Posnanski and the Paterno book

Should Posnanski not write the Paterno book, especially since he's revealed himself to be a sycophant?

http://www.ology.com/sports/si-writer-joe-posnanski-defends-paterno-rips-media-penn-state-class

 

It could be one hell of a read, but more likely the book will never be published. All too likely Poz will find his notes, tapes, etc. subpoenaed by about 100 lawyers representing 100 different clients -- including the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
Joe's too good a journalist not to let his professional ethics eventually triumph over his emotional tendency to see the best in people he covers.

 

There has been a serious rush to judgment, sure. And, yes, I think there are more things we need to know before brandishing the pitchforks. However, to say Paterno is being made into a scapegoat in this is a laughable assertion.

 

I do not question the accuracy of the Posnanski and Forde quotes that were tweeted earlier today, though with no other summary of what happened this morning in that classroom, I refuse to rush to judge either of them.

Should Posnanski continue to report and write his book? Yes. Even if he felt as if he should stop, he is a unique position to write a book that could be far more than a biography of Joe Paterno, and his publisher and contract likely preclude him from walking away. But I doubt that he wants to walk away. Posnanski is a reporter first, and there is plenty here to report. He has expressed an interest to dive in to the material (http://joeposnanski.si.com/2011/11/06/darkness/), to keep from commenting or writing with the rest of the herd/horde that is now in State College. He is waiting. I respect that.

And though he has shown a respect -- perhaps even an admiration -- for Paterno, I would hardly term him a sycophant. Posnanski's hero is Duane Kuiper. That hardly qualifies him to have fallen deep into any cult of personality.

 

Hell, it might take someone like Pos to get Paterno to tell his side of the story.

Based on what they were saying on ESPN this morning, nobody seems to want to put him in front of media horde at a press conference.

 

Based on some of what he's already said ("wish I'd have done more . . . OH, MY GOD!) . . . he'd be a lightning rod for civil suits.

 

He's kind of known for saying stupid things in press conferences. They can't let that happen now.

 

Mizzou, if I'm Paterno's lawyer, the next public statement he makes will be the reading of his will.

 

I'd just like to remind people, when reading these tweets, that Pos is a writer, not a public speaker, and that any degree of nuance might be lost when he's "tweet quoted" saying something about being "heartbroken" about the situation. I shouldn't be commenting on this because it's too personal (and the usual suspects can chime in if they like and zing me for name-dropping) but calling him a sycophant is bullshit, frankly. Pos is one of the best journalists we have, and he has a large body of work that has built a lot of credibility. And from personal experience, he's one of the best people. Maybe that seems hypocritical, considering the situation involves people sticking up for Paterno, giving him the benefit of the doubt because they believed he is/was a good guy. I'm sure it is hypocritical, so have at me if you like. But I think people are allowed to change their mind too over time. Saying something in a class at Penn State, when I suspect he was not only in a little shock over it all but also running on a few hours of sleep, does not preclude Pos from writing something exceptional down the road. He's a writer. I'm sure he'd like to be judged down the road by what he puts down on paper about Paterno, not by what he said the morning after, which was then had chopped up into 50 tweets.

 

http://joeposnanski.si.com/2011/11/10/the-end-of-paterno/

 

Good for him.

 

One more time: Only Kellogg's sells more sugar-coated product than Posnanski.