Thanks, RD, for the link!
I don’t think John Fidler of the Reading Eagle quite gets it. He’s lining up with the legions of “journalists” who are excoriating Sue Paterno for seeking the truth. He begins his article with:
I’m not sure what Sue Paterno and her family had in mind when they began their recent media blitz armed with a report by a former attorney general and governor of Pennsylvania. Resurrect infamy? Force us to recall shameful behavior by a storied college football coach? Remind us all of the culture at Penn State that, according to last year’s report commissioned by Penn State, put football before everything else, including the safety of children?
If that was their goal, then mission accomplished.
There are people who decry any mention of the Holocaust using the same type of reasoning. It is shameful behavior to be buried in the annals of history, a human anomaly that is best forgotten.
“I wonder how someone could be as tone-deaf to the absolute need to protect children as Joe Paterno and his cadre of protectors of the Penn State brand.” —John Fidler, readingeagle.com
We need to remember these things lest they happen again. We need to face bitter truths and learn new lessons. We need to acknowledge that this is an imperfect and often cruel world.
There are none so blind as those who will not see.
Most of all, we cannot permit injustice to prevail simply because it is unpleasant to reopen old wounds. Sue Paterno and family knew they would be scorned for doing just that, but they damned the torpedoes. To this turkey, it is refreshing that there are people in this world who will stand on principle and seek justice. Whenever I see it happening, I applaud it. Writers can say what they will, but they’ll stick their scrawny necks out only so far; most will not take an unpopular stand. On the other hand, the Paterno family has put their money where their mouths are.
Sure, guys like Fidler can argue that the Paternos are employing their financial reserves to drag us all through the mud and by reopening those wounds, they further sully the image of the University we love. They can play the “vvvvviccccccccctims” card with perceived impunity. They have the flawed Freeh report in their holster and they feel compelled to draw and shoot in defense of its conclusions.
These are the same guys who participated in the original media storm that fomented the great rush to judgment of the late Joe Paterno. Now, the cowards among them feel compelled to defend their original positions. They can’t be inconvenienced by something like the Paterno report or, perhaps, by the truth.
Unlike Fidler, a few brave reporters have started to rethink their stands on the Penn State issue, risking popular disapproval. They deserve to be recognized for their departure from the horde.
I agree that prolonging the Sandusky scandal is unpleasant. So is surgery. Sometimes you just have to reopen woulds to ensure that they heal.
ESPN’s Ivan Maisel breaks down the Paterno family report and compares it to the Freeh report with Don Van Natta Jr. This interesting interview is in the form of a 36-minute podcast.
Van Natta said the Paterno report raised some significant questions for him. He, like most who have read the report, was particularly impressed with the information supplied by Jim Clemente. Meanwhile, Maisel conceded that we all have the benefit of hindsight, so it is hard to condemn anyone who had no idea of what was really going on at Penn State.
Second Mile is prominently mentioned by Van Natta, who remarks that they were never investigated and they got by completely unscathed.
Interestingly, Van Natta compared the Freeh report to the opening statement in a trial in the court of public opinion, whereas the Paterno report resembled a defense rebuttal. However, he says that Americans tend not to change their minds easily once they’re convinced.
Van Natta also touches on the self-contradiction by Louis Freeh about his non-interview with Joe Paterno.
Where is this thing going? Van Natta predicts the Paterno family will file a lawsuit in an attempt to overturn the sanctions. He feels that if the Free report is blown up, the sanctions should go out the window. In conclusion, he indicts the media in wanting to rush to judgment, not completely, but as an adjunct to the ever decreasing American attention span.