1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Media dustup in the Sandusky story

Discussion in 'Journalism topics only' started by SF_Express, Nov 25, 2011.

  1. SF_Express

    SF_Express Active Member

    I didn't think this belonged in the 164-page Sandusky thread on the news board.

    Eric Wemple of the Washington Post rips the editor of the Patriot-News, David Newhouse, today for Newhouse's published criticism of a NYT story on Victim No. 1.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/post/patriot-news-to-nyt-were-holier-than-thou/2011/11/24/gIQAdTIFvN_blog.html

    I happen to agree with Wemple that basically, this is more about ego than what's right. Newhouse is saying, "We could have had this story but didn't!"

    Then I read the story about victim No. 1:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/23/sports/ncaafootball/for-victim-1-in-penn-states-sandusky-scandal-a-search-for-trust.html?_r=2&pagewanted=1

    I'm not criticizing it, exactly, but I just don't know that I've gained that much insight into what Sandusky did to this kid, and how it affected him, after I'm done reading it.

    I'm not talking about prurient details, or the lack thereof. But I don't get that much sense of the awfulness of what Sandusky did to him, and what the whole track/running thing was all about. This could have been written, it seems to me, about any troubled teen.

    I'm asking sincerely: Am I missing something?
     
  2. I thought the Newhouse column was sort of ridiculous but I was less impressed than many apparently were by the NYT story. Much of the story was devoted to the bizarre agenda of the fired track coach. I really feel like a lot of that could have been left out.
     
  3. SF_Express

    SF_Express Active Member

    But they you're right -- what's really left after that?

    If you buy the notion at that all those details really outed Victim 1, fair enough -- but how much has readers' insight into what the Sandusky story is all about really been advanced?
     
  4. Versatile

    Versatile Active Member

    http://www.sportsjournalists.com/forum/threads/87319/
     
  5. SF_Express

    SF_Express Active Member

    Well NOW I feel dopey, although the value of the NYT story itself is at least something new. :(

    Edit: Well, after looking more carefully at the other thread, I guess not.

    Aaargh!
     
  6. dooley_womack1

    dooley_womack1 Well-Known Member

    But what's funny is that the Patriot-News went out of its way to blast the NYT for outing Victim 1 and to wrench its shoulder patting itself on the back for not linking to the story. But of course, what they did above all else is direct more people to the NYT story.
     
  7. I think the funniest part of this issue is that the Patriot-News story said their reporter knew who the kid was, too, but chose not to name him, but much of the reaction has been from readers saying they're crying foul over getting scooped.
     
  8. Johnny Dangerously

    Johnny Dangerously Active Member

    Lesson: Your work speaks for you. Let it.
     
  9. BillyT

    BillyT Active Member

    My reaction was: Oh, you finally got neat, now you whine.
     
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page