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.
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.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.
"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.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.
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.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.
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.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.
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.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 .