The Penn State, Joe Paterno, Jerry Sandusky scandal was a very special, perfect storm, situation. And to be sure, I am coming at it from the position that Jerry Sandusky is almost, with complete certainty, innocent of the things he was charged with. In this post, I want to explain why it matters in the big scheme of things. For those new to this point of view, I'll just have to say that there is a growing list of knowledgeable people who find it credible, including renowned science writer, Mark Pendergrast, former Federal Investigative Service agent, John Snedden, memory expert, Elizabeth Loftus, journalist, Ralph Cipriano, and mainly, journalist, John Ziegler, who's done the most extensive documentation at his site, framingpaterno.com. There are also a lot of journalist who interview him and come away impressed.
There is a lot of injustice in the world and nobody can focus on all of it. How many victims were there? There were three administrators and an aging, long retired coach. Another legendary head coach was also fired. These people had their hard earned reputations destroyed. This is not a lot of people in the big scheme. The university was scammed out of over $100 million. I suppose it could be argued, using the broken window fallacy, that it was paid for by the insurance company, and that it helped stimulate, among other sectors, the fancy sports car market. A charity that attempted to help at risk kids was also dissolved. Something that should also be recognized is that a lot of people had emotional investments in these institutions.
That last point about emotional investment should not be overlooked. I'm not really a big sports fan, but my late father was a high school football coach, and I know how important football is in a lot of peoples lives. A lot of fans had their hearts broken. The second mile charity was probably doing a lot of good in a lot of kids lives. Will anyone want to start a similar one now?
Then there is the question of how important is the truth? It is just an unfortunate reality that writers and editors have biases and sometimes, complete misconceptions. They also can have agendas, even if they don't realize it. Biases and agendas can also become institutionalized and writers have to weigh the real risks of going against them. People can look at the same set of facts, claims or assertions and come to wildly different conclusions, as almost anyone who has read more than one book on a particular subject can attest.
What really gets me about the whole Penn State situation, is how the press can get what was probably the biggest sports scandal of all time completely wrong! They awarded what is probably the most prestigious prize in all of journalism, the Pulitzer, to reporter, Sarah Ganim. John Ziegler's take is that she was leaked information by the prosecutors in their quest for more accusers. The thing that this reminds me of is the Janet Cooke saga. She was a Washington Post reporter who won a Pulitzer for her story about an eight year old heroin addict, entitled "Jimmy's World", which was found to be fabricated. Ganim's situation looks similar, with perhaps an earnest quest being facilitated with a little corner cutting and then getting out of hand. Since getting her Pulitzer, she has been a consultant to and made a heroine in an HBO movie, "Paterno", starring Al Pacino. I find it hard to believe she still believes the popular narrative about the scandal (of course, not being a psychic, I could be wrong). About the only thing other than Penn State that she's known for is being caught laughing at an abuse victim on camera. This was probably unfair, as analyzed in this video. She has NOT written a book, which seems highly unusual. She almost completely stopped tweeting in 2015, which is highly unusual for a journalist in this day and age. If you look back at her tweets about Penn State, you'll see a lot of derisive responses from people skeptical about the popular narrative. You'll also notice a lack of responses from her. Compare this to John Ziegler's Twitter feed, where he usually responds to any Penn State tweets instantly.
What if Janet Cooke had gotten away with it? We'd probably have a made for TV movie version of "Jimmy;s World" starring Gary Coleman. Then Cooke would've probably just faded under the radar as Ganim appears to be doing.
How does this all fit into journalism and history? One very fortunate aspect of this story is that its main proponent, John Ziegler, besides being a journalist with serious credentials, is also a documentary film maker and podcaster, so it's documented at his site, framingpaterno.com, as a huge multimedia production. For people who like crime novels and courtroom dramas, this is really great stuff! And it's ongoing. You can follow it on Ziegler's Twitter feed. Tweet about it and he'll usually respond instantly. I find it a lot like watching those detective shows back in the 70's. He has a boisterous quality, like Carl Kolchak, a sense of fatalism, like Jim Rockford, and a steadfast, logical persistence, like Lieutenant Columbo. It seems like every other week, some new ray of hope springs up only to get dashed. A while back, a writer named Malcom Gladwell, who wrote an early Sandusky piece for the New Yorker, told Ziegler he was thinking of revisiting the story for a new book. He seems to have broken off contact. The latest episode appears to be former Penn State president, Graham Spanier's sentencing. Well, at least all this stuff is being recorded (and hopefully preserved) for history. Then maybe it can be appreciated from a historical safe space.
No comments:
Post a Comment