Washington Post does first Paterno interview following Sanduskygate

[doodah]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/colleges/joe-paternos-first-interview-since-the-penn-state-sandusky-scandal/2012/01/13/gIQA08e4yP_story.html

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.

 

[Azrael]

'Sanduskygate?'

 

[doodah]

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

 

[wicked]

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

And JoePa does not come off well here.

 

[Versatile]

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 **** 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 ****ing loved it.

 

[wicked]

I used it as a headline once a few years back, and I still regret it. My boss ****ing loved it.

When the boss is happy, you know you've screwed up.

 

[CentralIllinoisan]

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.”

Huh?

 

[Alma]

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.”

Huh?

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

Or...

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.

 

[Alma]

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

 

[CentralIllinoisan]

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.”

Huh?

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

Or...

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.

I'll go with willful ignorance.

 

[LongTimeListener]

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.

 

[Versatile]

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.

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

Q: Do you believe that Joe Paterno should be allowed to finish the season?
A: At the moment, I believe the right thing happened: we have Paterno's resignation. Thus far the grand jury has refused to indict him and prosecutors have said they aren't pursuing charges. But if evidence emerges that he particpated in a coverup in any shape or form -- as opposed to simply not being able to bring himself to believe such a charge against an old friend -- then he should not only be fired immediately but charged.

Q: If the point of your column is about Lanning's observations, why the provocative and misleading headline?
A: Our headline writers do a great job. In this case the headline went farther than the column, but there have been hundreds of others that were much better than the column deserved.

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.

 

[LongTimeListener]

And you're hopelessly naive. Her column started with the words "Try to forgive Joe Paterno." this is a story where Joe Posnanski lost his mind and Pat Forde became a frat boy, and we're supposed to see Sally Jenkins as immune?

They didn't study her Pat Summitt column. They studied her fealty to the myth of Happy Valley. And they got what they were looking for.

 

[Versatile]

And you're hopelessly naive. Her column started with the words "Try to forgive Joe Paterno." this is a story where Joe Posnanski lost his mind and Pat Forde became a frat boy, and we're supposed to see Sally Jenkins as immune?

They didn't study her Pat Summitt column. They studied her fealty to the myth of Happy Valley. And they got what they were looking for.

If I'm on the side with Forde, Posnanski and Jenkins in a discussion of sports journalism, I'm more than comfortable.

 

[LongTimeListener]

And you're hopelessly naive. Her column started with the words "Try to forgive Joe Paterno." this is a story where Joe Posnanski lost his mind and Pat Forde became a frat boy, and we're supposed to see Sally Jenkins as immune?

They didn't study her Pat Summitt column. They studied her fealty to the myth of Happy Valley. And they got what they were looking for.

If I'm on the side with Forde, Posnanski and Jenkins in a discussion of sports journalism, I'm more than comfortable.

That's cool. Don't bother reading what any of them wrote, just assume they know better on this one because they're awesome and infallible.

 

[Versatile]

I've read all of it, actually. At this point, I've probably literally read hundreds of articles on the Penn State scandal, including dozens of columns from both sides. I've seen the stuff about the Paterno class. I am with them. Media members lost their damn minds with lynch-mob groupthink. I don't think Paterno's firing was entirely unjustified, but I think it's crazy to say based on the evidence we have that he was somehow responsible.

But that's not what this thread is about. There have been enough threads about that.

 

[LongTimeListener]

We disagree. My views on the reasons Jenkins got the interview are unchanged.

 

[sgreenwell]

[blue]No, I'm more against child abuse than you are, and Jenkins! Look at me![/blue]

 

[imjustagirl]

I might be the biggest Forde fangirl around. But that whole episode was painful.

 

[Stitch]

And you're hopelessly naive. Her column started with the words "Try to forgive Joe Paterno." this is a story where Joe Posnanski lost his mind and Pat Forde became a frat boy, and we're supposed to see Sally Jenkins as immune?

They didn't study her Pat Summitt column. They studied her fealty to the myth of Happy Valley. And they got what they were looking for.

If I'm on the side with Forde, Posnanski and Jenkins in a discussion of sports journalism, I'm more than comfortable.

That trio represents what's wrong with sports journalism when it comes to hero worship.