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!

Washington Post does first Paterno interview following Sanduskygate

Discussion in 'Journalism topics only' started by doodah, Jan 14, 2012.

  1. doodah

    doodah Guest


    Paterno comes off as deflecting blame, while, somehow trying to say he's not deflecting blame.

    Jenkins must have spent HOURS transcribing audio. Big ups to her, as well.
  2. Azrael

    Azrael Active Member

  3. doodah

    doodah Guest

    I thought it was a big enough scandal to have 'gate attached to it.
  4. wicked

    wicked Well-Known Member

    No "scandal" is big enough to attach -gate anything to it. IMO.

    And JoePa does not come off well here.
  5. Versatile

    Versatile Active Member

    Jenkins is wonderful. She's among my five or 10 favorite working sports writers. I thought she did a wonderful job telling this story, using the quotes when appropriate, getting out of the way when appropriate, providing wonderful details and ending on a potent note.

    Paterno comes across as someone who thinks he did no wrong based on how the situation played out but still has regret for not knowing more. I think that's a reasonable position to take, but I think that position will piss off a lot of people.

    And, regarding "-gate": The Watergate controversy was named after the Watergate complex, the scandal's epicenter. I can't stand that use as a suffix. I used it as a headline once a few years back, and I still regret it. My boss fucking loved it.
  6. wicked

    wicked Well-Known Member

    When the boss is happy, you know you've screwed up. :D
  7. CentralIllinoisan

    CentralIllinoisan Active Member

    Joe Paterno on his meeting with McQueary: “You know, he didn’t want to get specific. And to be frank with you I don’t know that it would have done any good, because I never heard of, of, rape and a man. So I just did what I thought was best. I talked to people that I thought would be, if there was a problem, that would be following up on it.”

  8. Alma

    Alma Well-Known Member

    He either had willful ignorance to or no experience with the concept of a man having sex - or wanting to -with a boy.


    He's so unbelievably Machiavellian that he'd feign to Sally Jenkins said ignorance so as to further entrench his evil, authoritarian grip on the Penn State empire and do so with a quote that actually makes him look like an old fool.

    I'm imagine some journalists are strongly mulling over the second possibility on Twitter as we speak.
  9. Alma

    Alma Well-Known Member

    Oh, and the required disclaimer: I am not promoting nor condoning Joe Paterno's ignorance, inexperience, or potential Machiavellianess.
  10. CentralIllinoisan

    CentralIllinoisan Active Member

    I'll go with willful ignorance.
  11. LongTimeListener

    LongTimeListener Well-Known Member

    Sally Jenkins' writing in the wake of the scandal made her very appealing to the Paterno family, highlighted by her Nov. 8 column "Blame for the Penn State scandal does not lie with Joe Paterno." If she was using that column to position for the interview, bravo. It worked. But this is no more of a get than when Gammons landed the A-Rod sitdown.
  12. Versatile

    Versatile Active Member

    The headline writer went too far with that. The column itself was hardly absolving and more an intelligent attempt at explaining how it all could happen. That column stood out to me as more of what we needed in the Penn State scandal coverage, instead of the mindless finger-wagging so many columnists opted for.

    Here's the column: http://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/colleges/blame-for-the-penn-state-scandal-does-not-lie-with-joe-paterno/2011/11/08/gIQADqMF3M_story.html

    And here's a chat with Jenkins after the column (before Paterno was fired, but after he announced he would resign after the season): http://live.washingtonpost.com/jenkins-paterno-11-9.html

    Yes, she absolved Paterno of some blame in the column. But to suggest she was posturing for a future interview is really going way over the line. Sally Jenkins isn't some hack. And she isn't a pushover at all. She can, and often is, one of the most hard-edged columnists around.

    My guess is her column on Pat Summitt's Alzheimer's disease diagnosis probably resonated as much or more with Paterno's lawyers and family than her column on his guilt. Either way, you're right to say that she was selected for the interview. You're right to think some of her past positions and work likely helped her land the interview. You're really crossing a line to say that she only wrote that column to get in with the Paternos.
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page