Suffice to say, the information released and the events that have occured at Penn State over the past week have been shocking, even to the most cynical. So much has been impacted/examined: the welfare of children, the chain of command in a large institution/business; the place of athletics in a scholastic setting; the identity of someone long revered for his morals and generosity, in addition to his professional success; the identity of an institution and small community that relies so much on a singular entity. There are many more, but this is your blog, not mine.
Clearly, the media has had no shortage of topics to cover with respect to this story. Your assignment is to examine the media coverage of this story. What has it done well? Where has it been lacking? How would you cover this story?
This is not a discussion about how you think the Penn State administration handled things, but rather how the media has reacted to and reported everything. After all, that's what you will be doing as journalists: making judgments on how to cover the news, not whether or not to fire Joe Paterno.
Please post your responses by noon on Monday.
Alan
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
It took only days for the image of Jerry Sandusky to be removed from a mural in downtown State College. Gone is the support for his charities, including that of Cal Ripken, Jr. Appropriately, no one wants a thing to do with him.
ReplyDeleteIt's going to take years for the stigma of what happened at Penn State to be lifted from the program and school, but the administration has taken the correct steps to cleansing itself of the most obvious (yet still alleged) perpetrator. What wasn't as clear to many was what to do about Joe Paterno.
Paterno is a legend. It doesn't matter how his career ended, or how the school treats him until the end of his time (which will apparently be a friendly relationship, given the montage reportedly shown at the Penn State-Nebraska game). Most Penn State alumni and fans will continue to regard him at the highest level. Many even seem confused about why he was fired, and why he HAD to be fired.
The media hasn't really explained. For the mainstream news, the story is Sandusky. For ESPN, it's that Paterno is out as head coach and the fallout. The following riot received more attention than Paterno's connection to the Sandusky case on television, leaving it largely to blogs and secondary analysts to piece together the story.
Part of the issue is that Paterno's fault is one of omission. By his own admission, he should have done more. Outside of that quote, there hasn't been much on why he had to go. There is slight mention of the suspected playing down of what occurred in the locker room after it was reported to Paterno. There isn't a lot of information out there on why Paterno let Sandusky continue using Penn State facilities, or why he thought he had done his job as a human being with his minimalist reporting of the abuse.
Nope, Paterno's role and even Jerry Sandusky has taken a backseat to the news that JoePa is no more. It seems that in this particular case a lot of emotions may have gotten in the way of honest reporting. Sports reporters are some of the biggest fans, and it's no surprise that some would have trouble dealing with a heavy story against an iconic coach that many people looked up to.
Of course, Paterno's role should become clearer in the coming months as the case develops, especially considering that Paterno has just hired a criminal lawyer. The information has only begun to leak out, and the extent of what had happened at Penn State over the past couple decades will likely continue to expand.
Early in the week, all of my friends asked me questions about the Penn State scandal because they know I watch and read the news all day long.
ReplyDeleteBut they stopped asking me, because I didn’t know the answers.
Despite the 24-hour news cycle of today’s society, I was unable to find key details about the drama surrounding Joe Paterno and Jerry Sandusky. The media was quick to say something was happening, but most news outlets didn’t report on why.
The primary focus of the coverage was on the firing of Paterno and the riot that ensued afterward. Media outlets are still showing images of an overturned van and a broken lamp post in Happy Valley. There were only interviews with outraged students that shed a negative light on the Nittany Lion community.
I’m always quick to defend journalism and the media as a whole, but I’m hesitant to do it in this case. Mainstream media outlets did not do a sufficient job covering this story, and many outlets only reported one side of the story. Initially, reporters failed to talk to Penn State students who were not furious about the firing of Paterno. The media failed to give a timeline of events and explain exactly what involvement everyone had. The media failed to report on the significance of the firing of President Graham Spanier. The media even managed to show Paterno in more of a negative light than Sandusky.
There was a lot of information to process in a very short amount of time, and I think the media was too overwhelmed to take the time and explain it all.
We also saw in class that there were reports of this scandal in the Spring, but no other mainstream media picked it up until last week.
The reporting was lazy. It wasn’t sufficient and it wasn’t fair. As future journalists, I hope we can learn from the way this situation was handled, and if given the opportunity, we can do it with a little more grace.
The past week has been a demonstration in why society shouldn't turn people into demagogues. Joe Paterno was built up to be just that over the past six decades, with the media the primary facilitator.
ReplyDeleteBut all of a sudden the curtain fell, and the media had to turn on Paterno, who had been a do-no-wrong figure since just after World War II.
That's why the Patriot-News stories from the spring never got picked up nationally, because the media didn't want one of their darlings to fall from grace.
Jumping ahead to Wednesday, it hit the fan. At the press conference announcing that the PSU president Graham Spanier and Paterno would be relieved of their positions, it seemed like the media at the presser was just a bunch of PSU fanboys.
There was general uproar when the words came out of the spokesman's mouth, and that began a barrage of attacking questions directed at the spokesman.
While it's unfair to generalize, the general consensus from other reporters in the room was that it was members of the local media jumping down his throat.
Those "journalists" should be ashamed of themselves. It's obviously difficult to maintain objectivity when you're invested in a team, but you have to be able to do so as a professional.
At press conferences after Maryland football games this season, it's obvious that every single person in the room wants to shout at Randy Edsall, but we refrain.
After the press conference, it became a matter of the media *wanting* there to be "riots." Every outlet made a huge fuss out of the one news van that was flipped by students, constantly cutting to photos/video of the truck for hours and hours on end.
During live interviews with reporters on-site, anchors were trying to make stories out of nothing. Stuart Scott on ESPN kept asking if there was any "student-on-student violence," to which the answer was always no. Steve Levy kept asking about property damage. To which the answer was always no.
The media has done its best to spin this story as they've seen fit over the past week and have very much failed to report on the core of story. That is, the sexual assault itself, and the widespread cover-up within the PSU program, community and administration.
Probably the best thing written in the last couple of weeks relating to this story:
http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/sports/thetoydepartment/2011/11/on_paterno.html
Penn State coverage
ReplyDeleteOn September 5, Jerry Sandusky, former defensive coordinator of Penn State University, was arrested on charges of sexually abusing eight boys across a 15-year period. The country was in a state of shock. And many news organizations were as well. Media institutions must be unfazed by the inhumanity of events. It’s their job to simply grab a hold of the situation and report it. Letting the magnitude or incomprehensible nature of the event prevent expedient coverage is unacceptable.
The Great: Harrisburg Patriot-News The Good: CNN
The Bad: Washington Post, New York Times
The Ugly: ESPN, LA Times
The Great: The Harrisburg Patriot-News, specifically Sara Ganim, broke the story in March. Unfortunately it went unnoticed. Thus, she broke it again in April. Again, unnoticed. Finally, November 5, the country caught on to her great reporting. She has been extremely active throughout the unfolding of the case, becoming one of the most credible sources on the scandal.
The Good: In terms of large-scale outlets, CNN has been a leader. While many outlets have begun to diminish their content on the scandal, CNN are just as active. They continue to address different angles and understand the importance of thorough reporting to what may be the largest scandal in the history of college sports. CNN today linked to a story entitled, “Why some witnesses do nothing.” While this story is unrelated to the scandal itself, it provides its readers with what might have been going through the heads of the graduate assistant, the janitor, Joe Paterno, etc.
The Bad: On Wednesday, the New York Times would have been considered “The Good.” However, after a story was released confusing University of Pennsylvania with Penn State University, I’ve knocked them down to “The Bad.” While I do appreciate their coverage, such a mistake is unacceptable and taints their entire coverage, no matter how good it was up to that point, or continues to be. The Washington Post broke the story simply through a blog by Mike Wise. I did appreciate Ombudsman, Patrick Pexton’s story admitting to the Post’s minimal coverage.
The Ugly: The LA Times should have broken away from their column-based sports section and should include daily an update to the situation. Currently there is one story on their sports front page: “Penn State loses to Nebraska, but at least focus is on field.” ESPN crawled to finally give the scandal its rightly deserved coverage. When they first reported the story, their headline spoke to the perjury charges of the Penn State administrators, rather than the sex abuse charges to Sandusky. This reminded me of my entry-level journalism professor, urging us to ask ourselves, “What’s the story?” before we begin to write a story.
But the way the media has covered Joe Paterno is completely different from the way it is covering the scandal. Paterno is a college football legend. Or, as many would say, he was a college football legend. But it’s not the media’s job to have an opinion on this. It simply must report the facts. Many blogs have reverted to inputting their own opinion, but in that way, they are not reliable journalism outlets. The New York Times reported that Penn State students rioted over Penn State scandal. It did not comment on whether it was right or wrong for the students to act in this manner. If opinion is provided, the New York Times does it appropriately through columns.
There was a time when someone mentioned Penn State you immediately thought of the white helmets, “Linebacker U”, the white-outs at Beaver Stadium, and yes, of course, Joe Paterno.
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately, times have changed. Now, all you think of is a sex scandal, the cover up, and the destruction of one of the most idealistic college programs in the country.
It seems fitting that the biggest scandal in college athletics broke out in the “Golden Age of Journalism,” in a time of 24/7 ESPN coverage, Twitter alerts, blogs and the digital-first model in full effect.
So the question is, how has the modern media handled this? Sure, sports journalism has been hit with big stories: Miami, Sean Taylor’s death, Tiger Woods, O.J., and, of course, Len Bias.
Yet, the story that has been brewing in Happy Valley is a whole other animal.
If we are looking at the faults of the media, the biggest and most glaring one is that they were very late on this story. Sure it would seem that late last week when the story broke that every national paper and basement blogger was on it.
But as we learned in class Wednesday, the story actually broke months earlier by a crime reporter named Sara Ganim, who wrote a story on the grand jury investigation on Jerry Sandusky. How could no news outlets pick it up? How could a story this big get unnoticed for so long?
It just goes to show you that even though we live in a time with instant news, the media can still miss some things.
Another fault lies in the early coverage from ESPN, the media titan of the sports world. We touched on this briefly in class as well and how the station was slow to fully dive into the story. They seemed to take a reactive approach, which is not good for an outlet of this stature. With the amount of resources and influence they have in the field, they should have gone full speed at it as they are now.
“It wasn't until mid-afternoon Tuesday that ESPN finally seemed consistently to ask the right questions and find the appropriate moral outrage. That's 72 hours after the story first broke,” stated a Poynter article by Jason Fry and Kelly McBride on ESPN’s gaffes.
If you’re going to pride yourself on being the best in the business, you better act like it.
I think in terms of things done right, the media has done a pretty good job of not flooding the “info-sphere” with information that turned out to be false later.
With a story this big, everyone wants to get those nuggets of juicy details out there first. And while that is important, you can’t sacrifice accuracy.
Needless to say, the accuracy has been spot on. The biggest risk taken was by the New York Times, who were first to report that Paterno was on his way out, with the use of unnamed sources, and ended up getting that right and not having it come back and bite them.
The subject of this scandal was so emotional, so disturbing, that it was inevitable that anger and outrage would come and that it would be easy to allow personal opinion to reflect in news stories. But I think the media handled it well, not allowing bias to seep into their stories and coverage.
News was separated, facts on one side and opinion left to the sports columnists. With that distinction came a lot of great opinion pieces written on Penn State, either from PSU alums or from those calling out the administration.
I think this was the first real test of the new age of journalism, at least in a sporting context. And given the magnitude of this story, the media has done well.
However, there is still room to improve. With the recent firing of Paterno, the student riots and the trial of Sandusky having yet to begin, the media storm will only grow. As aspiring sports journalists, it’s important to keep an eye on the coverage and learn from this story so we can make those improvements.
Soon it will be our turn.
Since a grand jury indicted Jerry Sandusky on 40 sex crimes against young boys on Nov. 4, it’s been nearly impossible to open a newspaper or turn on the news without seeing the words “Penn State.”
ReplyDeleteIt’s the “biggest scandal in sports,” according to numerous television personalities, and University Park, Pa. may never be the same. Its athletic director is gone. Its president has been dismissed. And its football coach—the one with more wins than any other in NCAA history—has been forced out, his reputation tarnished forever.
The mainstream news has focused on the graphic nature of the accusations, while sports outlets—namely ESPN—have shed the spotlight on Joe Paterno. “Joe Pa,” as he’s fondly referred, has been cast as a martyr—a casualty of the P.R. firestorm currently engulfing P.S.U.’s board of trustees. Sports fans across the country—and even the world—are outraged that everyone’s favorite grandpa is out of a job.
But as I watch the talking heads continuously drone about Paterno and the tainted legacy he leaves behind, I find myself asking the same questions over and over: What about the kids? I mean, aren’t they the real victims of all this?
Very little focus has been placed on what matters most: the livelihood of those boys. It seems that every 10 to 15 minutes, a SportsCenter anchor will realize that the focus has drifted from their story, and he or she will say, “…but let’s not forget about the victims.”
But to really ensure that, American audiences will likely need more than a description of the alleged atrocities that occurred on and around Penn State’s campus. They’ll need a face to place on this whole mess.
We live in a visual society. It’s difficult to fully understand the gravity of sex crimes without hearing from the ones affected by them. That’s why it’s vital for one of the young men to come forward and speak.
According to the allegations, Sandusky had at least eight victims—all of whom are now over 18. Knowing that, I can’t help but feel that a major opportunity is being missed. If a news outlet can get at least one of those eight to recount their experiences, the whole perspective of this story will shift.
After all, how could someone bemoan an 84-year-old’s dismissal after seeing the face of someone who lost his innocence in grade school?
But even if it’s truly impossible to get a victim on the record, the media can still improve its coverage of this whole scandal.
With T.V. cameras aimed at the circus parading outside Paterno’s home, it seems that too much focus is being placed on the fact that he was dismissed and not enough on why he was dismissed. I mean, when it really comes down to it, do any of us actually have a clear idea of what Paterno did or didn’t report to his superiors back in 2002?
Some reports say then-graduate assistant Mike McQueary told Paterno he witnessed Sandusky “inappropriately groping” a young boy in the shower. Others suggest McQueary detailed a full-blown rape.
So which was it? Although both stories likely warranted a police investigation, there’s a major difference between “groping” and rape. This distinction must be made if there’s going to be an accurate and lively debate over Paterno’s dismissal.
Overall, the coverage surrounding Sandusky and Paterno has left much to be desired. The media, just like countless officials at Penn State, has failed.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe media coverage of the Penn State sex abuse scandal has been interesting to monitor in that the media has focused less on the actual crime and has instead turned its focus on the football program. Jerry Sandusky has somehow, inconceivably, managed to slip under the radar, while Joe Paterno has become the man everyone wants to talk about.
ReplyDeleteIt’s undeniable that Paterno is the face of Penn State and anything he does draws attention, but it is hard to believe that he is the main focus of the entire situation in a case with such serious charges. The great debate surrounding the scandal centered not on the strength of the charges against Sandusky, not the effects of the case on current sex abuse laws and not even on the hardships of victims. The big argument became whether Joe Paterno should still be coaching the football team.
This approach has been apparent in ESPN’s coverage of the scandal, as the network has concentrated more closely on the scandal’s effects on Paterno and the football team. I have watched a great amount of coverage, including the press conference and subsequent coverage following Paterno’s firing, and it has seemed like Sandusky’s name has gone unmentioned for long stretches of time. It’s not unimaginable to think that people unfamiliar with the early development of the case might believe that Paterno is being charged.
However, I don’t think that the media has been irresponsible in its coverage. While Sandusky and his victims comprise the more serious aspect of the case, it’s sad to say, but probably true, that more people care about what happens to Joe Paterno than what happened to the victims. The media is just feeding into this attitude.
There is a main piece of the scandal that I have not seen talked about too much: the fact that nearly the entire Penn State hierarchy seems to have been born and bred in Penn State, many of them having some connection to Paterno. It raises concern about the feasibility of institutional control in a university where many of the major players have an emotional or sentimental stake in what happens to the school. From what I’ve seen, the coverage has mentioned the previous links of administrators to the university, but has not taken the next step in analyzing those connections’ effects on the case.
While this scandal will likely continue to unfold over weeks, months and even years, the media will have the opportunity to examine this and other angles of the story more closely.
My Wednesday night started out as planned, watching “The 45th Annual CMA Awards” with my country-lovin’ friends. But towards the end of the ceremony, a scrolling marquee interrupted the ABC broadcast, alerting viewers of breaking news – Joe Paterno was fired.
ReplyDeleteThe coverage of the Penn State sex abuse scandal, for nearly all media outlets, has focused on “JoePa,” not the eight victims whom Jerry Sandusky, former defensive coordinator for Penn State football, allegedly sexually assaulted.
These alleged incidents spans 15 years, yet before this past week, I have not heard or read about a single detail of the Sandusky case in any mainstream media outlet. Sara Ganim of the Patriot-News first broke the story on March 31, 2011. That was about seven months ago. Going unnoticed, she wrote a second story in April following up on the case. Yet, that story, too, was ignored. Other media outlets failed to pick up the story because they acted in denial, not wanting to unveil a horrific story occurring within a beloved football program that has a legendary coach.
The continual coverage of “JoePa” and his firing led many of my friends to believe he was involved in the child sex abuse scandal, but he was not charged. This confusion has ultimately altered the course of the distribution of information because many do not understand why he, along with university President Graham Spanier, was fired when they were not charged.
The media have left out the details about the victims, and instead focused on the riots over Paterno’s firing and the gathering of students outside his house after they heard he was fired. Interestingly, some Penn State students held a “blue out” for the victims during the football game against Nebraska. However, the media downplayed that side of the story. News coverage of that game for major media outlets still centered around Paterno’s firing and the fact he was not on the sidelines for the first time. If anything, the “blue out” was a small side note towards the end of an article.
The reporting of the Penn State scandal needs to become clearer. Many people still do not know why Paterno had to be fired, or the most recent details of the actual Sandusky case for that matter. I have always considered news a 24-hour industry, but surrounding this case, those 24 hours seem to be leaving out key details.
With news outlets able to disclose information 24 hours a day, I expected to hear more about the Penn State scandal to make the story balanced, showing all sides of the story. Yet, I, along with my friends and family, in Maryland and in Pennsylvania, cannot find specific details about the connection Paterno may or may not have had with Sandusky. The media have left out the “why” in the “five W’s” journalistic tenet that stories should follow when reporting: who, what, where, when, and why.
Although more information is being slowly explained through different media outlets, the initial coverage was lacking. The New York Times released a timeline of the Penn State scandal on Nov. 11, which is a step in the right direction to reveal details of the case, but just late last night, Yahoo! Sports is still focusing on the student riots over Paterno’s firing, describing it as the trophy winner for the “Top 5 Weirdest Sports Riots Ever.”
Journalism is all about being fair, reporting all sides of the story and holding people accountable. Yet, the coverage of the Penn State scandal diverges from those principles.
Yesterday, on Nov. 13, Jennifer Storm of the Patriot-News wrote an opinion piece entitled, “Penn State scandal: We must all be accountable.” Journalists, go take a read.
In terms of coverage for everything’s that’s unfolded recently at Penn State, I would have to say that, thankfully, the coverage has gotten better as time progresses, but when the information first came to light, I do not think that it was adequately covered by the media.
ReplyDeleteThe first instance of this bad coverage comes directly from the articles that we looked at in class from the Patriot-News written by Sara Ganim. It’s quite frankly appalling that Ganim had this story this year as early as March or April and no one picked it up until now. I’m confused about how Ganim was the only person who knew and reported that there was a grand jury investigation going on.
Since the story broke over a weekend, it’s understandable that there could be less coverage since many reporters and newscasters might be off during these days, but as someone relying on these organizations to present the facts, I would then expect a lot of time and man power to be put into the story once a new week starts.
Recently, Ashton Kutcher has been criticized and has apologized for his comments on Twitter against Penn State’s decision to fire Joe Paterno. He made a public comment before having all the facts in the issue and has since vowed that he won’t be posting to Twitter without having all the information. I would argue that this mistake could also partly be considered the media’s fault. With such a big scandal on hand (one that’s being called the biggest scandal in college sports by some), I would expect news organizations to exhaust all sources to get every fact out into the open as soon as possible.
After the story broke last weekend, the Washington Post’s response on Sunday, November 6 was to have a blog by Cindy Boren and a column by Mike Wise. Personally, after hearing that one of the most respected and oldest coaches in college football had been a part of the cover-up sexual abuse coming from one of his coaches, I would want as many hard facts as possible, not the opinion of two writers.
I think that the slow pick-up by the media on the issue was part of the reason that people sided with Joe Paterno to begin with and respected him for insisting that he would resign at the end of the season. As more details came out, however, I think that it has become apparent as to why it’s necessary to fire Paterno and punish many in high positions of power at Penn State University. As more and more coverage comes out of what’s going on at the campus of Penn State and the actual game that Penn State recently played without Joe Paterno, I think that the media has wised up and realized that they really need to have all their facts straight and have them all out there because there is a lot of mixed emotions, and there’s no room for a lack of facts.
The first few days after the news about child molestation allegations broke were definitely a frenzy. At first news organizations were writing about the charges against Jerry Sandusky, but then as more information about what was contained in the indictment was reported on it seemed as though Joe Paterno became the center of attention.
ReplyDeleteNews organizations seemed to hone in on the fact that Paterno was informed of an incident by a graduate student and he became the face of Penn State as an institution. Headlines had Paterno’s name where Sandusky’s name should have been. Instead of focusing on the fact that children were molested, news organizations focused on the fact that Paterno’s legacy as head coach of a football team had been marred.
For example in this lede from CNN Paterno is mentioned by name but the man accused of the crimes is simply refered to by his former title. “The Penn State football coach who alerted head coach Joe Paterno in 2002 that he'd seen a former defensive coordinator sexually assault a boy -- an allegation authorities didn't learn of until years later -- was placed Friday on indefinite leave, the school's interim president said.” Sandusky’s name doesn’t appear until three paragraphs in even though he is the alleged child molester.
Although news organizations were right to hold the university accountable for not alerting authorities to the presence of a possible serial child molester, at times it seemed as though they had lost sight of the fact that neither Joe Paterno, the president of the university, or Mike McQueary committed the disgusting crime. The news organizations’ time could have been better spent hunting down some of the older victims who could be interviewed without inference from parents and police so that they could keep the focus on the man accused of these heinous crimes.
Of course, audiences always need someone to blame, so it had to be placed some where. Something that stuck out to me about coverage was the fact that although McQueary had witnessed the sexual abuse first hand, most of the blame was placed on the people who had received second hand information. It seems as though since Paterno was the big name he received most of the news coverage even though the person who would logically be blamed for not calling the police immediately is the graduate student.
The news media should have used this event as an opportunity to inform readers about how sexual abuse is more common than people know. CNN published an article about the warning signs people should look out for when they expect a child has been abused. More news organizations should have been focused on not just running Joe Paterno and his associates’ names through the mud but trying to make sure readers know how to react so that if they are ever in similar situations the will act responsibly.
One thing I think the media did right was drawing parallels to events similar to this that happened in the Catholic church. It serves as a warning to other institutions that in situations in which children are in danger the reputation of the organization can only be saved by bringing the guilty party to justice not by covering up the incident.
The rug was lifted and the media had a frenzy.
ReplyDeleteThe media reminded me of the match between George Forman and Joe Frazier in 1973. As outlets learned more information about the case the harder they were hitting Jerry Sandusky. Blow by blow by blow, and,”Down Goes Frazier!” with Joe Paterno.
Some outlets didn’t say anything about the case until Paterno got fired *Ahem ESPN*. There was a delay, some sort of hesitation, from all outlets. Sara Ganim broke the story months ago, but it didn’t get picked up until recently.
The reputation of Penn State is huge and there is definitely some politics behind all of this.
The media has already convicted Sandusky, no questions asked, but there has been some back and forth about the consequences Paterno faces. Some agree that he should’ve gotten fired for his part in the scandal, but then some think he should be able to continue to coach because he said something.
I compared how the Daily Collegian, Penn State’s school newspaper, and other medias covered the case. Outlets portrayed Penn State, as a whole, like a villain. They outlets told the story of “students rioting over a pedophile” whereas the Daily Collegian told the story of rioting over a legend (Paterno) and holding a vigil for the victims. The school’s newspaper really focused on how Penn State is sticking together through this hard time. There is also, of course, a strict bias for Paterno.
One specific coverage I really remember is was done by ABC. Newscasters read some of the indictment and charges against Sandusky. Then they went to his house for a comment. Sandusky smiled and told them that his lawyers won’t allow him to talk about the case. They asked questions like, “Did you sex abuse young boys?” A question they knew they weren’t going to get an answer to. Every outlet has indirectly confirmed the guiltiness of Sandusky.
Since allegations of sexual abuse and the subsequent cover up by Penn State athletic officials, I have found the coverage in broadcast and print to be fair in most cases but lacking substance in others.
ReplyDeleteI disagree with those who argue the coverage was too focused on Joe Paterno and the lead up to his ousting. It has been argued that Sandusky should have been the focus because of the heinous nature of alleged crimes. However, I would argue that Paterno's role, real or perceived, in helping conceal those heinous acts is equally if not more important.
When Catholic priests were accused of molesting young boys, the scandal arose because instead of holding the offenders responsible the church concealed them and their crimes by transferring them to other dioceses, a sickening sex offender shell game.
It was likely assumed by media outlets that the horror of the offenses was apparent and in the wake of the Duke lacrosse fiasco caution and information gathering should rule the day. And, veracity notwithstanding, Paterno was the all-time winningest coach in NCAA history and he may have played the role of Catholic church, potentially orchestrating his own sex offender shell game.
That school administrators allegedly banned Sandusky from bringing young boys on campus added to the worthiness of the cover up angle focused on by news outlets. ESPN's Jay Bilas astutely pointed out that to ban Sandusky from your premises, but not alert authorities to the allegations, was tantamount to saying "go elsewhere, just don't molest them on our grounds." More shell games.
Something else I found interesting in the coverage was the usage of the word "allegedly" (and all it's derivations). For legal reasons it is imperative that it be used when describing crimes yet to be proven. But, I fear the word's meaning has changed in the eyes of the public. I fear they see it as a behind-covering measure. For example, in my experience when folks talk to their friends about this sordid ordeal they usually leave out "allegedly." Has its meaning changed to "it just hasn't been proven -- YET?"
I think it's important for journalists to remember that while "allegedly" is necessary for us to avoid legal entanglements, it has unintended consequences in that its overuse might be altering its meaning, making it no longer the backside protector it once was.