his decision was to tell Joe Paterno what he saw. When asked why he told Paterno, McQueary said, "He's the head coach and he needs to know what's happening in there," USA TODAY's Audrey Snyder reports.
Updated 9:30 a.m.:
"I know they saw me. They both looked directly in my eyes, both of them," McQueary said on the stand. McQueary's mom is on verge of tears in the back of the room, USA TODAY's Audrey Snyder reports. McQueary said: "I believe they were having some kind of intercourse. He moved toward shower and Sandusky separated from the boy. He didn't say anything and left. I was distraught. I was horrified" -- from USA TODAY's Kevin Johnson.
Updated 9:28 a.m.:
"No question at all" when asked if it was a child in the shower with Jerry, USA TODAY's Audrey Snyder reports from the courtroom.
Updated 9:25 a.m.:
McQueary testified that he heard 'rhythmic slapping sounds' as he entered locker room. Said he saw boy with hands on shower wall with Jerry's arms wrapped around waist, from USA TODAY's Kevin Johnson.
Updated 9:21 a.m.:
McQueary says "I did not see insertion or hear screaming or yelling," USA TODAY's Audrey Snyder reports from the courtroom.
Updated 9:17 a.m.:
McQueary is now describing the night of the alleged attack.
Updated 9:13 a.m.:
Assistant football coach McQueary takes stand against Penn State officials. McQueary is the only known adult to tell grand jurors that he witnessed former football coach Jerry Sandusky sexually abusing a child, AP reports.

 

[Icebear]

McQueary is testifying under oath as we speak. Here is some of what he has said, from USAToday:

Updated 9:48 a.m.:
McQueary said he later talked through details of incident with Gary Schultz and Tim Curley. McQueary said he described what he saw in shower.
It was ten days after he had spoken to Paterno. "There is no question in my mind that I conveyed to them that I saw Jerry Sandusky in the showers with a boy and there was severe sexual acts going on and it was wrong and over the line," McQueary said.
He said Paterno told him he'd "done the right thing" by reporting what he saw. The head coach appeared shocked and saddened and slumped back in his chair, McQueary said on the stand.
Sitting at Paterno's kitchen table McQueary related what he saw. He said Sandusky was involved in 'sexual' act with a child. He did not describe it as sodomy or anal sex. It did describe it as 'extremely sexual,' USA TODAY's Kevin Johnson reports.

Pretty much plays out as previously suggested that McQueary did not tell Joe the specific details other than it was sexual, ... extremely sexual. Joe supported McQueary's reporting as both stated in the Grand Jury, also.

USA Today: McQueary said Schultz never followed up with him but that neither Schultz or Curley told him not to talk to anyone.
"Joe Paterno did ask me … two or three months after that … if I was OK in relation to what I saw and if I was handling it OK," McQueary said.
McQueary said he was left with the impression both men took his report seriously. When asked why he didn't go to police, he referenced Schultz's position as a vice president at the university who had overseen the campus police.
"I thought I was talking to the head of the police, to be frank with you," he said. "In my mind it was like speaking to a (district attorney). It was someone who police reported to and would know what to do with it."

 

[jsloanjr]

As a Penn State alum, my stomach is still sick over this whole mess. The effects of this mess is now being felt, very low Bowl tickets sold, Corporate friends are not renewing the SkyBox's next season.......No coach, Uncertainty in the legal system and Highly recruited players pulling out.........This is UGLY.........

 

[Icebear]

Altooona Mirror report

 

[Kibitzer]

The writer seems to be an advocate of censorship. How else can we interpret his "something must be done" theme?

He writes with a bias toward "the media," as if all journalistic reporting (print and video) emanates from one huge evil monster totally lacking in integrity or ethical standards. Which is baloney.

Fox News and MSNBC are both part of "the media." So are Rachel Maddow and Sean Hannity. So much for "the media" speaking with one lone irresponsible voice.

I looked at some of the links to other things written by Tom in Paine. His criticisms of some reporters in this instance may be valid. His own objectivity is questionable.

 

[Icebear]

The writer seems to be an advocate of censorship. How else can we interpret his "something must be done" theme?

He writes with a bias toward "the media," as if all journalistic reporting (print and video) emanates from one huge evil monster totally lacking in integrity or ethical standards. Which is baloney.

Fox News and MSNBC are both part of "the media." So are Rachel Maddow and Sean Hannity. So much for "the media" speaking with one lone irresponsible voice.

I looked at some of the links to other things written by Tom in Paine. His criticisms of some reporters in this instance may be valid. His own objectivity is questionable.

Don't disagree with that at all, Kib. I limit my comments to his observation of the media behavior in regards to the PSU events. ESPN displayed no journalism ethics at all in regards to that story. They they Joe as a whipping boy that was unwarranted by the facts.

 

[JS]

Don't disagree with that at all, Kib. I limit my comments to his observation of the media behavior in regards to the PSU events. ESPN displayed no journalism ethics at all in regards to that story. They they Joe as a whipping boy that was unwarranted by the facts.

"Best critique" of "the media behavior?" Pshaw. A diatribe with no balance, but rather an artist's framed view of a few select trees in the forest and based largely on McQueary's ambiguities that may be clarified as we write.

Again, "the media" are not monolithic in regards to the PSU events. The media I've read have done a fine job covering the ongoing story. I find it a curious focus -- which I especially attribute to Penn State fans -- to concentrate on the nefarious activities of "the media" or, at every turn, on the great cause of absolving Joe Paterno in this matter.

There are huge issues here of child safety and institutional responsibility. There is an impetus here for beneficial changes in the law and procedures. There is an ongoing boost to public awareness of a problem that is more of a present danger than people have thought.

These are the important stories.

If any innocent parties are truly damaged by irresponsible elements of the media, they can sue for libel, as Rubin suggests in regard to Paterno (won't happen) and as any party so aggrieved can do.

A "blame the media" campaign in the Sandusky/PSU scandal is way off base in relation to the major issues raised by the case and barely qualifies as a red herring in my book.

 

[Icebear]

As per my note to Kib, best media critique of the issues as related to this situation, JoePA and ESPN, not media critique and any broader sense.

Numerous folks are calling for exactly that suit, JS. On Sunday I spoke with our local jurist for about 30 minutes. He himself feels that Joe has strong potential for just that suit. It is not likely Joe will because of his health issues and because of his unwillingness to do anything to hurt the school. Testimony today from the McQuearys and others were consistent with both JoePA and Mike Queary's grand jury testimony and helped to demonstrate how they fit together.

As I said I limit my comments to TiP's delineation of the issues related to ESPN's coverage.

I said in the beginning let the facts come out and see how the fit best. That process is now happening. Unfortunately, some irreversible actions have been taken.

 

[jsloanjr]

Ice, you are so right............This might take the rest of 2012 to sort out.........

 

[Kibitzer]

I am by no means an enthusiast of guilt by association, but I admit that the credibility of the original author (Marc Rubin by name) was not enhanced when I noted a supportive comment (scroll down the link to access it) from nefarious old UConn hater, Aurabass.

Be assured I submitted my original response to this "best critique" before I was aware that this particular low-life Summitteer had any interest in the matter.

The various links to other blogs by Mr. Rubin provide keen insight into the depth (not much) of his character or the quality (low) of his writing. Joe Paterno needs and deserves more thoughtful and persuasive advocates.

However upset any or all of us may get at any news medium or outlet, be reminded that the only known alternative to a free press is censorship by the government. I'll take my chances with freedom.

 

[Icebear]

I am by no means an enthusiast of guilt by association, but I admit that the credibility of the original author (Marc Rubin by name) was not enhanced when I noted a supportive comment (scroll down the link to access it) from nefarious old UConn hater, Aurabass.

Be assured I submitted my original response to this "best critique" before I was aware that this particular low-life Summitteer had any interest in the matter.

The various links to other blogs by Mr. Rubin provide keen insight into the depth (not much) of his character or the quality (low) of his writing. Joe Paterno needs and deserves more thoughtful and persuasive advocates.

However upset any or all of us may get at any news medium or outlet, be reminded that the only known alternative to a free press is censorship by the government. I'll take my chances with freedom.

You should see Aurabass blog on this Kib. Yikes!!! I didn't even consider posting a link here. He does have strong support through in the blog responses for the material he has posted. I completely agree with you about JoePA needing some articulate voices.

 

[EricLA]

A damaging article about JoPa

the now-former Penn State icon told a grand jury that he had been informed about an incident of "a sexual nature" between ex-defensive coordinator Jerry Sandusky and a young boy in 2002...

"In the testimony, Paterno said he "knew inappropriate action was taken by Jerry Sandusky with a youngster" after a meeting with then-graduate assistant Mike McQueary, who allegedly saw Sandusky sexually abusing a boy in a locker room the shower the previous night, but did not inform police and waited several days to meet with his boss, athletic director Tim Curley, because he "didn't want to interfere with their weekends.""

I don't pretend to know all the nuances of this, but is this true? in open court today he basically admitted he knew that Sandusky was molesting kid(s) and he knew it back in 2002? the article has a bunch of quotes apparently from Paterno's grand jury testimoney. it's pretty bad stuff for him and his reputation. they are all over this on the FB board and the stuff they are saying about JoPa cannot be repeated over here.

 

[Icebear]

Most of what you include about JoePA is not from testimony today. It was from the grand jury and in McQueary's testimony today connections clarifying JoePA's testimony occurred. That included testimony McQueary and his father that the terms used describing the situation were not graphic in nature but rather "sexual" and "extremely sexual." McQueary, also, stated that he considered reporting the incident to Gary Schultz to be having reported the situation to the police. Schultz oversaw the police services on campus which are the full police authority on campus. They are not "campus security."

StamfordHusky provided a good summary of today's testimony by McQueary above. JoePA is currently in the hospital for a recurrence of his broken pelvis from earlier in the fall when he had a player collide with him on the sidelines. He recently fell.

Unfortunately, some things that came out today in McQueary's testimony leave Sandusky's defense team plenty of room to raise questions. The the prosecution is going to need to do a good job tying together patterns of behavior and connecting victims testimony together with McQueary's to fill in the gaps. I just hope they have not cross contaminated victims testimony.

 

[JDForever]

The question that I would ask is why didn't Paterno confront Sandusky and if he did what was the outcome.

 

[Icebear]

JDF, there is a significant amount of material in the transcripts of the Grand Jury that we simply do not know from the Grand Jury Presentment. Only the Presentment has been released. Also, if Joe did do that it would have potentially been intefering with the investigation that was supposedly going on.

At least one person I think Sara Ganim of the Patriot has reported a person familiar with the transcript said that it was stated that Joe followed up at least twice after his initial contact made inquiries of Curley about the situation and the second time was told that it had been looked into but there didn't seem to be anything to the situation. In yesterday's testimony by McQueary he stated that Joe made inquiry from him as to how he was doing concerning the events involving Sandusky. So apparently, Joe is reported to have made some follow-up and was told nothing had turned up. Under the law Joe met the requirements and probably more by making the arrangement for Curley to contact McQueary and then making sure that happened. Furthermore McQueary testified that he had been told that Curley and Schultz had taken additional action.

What I find disturbing in this is that Curley and Schultz seem to have thought the situation was not potentially abusive even though mcQueary did not mention to them sodomy, or and of the other expressions of that. That it was termed sexual at all should have been enough to comply with the reporting statute.

LINK
"McQueary testified he never used the terms “rape,” “sodomy” or “anal sex,” even when he sat down with Curley and Schultz.

Out of respect, he edited himself with Paterno, he said, but with Curley and Schultz he went into more detail.

“I would have said that Jerry was in there in very close proximity to a boy with his arms wrapped around him. I said I heard slapping sounds. I described it was extremely sexual and that some kind of intercourse was going on,” he said.

“There’s no question in my mind that I conveyed to them that I saw Jerry in the showers and that it was severe sexual acts and that it was wrong and over the line,” McQueary testified.

He said Curley and Schultz assured him they would investigate. Four days after meeting with the pair, Curley called to tell him Penn State had alerted Sandusky’s charity, The Second Mile and had told Sandusky not to bring children to campus, McQueary said.

McQueary said he never saw Sandusky with a child on campus after that, but did see Sandusky alone.

“I personally found it troubling and not right,” he said.

Paterno also asked him several months later if he was OK, McQueary said.

His account was in line with Paterno’s grand jury testimony, read into the record in court in absence of him taking the stand. "

Also, in contrast to some of the speculation in the past concerning Sandusky continuing to bring kids to PSU facilities after the event for practices, etc. Ganim reports the following of McQueary's comments:

"McQueary said he never saw Sandusky with a child on campus after that, but did see Sandusky alone."

 

[JDForever]

I find it disturbing that Paterno at the minimum didn't seek to suspend Sandusky's campus access while the supposed investigation was in progress. Remember this wasn't the first allegation although I am only guessing that Paterno knew of the earlier one.

 

[Icebear]

I find it disturbing that Paterno at the minimum didn't seek to suspend Sandusky's campus access while the supposed investigation was in progress. Remember this wasn't the first allegation although I am only guessing that Paterno knew of the earlier one.

Joe had no such authority over the facilities which are managed for several sports. That has been made clear is a variety of material in State College. Tim Curley as AD's office had those responsibilities. Curley informed both McQueary and Joe that Sandusky was no longer allowed to bring kids to the campus facilities. This was after the event that McQueary saw. That is in the bolded paragraph above and was reported to McQueary four days after his meeting with Curley and Schultz.

Joe has said he knew nothing of the 1998 incidence, some think he is lying but there is no clear information either way other than his word.

BTW, JDF, I live smack dab between State College and Harrisburg about 45 miles from each right on the main road Rt. 322 between the capital and the campus in an area served both the Centre Daily Times and the Harrisburg Patriot.

 

[JDForever]

Joe had no such authority over the facilities which are managed for several sports. I assumed that he didn't which is why I said "seek to suspend". It would just be logical to assume that if Paterno had pushed, more would have been done. It looks from the outside that Sandusky's 30 year coaching career had a direct bearing on the investigation .

 

[Icebear]

Joe had no such authority over the facilities which are managed for several sports. I assumed that he didn't which is why I said "seek to suspend". It would just be logical to assume that if Paterno had pushed, more would have been done. It looks from the outside that Sandusky's 30 year coaching career had a direct bearing on the investigation .

It may be easier said than done because access was reportedly included in Sandusky's severence agreement when he retired in 1999. Preventing access may have may have involved more than simply issuing an edict if it was in a written severence contract, whereas they probably had the right to prevent him from bringing kids into the facilities which was an action they reportedly did very quickly.

You are absolutely right. Even with the additional information from yesterday's hearing and the closing of some of the gaps there are still many more gaps and may always be.