As I mentioned in my last post but didn't expand on, Joe Paterno made a bizarre appearance Wednesday night a few hours after he was fired. ESPN was fortunate enough to have a camera crew stationed outside Paterno's house, which appeared to have become a rallying point for the rioters. JoePa came out for about a minute, gave an unscripted statement to the students, and then headed back inside.
This post isn't really about media coverage. It's aimed at Paterno's utter cluelessness about how to handle the situation.
JoePa heads down to give a statement
A few minutes past midnight, after students had been rioting for about and hour-and-a-half following the announcement of his firing, Paterno came out of his house. A large group of students and supporters had shown up on his lawn, as they had done for the past few days when it became apparent Paterno's job was in danger. Paterno, without a prepared statement in hand, came up to a handful of reporters.
"I want to say hello to all these great students, who I love." "You guys are great."
Those were some of the first words out of his mouth after stepping in front of the microphones. He embraced them. No critical words, no reprimand for destroying street lamps and turning over news vans. Instead, Paterno comes out with smiles and waves, completely embracing the crowd. Maybe he didn't know the extent of what was going on. But he knew exactly why he was let go, and what crimes he likely covered up.
"Hey look, get a good night's sleep and study, alright?"
This is the last thing Paterno says before initially heading back towards his house. That's all he says to try and quell the situation. That's not much of a genuine plea. He's still smiling and feeding off the crowd, if you can believe it.
JoePa turns to head back in
As he's walking back towards his front door, Paterno turned around when someone shouted "I love you." This earned a thumbs up from Paterno. Then suddenly Paterno turns around and heads back towards the group of reporters he just spoke to.
"One thing: Pray a little bit for those victims."
He said it as if it were an afterthought, like something he had forgotten to say the first time he was in front of the cameras. How does that slip your mind? How is your first concern to go out there and positively greet the swarming crowd instead of asking for people to show some respect? How do you possibly put yourself first?
JoePa heads back in for the final time
Paterno headed back into in home for the last time, but stopped to pump his fist in support of the crowds that are cheering and chanting his name. Showing solidarity with the very people you were (quite poorly) trying to calm down is a little bit antithetical. And yet that exactly what Paterno did during the minute or so that this whole bizarre encounter took place.
We don't know the extent of what Paterno's guilty of, but it's clear he has little perspective about this whole situation. This is not about Paterno's firing, nor what the future of the football program is. This is about everyone who was hurt by the actions and inactions taken by members of Penn State. Any chance Paterno had to redeem himself is now effectively gone. If he had pointed that out, maybe he healing process could have begun for Penn State. Instead Paterno rubbed salt in the wound, one that won't heal anytime soon.
Until next time, Orange Hat Guy
Friday, November 11, 2011
Breaking Down the Penn State Debacle (Part Two)
As I'm writing this, it's Thursday afternoon. I still have the previous night's events stuck in my head, and Twitter's still blowing up with breaking news, opinions, and just about everything else that even marginally relates to what's been going on at Penn State. I was so caught up in what happened Wednesday night, I stayed up until 3:30 a.m. writing about it in my previous post.
I started watching the Board of Trustees' press conference a little after 10 p.m. The announcement that Joe Paterno would be fired came around 10:14. I was glued to my computer, watching feeds of CNN, ESPN, and the local ABC affiliate that gave coverage to the rioting. It wasn't until three hours later, around 1:15 that it seemed like everything had died down and that it was ok to stop watching what was going on.
I initially planned on writing only one blog entry on this subject, but as I began breaking down the press conference question by question, it became apparent that there was much more to this than I could fit in one reasonably-sized post. The press conference itself was a whole difference media monster than the coverage CNN and ESPN devoted to the situation. So that's what I'll look at now: The positives and negatives of both network's media coverage of the event.
Immediately following the press conference
Following the press conference, (which ESPN did carry via a local ABC affiliate) CNN immediately jumped into covering the riots (at that point a large number of students were gathering in support of Paterno) that had broken out in State College. ESPN, from what I understand, was not covering the formation of the riots. Plus one for CNN, if you're keeping score.
But it was clear that the anchor CNN rolled out to cover this breaking news story was in over her head. One of her first questions to someone on the ground in State College concerned when Penn State's next football game was. At around the same time, ESPN apparently had Matt Millen on to react to the firing. Millen, who played under Paterno while in college, is arguably the biggest conflict of interest ESPN has. Millen says he's a close friend of Paterno and Jerry Sandusky. But after a bizarre yet heartfelt appearance on Sportscenter earlier in the day, Millen should not have been allowed on air to discuss this. Yes, he's analyst who's paid to give his opinion, which he likely did (I hadn't turned to ESPN yet), but he's too attached to this to stay objective.
One hour after the press conference
I stayed with CNN during the hour following the press conference, as it appeared that ESPN was not covering the actions that were occurring in State College. This lasted until the network brought in Anderson Cooper to interview Dr. Phil about the scandal. Dr. Phil. You read that correctly. I was waiting for Cooper to finish with him and then move on to Dr. Drew, as he seemed like the next perfectly illogical option.
After this interview, CNN appeared to wrap up its nonstop coverage of the scandal and rioting. I switched over to ESPN, which finally appeared to be covering the escalating situation in State College. Stuart Scott and Steve Levy were given the difficult task of anchoring something that sports anchors are rarely asked to cover: Breaking news that's (somewhat) unrelated to the field of sports journalism. This was a tough task for the duo. It's also worth noting that Stuart Scott is no longer widely revered by ESPN viewers, and if often criticized for his laid back on-camera demeanor.
From what I could tell, Scott and Levy at one point were on air for over an hour without a single break, from 11:30 p.m. or so until around 12:45 a.m. It is my view, as well as the general consensus of those I follow on Twitter that Scott and Levy handled a very delicate situation very well. While there were no remarkable moments or announcements that will go down in broadcasting lore (this wasn't exactly on the same scale of Jim McKay's job covering the Munich massacre in 1972), they didn't make any real mistakes.
(One minor odd moment was when Stuart Scott mentioned that reaction on Twitter was split about 60/40 for/against the firing. My stream as well as many others who commented on Scott's statement were vehemently in support of his firing. Obviously we all follow a wide array of opinionated people, but it seems as if this particular statement conflicted with the general consensus).
What ESPN did suffer from was a lack of video from the scene. It had a handful of reporters on the ground and did carry images from a local ABC affiliate, but those images came from a single locked camera at one particular location. The reporters on the ground did a fine job to try and paint a picture of the scene going on, which included flipped news vans, downed lamp posts, thrown debris, and clashes with police. In this day and age, it's hard to understand why ESPN didn't have live coverage. Cell phones can pretty much do anything, and I'm sure ESPN has the capability of synching live streaming video (from platforms such as Skype) with its television broadcast.
Two hours after the press conference
By the time ESPN did whip out its cameras, the fanfare had begun to die down. JoePa came out to try and quell the students, but ended giving a mind-blowingly dumb appearance (which I'll detail in an upcoming post). And instead of devoting coverage to the rioting, ESPN focused on student reactions. And asking for the opinions of rioting college students right around the time that the bars get their largest number of customers is not the wisest thing to do. The first group of students interviewed were, unsurprisingly, in support of Joe Paterno.
"There's no crime. This is Penn State. There's no crime here." "He should coach until the end of time."
These were some of the things the students told ESPN. I'm no surprised. You're asking drunk, rowdy belligerent, college-age rioters what their opinions are about their dear old JoePa. There's a phrase I've heard thrown around about Packers fans a from a few years back: "People in Green Bay pray to two people on Sundays—Jesus and Brett Favre." Well, people in State College pray to JoePa.
Amazingly, the second time ESPN went to ask members of the swarming crowd for a sound bite they were able to come across a student who actually gave an intelligent answer. I don't know how much luck was involved in finding this student, and I'm conflicted about how to credit ESPN. It's great that they were able to find a counter voice to the rioting and pro-Paterno crowd. But this isn't a story that necessitates two sides. This student stood out because the pro-Paterno crowd had been give a soap box to stand on (and riot on). Those people were idiots, and it's unfortunate this student was put in comparison to them, essentially equating the two view points.
Three hours after the press conference
Shortly after that interview ESPN finally went to break for the first time on over an hour (unless I somehow missed a commercial break). When it returned from break, ESPN turned its coverage to the NBA lockout, the first time in several hours that it changed the subject away from the scene in State College. The reports from the people in the middle of the action made it appear as if the crowd had begun to disperse and that police were slowly but steadily dissipating the rioters. I don't have a problem with ESPN cutting away from its Penn State coverage in order to avoid an over saturation of coverage, something ESPN is notorious for screwing up.
I finally turned ESPN off and began to collect myself. I don't know whether this is a watershed moment in sports journalism yet, but right now it certainly feels like something that will be discussed for a long time. I'm certainly not finished writing about it, and the story itself is far from over. Next up, I want to tackle JoePa's statement he gave to students a few hours into the rioting, looking more deeply at the role of social media (i.e. Twitter) in breaking news stories such as this, and the debate concerning the alleged scapegoating of JoePa by the media.
Until next time, Orange Hat Guy
I started watching the Board of Trustees' press conference a little after 10 p.m. The announcement that Joe Paterno would be fired came around 10:14. I was glued to my computer, watching feeds of CNN, ESPN, and the local ABC affiliate that gave coverage to the rioting. It wasn't until three hours later, around 1:15 that it seemed like everything had died down and that it was ok to stop watching what was going on.
I initially planned on writing only one blog entry on this subject, but as I began breaking down the press conference question by question, it became apparent that there was much more to this than I could fit in one reasonably-sized post. The press conference itself was a whole difference media monster than the coverage CNN and ESPN devoted to the situation. So that's what I'll look at now: The positives and negatives of both network's media coverage of the event.
Immediately following the press conference
Following the press conference, (which ESPN did carry via a local ABC affiliate) CNN immediately jumped into covering the riots (at that point a large number of students were gathering in support of Paterno) that had broken out in State College. ESPN, from what I understand, was not covering the formation of the riots. Plus one for CNN, if you're keeping score.
But it was clear that the anchor CNN rolled out to cover this breaking news story was in over her head. One of her first questions to someone on the ground in State College concerned when Penn State's next football game was. At around the same time, ESPN apparently had Matt Millen on to react to the firing. Millen, who played under Paterno while in college, is arguably the biggest conflict of interest ESPN has. Millen says he's a close friend of Paterno and Jerry Sandusky. But after a bizarre yet heartfelt appearance on Sportscenter earlier in the day, Millen should not have been allowed on air to discuss this. Yes, he's analyst who's paid to give his opinion, which he likely did (I hadn't turned to ESPN yet), but he's too attached to this to stay objective.
One hour after the press conference
I stayed with CNN during the hour following the press conference, as it appeared that ESPN was not covering the actions that were occurring in State College. This lasted until the network brought in Anderson Cooper to interview Dr. Phil about the scandal. Dr. Phil. You read that correctly. I was waiting for Cooper to finish with him and then move on to Dr. Drew, as he seemed like the next perfectly illogical option.
After this interview, CNN appeared to wrap up its nonstop coverage of the scandal and rioting. I switched over to ESPN, which finally appeared to be covering the escalating situation in State College. Stuart Scott and Steve Levy were given the difficult task of anchoring something that sports anchors are rarely asked to cover: Breaking news that's (somewhat) unrelated to the field of sports journalism. This was a tough task for the duo. It's also worth noting that Stuart Scott is no longer widely revered by ESPN viewers, and if often criticized for his laid back on-camera demeanor.
From what I could tell, Scott and Levy at one point were on air for over an hour without a single break, from 11:30 p.m. or so until around 12:45 a.m. It is my view, as well as the general consensus of those I follow on Twitter that Scott and Levy handled a very delicate situation very well. While there were no remarkable moments or announcements that will go down in broadcasting lore (this wasn't exactly on the same scale of Jim McKay's job covering the Munich massacre in 1972), they didn't make any real mistakes.
(One minor odd moment was when Stuart Scott mentioned that reaction on Twitter was split about 60/40 for/against the firing. My stream as well as many others who commented on Scott's statement were vehemently in support of his firing. Obviously we all follow a wide array of opinionated people, but it seems as if this particular statement conflicted with the general consensus).
What ESPN did suffer from was a lack of video from the scene. It had a handful of reporters on the ground and did carry images from a local ABC affiliate, but those images came from a single locked camera at one particular location. The reporters on the ground did a fine job to try and paint a picture of the scene going on, which included flipped news vans, downed lamp posts, thrown debris, and clashes with police. In this day and age, it's hard to understand why ESPN didn't have live coverage. Cell phones can pretty much do anything, and I'm sure ESPN has the capability of synching live streaming video (from platforms such as Skype) with its television broadcast.
Two hours after the press conference
By the time ESPN did whip out its cameras, the fanfare had begun to die down. JoePa came out to try and quell the students, but ended giving a mind-blowingly dumb appearance (which I'll detail in an upcoming post). And instead of devoting coverage to the rioting, ESPN focused on student reactions. And asking for the opinions of rioting college students right around the time that the bars get their largest number of customers is not the wisest thing to do. The first group of students interviewed were, unsurprisingly, in support of Joe Paterno.
"There's no crime. This is Penn State. There's no crime here." "He should coach until the end of time."
These were some of the things the students told ESPN. I'm no surprised. You're asking drunk, rowdy belligerent, college-age rioters what their opinions are about their dear old JoePa. There's a phrase I've heard thrown around about Packers fans a from a few years back: "People in Green Bay pray to two people on Sundays—Jesus and Brett Favre." Well, people in State College pray to JoePa.
Amazingly, the second time ESPN went to ask members of the swarming crowd for a sound bite they were able to come across a student who actually gave an intelligent answer. I don't know how much luck was involved in finding this student, and I'm conflicted about how to credit ESPN. It's great that they were able to find a counter voice to the rioting and pro-Paterno crowd. But this isn't a story that necessitates two sides. This student stood out because the pro-Paterno crowd had been give a soap box to stand on (and riot on). Those people were idiots, and it's unfortunate this student was put in comparison to them, essentially equating the two view points.
Three hours after the press conference
Shortly after that interview ESPN finally went to break for the first time on over an hour (unless I somehow missed a commercial break). When it returned from break, ESPN turned its coverage to the NBA lockout, the first time in several hours that it changed the subject away from the scene in State College. The reports from the people in the middle of the action made it appear as if the crowd had begun to disperse and that police were slowly but steadily dissipating the rioters. I don't have a problem with ESPN cutting away from its Penn State coverage in order to avoid an over saturation of coverage, something ESPN is notorious for screwing up.
I finally turned ESPN off and began to collect myself. I don't know whether this is a watershed moment in sports journalism yet, but right now it certainly feels like something that will be discussed for a long time. I'm certainly not finished writing about it, and the story itself is far from over. Next up, I want to tackle JoePa's statement he gave to students a few hours into the rioting, looking more deeply at the role of social media (i.e. Twitter) in breaking news stories such as this, and the debate concerning the alleged scapegoating of JoePa by the media.
Until next time, Orange Hat Guy
Thursday, November 10, 2011
Breaking Down the Penn State Debacle (Part One)
It's hard to believe the events that occurred Thursday evening. Starting with the appallingly bad actions taken by media at the press conference where Penn State broke the news of Joe Paterno's firing and ending with rioting by members of Penn State's student body, it's a challenge to make sense of it all. I'll try to break everything down piece by piece over the next few days, including the different media coverage as well as the rioters themselves. There's a lot to get through, and there's sure to be more in the next few days as more heads roll and protests continue.
The Press Conference
The Board of Trustees at Penn State held a press conference to discuss the issues surrounding Paterno and the university. The future of Paterno, who is 84 and has shown no desire to stop coaching anytime soon, had been in question for the past few days. Pressure was put both him and the school for his tenure at Penn State to end, though this pressure was not without controversy (as the ensuing riots obviously proved).
"Joe Paterno is no longer the head football coach, effective immediately."
Before John Surma, who spoke on behalf of the board, could even finish reading this statement, the room was filled with boos and cries of outrage and dismay. Outrage. There was visceral outrage by those in the media who were present at the press conference over Paterno's firing. This was a room filled with reporters. This was a room filled with journalists.
"Who will coach on Saturday?"
That was the first question asked after Surma gave his opening statement. I wish I were kidding. I'm sure that a lot of the reporters there cover the football team or work for local news affiliates. This was the first question blurted out, and it was blurted out by multiple people. I can understand that being a sports reporter in this situation might put someone in an unfamiliar situation. But to be more concerned with that than the situation at hand? Are you kidding me?
"What was the driving reason behind the removal of coach Paterno?"
This was the third question. Are you serious? Perhaps it was not going straight to the authorities upon hearing his assistant coach sexually assaulted a 10-year-old. Perhaps it was not going to the authorities at all. Paterno learned about the assault in 2002. Perhaps it was not firing the coach right away. Perhaps it was lying to a grand jury about how much he knew about the initial incident.
"Given the popularity of coach Paterno, how hard a decision was this for you and your colleagues to make?"
This was the fifth question asked. Think about what you just asked, sir. How hard a decision was it to fire a man who covered up child sexual abuse? How hard to you think it was? You'll notice a running theme with the questions asked at the press conference, how the reporters asking the questions appear to have a Joe-Paterno-is-God complex. I know he's been there since the 1960s. Darren Rovell pointed out that at the time of his hiring, Simon & Garfunkel's The Sound of Silence was the number one song. He's an institution. He's also covered up child abuse for nearly a decade.
"Should coach Paterno have alerted the police when he learned of the allegations in 2002?"
Eighth question. If you can call it a question.
"Did you see him [Paterno] in person or over the phone?"
While Surma didn't answer the question, earlier reports stated that Paterno was fired over the phone. Members of the media loudly grumbled about this as Surma avoided answering the question. "You would let a man go that's been here over 46 years and won't tell us if you let him go over the phone or in person?" one reporter griped. When Surma mentioned a phone conversation, multiple people groaned. "You didn't have the courtesy to go to his house?" another asked, with someone else chipping in, "after 60 years?" Clearly these journalists (and I use that term lightly) have their eyes on the ball.
"What would you say to those that this is a rush to judgment?"
Have you read the grand jury testimony? It's quite unequivocally clear about what Joe Paterno's role was in this case. In fact, it's so clear that the only issue is whether Paterno committed perjury when giving his testimony. Many men have been fired for much less. I know it's hard to watch an idol go down in flames, but no one's infallible.
"What would be the harm in letting the coach continue through the end of the season?"
I'm not sure. Maybe it would be a signal that Penn State doesn't care if you protect child predators as long as you win football games. That's a sure way to draw in prospective students. In fact, it should definitely be the new school slogan.
"Do you think the authorities should have been alerted?"
Are you fucking kidding me?
"So you don't rush to judgment when it comes to facts but you rush to judgement when it comes to dismissing coach Paterno?"
This wise ass sounded quite proud of himself for asking this rhetorical question. A couple reporters even laughed snidely after this question was asked. Read the grand jury testimony. There's not much rushing to do.
"Sir, are you aware of the number of students that were marching back and forth campus when they thought there was a possibility of this happening? And therefore, what are you concerned about happening tonight"
Unfortunately, this boded to be all too true, as rioting on and near campus took place. And yet the question was framed in a hostile manner, as if to try and place the blame of whatever the reaction to Paterno's firing was squarely on Surma and the Board of Trustees. It should be noted that Paterno did little to quell the rioting. By the time he spoke, lamp posts had been upended and news vans had been flipped over.
"What do you make of the perception that the Board has been gunning for coach Paterno since '04 and this has provided the perfect opportunity for his dismissal?"
This was actually the last question asked, and it fittingly went the conspiracy theory route. I'm pretty sure there was a second shooter on the grassy knoll when Joe Paterno was fired. Joe Paterno's also never been on the field at Ohio State. That was staged and filmed in a Hollywood studio.
"What was coach Paterno's reaction?" "Who made the call?" "Have you though about changing the Board?" "Is coach Paterno subject to compensation?" "Was there any pressure from the outside like the governor's office or anyone else?"
A handful of meaningless questions, none of which were directed at Paterno's (or anyone else's) criminal activity. I don't go to a school where any of the current coaches are revered as saints, and Bob Knight was before my time. But I find it almost inconceivable that a room full of journalists can have so much trouble staying objective in this situation.
I loved Sammy Sosa growing up. He was the best baseball player in the world, no matter what Mark McGwire did. I was as much a diehard Sosa fan as anyone else in Chicago. But then things turned sour. Sosa left the team under troublesome circumstances, and it's become all too clear that Sosa used steroids. I've watched as my idol growing up (aside from Michael Jordan, of course) slowly become an unsympathetic figure, one that no longer deserves the devotion I once gave him. I realized this before I set foot in a journalism classroom.
"What do you think Joe Paterno has meant to this university?"
Joe Paterno has been the face of Penn State for a few decades now. He looks like everyone's grandpa and doesn't coach for Ohio State, so everyone loves him. And I mean everyone. I have an aunt and uncle who live in State College that don't care about football at all. They can tell you how to win at Robo Rally or Settlers of Catan, but have no clue what a draw play is or when to risk an onside kick. Even they know who Joe Paterno is.
I understand that he's an institution. He's JoePa. He's 84 and still going strong. But this isn't about untarnished legacies or reputations. This is about dozens of children who were sexually abused. This is about Joe Paterno's failure to protect these kids. This is about the university's failure to protect these kids. No one remembered that. Not when they were rioting, and not when they were asking questions at the press conference.
Go back and look. There's not a single question, or even a single mention of the victims. Not one. Joe Paterno failed to do what was right. And Thursday evening, so did the journalists at that press conference.
Until next time, Orange Hat Guy
The Press Conference
The Board of Trustees at Penn State held a press conference to discuss the issues surrounding Paterno and the university. The future of Paterno, who is 84 and has shown no desire to stop coaching anytime soon, had been in question for the past few days. Pressure was put both him and the school for his tenure at Penn State to end, though this pressure was not without controversy (as the ensuing riots obviously proved).
"Joe Paterno is no longer the head football coach, effective immediately."
Before John Surma, who spoke on behalf of the board, could even finish reading this statement, the room was filled with boos and cries of outrage and dismay. Outrage. There was visceral outrage by those in the media who were present at the press conference over Paterno's firing. This was a room filled with reporters. This was a room filled with journalists.
"Who will coach on Saturday?"
That was the first question asked after Surma gave his opening statement. I wish I were kidding. I'm sure that a lot of the reporters there cover the football team or work for local news affiliates. This was the first question blurted out, and it was blurted out by multiple people. I can understand that being a sports reporter in this situation might put someone in an unfamiliar situation. But to be more concerned with that than the situation at hand? Are you kidding me?
"What was the driving reason behind the removal of coach Paterno?"
This was the third question. Are you serious? Perhaps it was not going straight to the authorities upon hearing his assistant coach sexually assaulted a 10-year-old. Perhaps it was not going to the authorities at all. Paterno learned about the assault in 2002. Perhaps it was not firing the coach right away. Perhaps it was lying to a grand jury about how much he knew about the initial incident.
"Given the popularity of coach Paterno, how hard a decision was this for you and your colleagues to make?"
This was the fifth question asked. Think about what you just asked, sir. How hard a decision was it to fire a man who covered up child sexual abuse? How hard to you think it was? You'll notice a running theme with the questions asked at the press conference, how the reporters asking the questions appear to have a Joe-Paterno-is-God complex. I know he's been there since the 1960s. Darren Rovell pointed out that at the time of his hiring, Simon & Garfunkel's The Sound of Silence was the number one song. He's an institution. He's also covered up child abuse for nearly a decade.
"Should coach Paterno have alerted the police when he learned of the allegations in 2002?"
Eighth question. If you can call it a question.
"Did you see him [Paterno] in person or over the phone?"
While Surma didn't answer the question, earlier reports stated that Paterno was fired over the phone. Members of the media loudly grumbled about this as Surma avoided answering the question. "You would let a man go that's been here over 46 years and won't tell us if you let him go over the phone or in person?" one reporter griped. When Surma mentioned a phone conversation, multiple people groaned. "You didn't have the courtesy to go to his house?" another asked, with someone else chipping in, "after 60 years?" Clearly these journalists (and I use that term lightly) have their eyes on the ball.
"What would you say to those that this is a rush to judgment?"
Have you read the grand jury testimony? It's quite unequivocally clear about what Joe Paterno's role was in this case. In fact, it's so clear that the only issue is whether Paterno committed perjury when giving his testimony. Many men have been fired for much less. I know it's hard to watch an idol go down in flames, but no one's infallible.
"What would be the harm in letting the coach continue through the end of the season?"
I'm not sure. Maybe it would be a signal that Penn State doesn't care if you protect child predators as long as you win football games. That's a sure way to draw in prospective students. In fact, it should definitely be the new school slogan.
"Do you think the authorities should have been alerted?"
Are you fucking kidding me?
"So you don't rush to judgment when it comes to facts but you rush to judgement when it comes to dismissing coach Paterno?"
This wise ass sounded quite proud of himself for asking this rhetorical question. A couple reporters even laughed snidely after this question was asked. Read the grand jury testimony. There's not much rushing to do.
"Sir, are you aware of the number of students that were marching back and forth campus when they thought there was a possibility of this happening? And therefore, what are you concerned about happening tonight"
Unfortunately, this boded to be all too true, as rioting on and near campus took place. And yet the question was framed in a hostile manner, as if to try and place the blame of whatever the reaction to Paterno's firing was squarely on Surma and the Board of Trustees. It should be noted that Paterno did little to quell the rioting. By the time he spoke, lamp posts had been upended and news vans had been flipped over.
"What do you make of the perception that the Board has been gunning for coach Paterno since '04 and this has provided the perfect opportunity for his dismissal?"
This was actually the last question asked, and it fittingly went the conspiracy theory route. I'm pretty sure there was a second shooter on the grassy knoll when Joe Paterno was fired. Joe Paterno's also never been on the field at Ohio State. That was staged and filmed in a Hollywood studio.
"What was coach Paterno's reaction?" "Who made the call?" "Have you though about changing the Board?" "Is coach Paterno subject to compensation?" "Was there any pressure from the outside like the governor's office or anyone else?"
A handful of meaningless questions, none of which were directed at Paterno's (or anyone else's) criminal activity. I don't go to a school where any of the current coaches are revered as saints, and Bob Knight was before my time. But I find it almost inconceivable that a room full of journalists can have so much trouble staying objective in this situation.
I loved Sammy Sosa growing up. He was the best baseball player in the world, no matter what Mark McGwire did. I was as much a diehard Sosa fan as anyone else in Chicago. But then things turned sour. Sosa left the team under troublesome circumstances, and it's become all too clear that Sosa used steroids. I've watched as my idol growing up (aside from Michael Jordan, of course) slowly become an unsympathetic figure, one that no longer deserves the devotion I once gave him. I realized this before I set foot in a journalism classroom.
"What do you think Joe Paterno has meant to this university?"
Joe Paterno has been the face of Penn State for a few decades now. He looks like everyone's grandpa and doesn't coach for Ohio State, so everyone loves him. And I mean everyone. I have an aunt and uncle who live in State College that don't care about football at all. They can tell you how to win at Robo Rally or Settlers of Catan, but have no clue what a draw play is or when to risk an onside kick. Even they know who Joe Paterno is.
I understand that he's an institution. He's JoePa. He's 84 and still going strong. But this isn't about untarnished legacies or reputations. This is about dozens of children who were sexually abused. This is about Joe Paterno's failure to protect these kids. This is about the university's failure to protect these kids. No one remembered that. Not when they were rioting, and not when they were asking questions at the press conference.
Go back and look. There's not a single question, or even a single mention of the victims. Not one. Joe Paterno failed to do what was right. And Thursday evening, so did the journalists at that press conference.
Until next time, Orange Hat Guy
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)