Sara Ganim's recent story about a 1971 victim contained known falsehood
Additional Comments:
Sara Ganim’s latest column regarding an alleged 1971 child sex
abuse incident that was allegedly reported to Joe Paterno
should serve as additional proof that Ganim (and the Patriot News) never cared about reporting the facts of the Sandusky
scandal.
Ganim won a Pulitzer Prize for LOCAL (not investigative)
about the “Penn State Scandal.” Evidence
that has come to light in the subsequent legal proceedings and in media reports
reveal that her Pulitzer winning articles contained known falsehoods, omitted
critical information, and fabricated other information in order to create the
narrative.
Her recent article is more of the same.
She covered scandal over a year and knew that Sandusky was an
acquaintance offender who befriended pre-teen boys and groomed them for
victimization. As such, she had to
also know that her story of Sandusky picking up a 15 year old hitchhiker,
plying him with drugs and alcohol, and forcibly raping was not consistent with
Sandusky’s modus operandi.
Ganim also had to know her corroborating witness was not a
reliable source, as he was featured in the movie Happy Valley conducting a pathetic
one-man protest at the Paterno statue and has a well-known history of
irrational behavior.
She knew her story was false but she (and now CNN) decided that perpetuating her false
narrative of a “Penn State Scandal” and grabbing headlines and TV appearances
trumped the truth (and ethical journalism).
After four years, Penn State finally pushed back and issued
a statement denouncing the sensational (false) stories that continue to batter
our community. That’s not enough.
CNN should retract this story and issue a public apology to
Penn State.
Amen. However, I'm not holding my breath.
ReplyDeleteThe public may get a retraction and even an apology from CNN about Ganim's latest fake news article about Paterno. But Ganim won't lose her job of writing phony news against innocent people. Because, CNN is corrupt and in the business of organized slander, and Ganim is their tool. Sara Ganim's entire identity and life is built on a lie that CNN created. At this point, even if Ganim knows she's being used by CNN to cover up their organized crime, she's probably scared to death to get out.
ReplyDeleteIf she want's to get out and find a "safe haven" who can she turn to? That is not an easy question to answer because CNN seems to have the government regulators ignoring their organized publishing of slander.
So if anyone reading this blog knows of an organization that can harbor Ganim, please post the name and number here. I don't believe that any of our government organizations can be trusted to harbor a defector from corrupt media at this point. So if someone knows of a trusted private organization, even overseas, that can offer Sara Ganim asylum, please post your ideas here. She may turn out to be the one that breaks the truth that will be far bigger than any Sandusky story.
Truth,
DeleteGanim already sold her soul for a Pulitzer prize.
She needs an asylum, but not the type you're speaking of.
The media is definitely being used to keep the truth hidden in the Sandusky matter. I believe so because of all of the opportunities to expose Louis Freeh as a fraud have not been capitalized upon.
There is something there.
Cheers!
Ray
Sara Ganim's and CNN's unethical conduct and lack of sound journalism should be the headlines instead of all these articles about how the latest allegations impact the Paterno legacy. I think Ganim's article is another Rolling Stone, UVA gang rape article.
ReplyDeleteGanim's article just makes no sense on almost every line. The 1971 accuser says he lost friends, including a former pro football player, after he told them last year about being raped by Sandusky.
Why would he tell anyone after keeping it secret for over 40 years and especially now that it would be a violation of the confidentiality agreement he signed with Penn State in exchange for a hefty settlement?
Tim,
DeleteGanim and her lousy writing that won a Pulitzer prize will be the topic of my first book.
Title: Media Molestation
Coming in 2018. Be ready.
Russell Frank at State College News just wrote a defense of the reports by Ganim and NBC but didn't mention the huge problem of using Bernie McCue as a corroborating source. He seemingly didn't even make the connection that Bernie McCue has been a Paterno hater for over 20 years.
ReplyDeleteI don't know if journalists like Frank and Ganim are just lazy, inept or if they are deliberately misleading. Maybe Ganim didn't think, or have 60 seconds, to type Bernie McCue's name in a computer search engine and see what turns up.
http://www.statecollege.com/news/columns/with-paterno-allegations-reporting-has-merit,1467815/
My verdict: All three....lazy, inept, and deliberately misleading.
DeleteCheers!
Ray
Another key thing about the CNN article is that the accuser did not even tell "Jim and Joe" that he was raped. So the many headlines that Paterno was allegedly told of a rape in 1971 are deliberately false.
ReplyDeleteCNN quotes the accuser as saying to Jim and Joe, "I told the story up to a certain point. I told them that he grabbed me and that I got the hell out of there."
"He insisted that he 'made it very clear' it was a sexual attack."
That latter part reminds me of Mike McQueary's testimony.
Tim,
DeleteGood catch. The media can't even be trusted to report on its own shoddy reporting.
This is the endless "crap" that is destroying good journalism. There is the desperate need to be published or lose a position or job, regardless of the people left destroyed. When will this end.
ReplyDeleteDr. JC,
DeleteTHanks for stopping by. I don't think the media can be fixed, but we can slap a few of them down really hard over this.
I reread the Ganim article, and it mentions that the accuser first talked to CNN "last year" and also mentions accuser comments from November. It also says the Paterno family comment is from last year. So why would CNN wait so long to publish it if they believed it was credible?
ReplyDeleteI bet CNN found the story "too crazy to be believed" as the accuser's state trooper friend thought when he heard it so canned it. I suspect they then rushed it out as a followup to the accusation that an accuser contacted Paterno in 1976. If true, they used one anonymous, uncorroborated accusation as corroboration for their anonymous, uncorroborated accusation.
I doubt it would be too hard to identify the accuser with the clues CNN provided. How many State College 15 year olds in 1971 had bowling alley owners as foster parents? Anyone who knew him well in high school would know who he was.
Too bad CNN didn't interview any of the accuser's high school classmates about what he was like in high school as background.
They didn't even get a comment from the former pro football player who the accuser alleged humiliated him at a party and ended their friendship after the settlement.
Tim,
DeleteThis story is just complete hogwash.
Victim A wants to go on the stand to confront PATERNO, but he seems to have no animous whatsoever against SANDUSKY -- the man who allegedly raped him.
So he turned to alcohol, not because he was raped by a priest, then raped by Sandusky, but because Paterno didn't believe his story.
It's simply amazing what the media gets away with because the PUBLIC is willing to be fooled.