Today's legal filing by various PA media outlets exposed that the media continues to ignore the facts of the Sandusky case -- because a Penn State scandal sells newspapers.
By
Ray Blehar
As concerned Penn State Alumni and supporters continue our efforts to inform the government, media, and child protection advocates that the focus on our University, the football program, and its former legendary coach will not fix Pennsylvania's broken child protection system, the media confirmed that it is only interested in writing stories that sell newspapers.
Today, the Harrisburg Patriot-News, the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, the Philadelphia Inquirer, Daily News,
and Philly.com (otherwise known as the PA Corruption
Network's media arm -- minus the Pittsburgh
Tribune Review) filed to have the records of the Sandusky settlements
unsealed.
Their argument, as cited in media reports, exposed that they will not accept the fact (in spite of a Judge's ruling and mounds of evidence) that Sandusky's employment at
Penn State was NOT a factor in his commission of
crimes against children.
The media should be the last people on the planet to be making any judgments from the evidence.
A passage from the filing shown below proves my point follows (my emphasis added):
"Public interest in these proceedings is
immense....may shed further needed light on a matter that is of serious public
concern - sexual abuse of children over decades by an employee of the largest
public university in the commonwealth."
Ruling: No Vicarious Liability
In November 2013, U.S. District Judge Court
Judge Anita Brody dismissed a count of “vicarious liability” against the
university, ruling that Penn State cannot be held liable for Sandusky’s acts simply because he was an employee at the time.
Obviously, the legal teams of the Corruption Network's Media Arm must have missed that ruling or simply refuse to accept it. And they refuse to accept the evidence from the Sandusky case that backs it.
Evidence
Sandusky's crimes continued after he left his employment with the University in 1998 and continued until 2009. There is no evidence of a crime being committed on the PSU campus after 2001 based on the Sandusky Bill of Particulars and the trial verdicts. Therefore, there is no correlation or causation between his PSU employment, his emeritus status which he retained until 2011, and his commission of crimes against children.
The common thread running through all the confirmed cases of child sexual victimization/abuse from 1996 through 2009 was Sandusky's AND the victim's associations with THE SECOND MILE. In fact, it's a perfect, positive correlation.
How long can the PA Corruption Network's media arm continue to ignore this?
Media Unfit
While I am all for getting the truth out in the open in the Sandusky scandal, it bears repeating that the media is the very LAST group of people who should be determining the validity of a settlement claim or to evaluate evidence.
This passage of the filing confirms that argument (my emphasis added).
"The information
concerning when these acts occurred, the
circumstances surrounding them, and the
evidence in support of these claims, or lack thereof, must be made public. Allowing these records to be made public will quell
rumormongering and unfounded conjecture."
Starting last Thursday night, the media has done nothing but write stories based on uncorroborated information. The media stoked the rumormongering and conjecture. Giving the media the information will cause even more of it.
The media also states it must know when these acts occurred and circumstances surrounding them so they can be assessed. The 1971 story is proof that the media is unable to assess the validity information. Neither the author nor the media overall revealed the ability to critically think about the allegations made by the phony victim and his collaborator.
1971 Story Not Credible
The allegations made in the 1971 story were only credible to people who had:
1. NO knowledge of the Sandusky trial evidence;
2. NO knowledge of when Sandusky founded THE SECOND MILE charity;
3. NO knowledge of when Sandusky was employed at PSU; and
4. NO understanding of PARENTING.
Point 1: Sandusky was an acquaintance offender. This is the most important fact ignored by the media. He befriended his victims. He was not what was known as a "stranger danger" offender.
Point 2: Sandusky formed THE SECOND MILE in 1977. As such, the phony 1971 victim's claims that Paterno didn't act because of "all the good things" that Sandusky had done doesn't hold water.
Point 3: Given that Sandusky joined the PSU football staff in 1969, was a young assistant in 1971, and had no history of charitable work, the idea that Paterno dismissed the complaint also doesn't hold water.
Please recall that in 2012, the media believed that Sandusky was forced to retire in 1999 due to the 1998 unfounded child abuse complaint. So a thirty year assistant gets immediately fired but a two year newbie doesn't.
Consistency? Bueller? Bueller?
Point 4: No parent, even a foster parent, is going to tell a child who was just raped to call Penn State and talk to Paterno. When Barron stated the stories were incredulous, this is one of the examples.
Interestingly enough, Ganim's story that broke news of the Sandusky grand jury, that was part of the Pulitzer Prize submission, exhibited an incredible lack of understanding of parenting.
In that story, Ganim wrote that the mother of a ten-year old boy waited outside the interview room while her son talked to the police -- but then never asked him what he talked to the police about.
From the article:
"When reached by phone, his mother said she took her son to Penn State police for questioning in 1998 but didn’t listen to the interview. She said she never asked her son what happened."
Her Pulitzer prize pretty much confirms the media has no idea how to evaluate the credibility of stories.
And the media has no need to in this case.
Allegations neither valid or invalid
In a perfect world, all the rumormongering and conjecture should be quelled by revealing Paragraph 3 of the John Doe A settlement (that states the claims are neither valid nor invalid).
A judge will likely dismiss the media's arguments for disclosure based on that passage alone.
But it's not a perfect world, and if the media doesn't like the answer, it will continue to pursue the story that it wants.
PSU Cover-Up Not Credible
The story of a Penn State cover-up and enabling Sandusky's abuse was not credible from DAY ONE. The evidence didn't support it.
That a full investigation was conducted of the active Defensive Coordinator of the football team in 1998, but was circumvented in 2001 (when Sandusky was retired), for the purpose of avoiding bad publicity is completely illogical.
The evidence also revealed that PSU reported Sandusky outside the University to every authority in 1998 and reported him, at a minimum, outside the University to THE SECOND MILE in 2001. Those facts certainly don't support a Penn State cover-up.
The report of the 2001 incident stopped at THE SECOND MILE and that's where the cover-up occurred.
However, the media knew that there was no BIG STORY in writing about a cover-up by a charity that was unknown to most people outside of Pennsylvania.
Public Interest
The Sandusky scandal coverage should have informed the public about the dangers of acquaintance offenders and how to recognize the signs of possible victimization. Priests, teachers, youth sports, and youth service organization members are all individuals who have access children and victimize them through gaining the trust of their families.
The person need not be famous or be associated with a top flight college football program to commit acts of child sexual victimization. All they need is access to the child.
It didn't make a difference that Jerry Sandusky was the defensive coordinator at Penn State in State College or if he was the offensive coordinator at Texas A&M in College Station. It wasn't his job. It wasn't the town. It was his role (and lack of rules) at THE SECOND MILE that provided him with access to children.
The media knows that -- and today's legal filing proves that the media has no interest in telling that story.