rojo wrote:
Everyone in the media,
I thought this phrase was supposed to be followed with something along the lines of: "with their left wing agenda..."
rojo wrote:
Everyone in the media,
I thought this phrase was supposed to be followed with something along the lines of: "with their left wing agenda..."
Yes, "except," may bad.Bottom line is Paterno followed his duties to the letter, and in reality, the only thing the cops would have done would be to tell Paterno to tell the witness or the victim to come forward. If you think people only lose their jobs when they have done something wrong, I've got a bridge to sell you.
LP!! wrote:
The word is except. And No it is clear that Paterno did not do what he was supposed to do, if he did no wrong, he'd still be coaching.
Hearsay is only a rule of evidence and it doesn't apply to either establishing probable cause or a grand jury indictment.
If his wife testified against him at trial he'd be done. Then you wouldn't need the recording. Also don't bring up the spousal privilege because she can waive it.
ESPN and the Cuse cops are in the same spot as Paterno, they knew and didn't do nearly enough.
Where is the outrage?
The liberal lamestream media won't attack its fellow members, but they go after icons of tradition and order.
less ons wrote:Accept for the fact that Paterno did exactly what he was supposed to do. People don't realize you can't go to the cops with hearsay. If he didn't witness the assault, the cops would have just told him to send in someone who did.
LP!! wrote:
if [Paterno] did no wrong, he'd still be coaching.
Ha! Tell that to the Board of Trustees! They didn't seem to care what he did or didn't do. Instead they based their decision on the perceived PR impact of the scandal on Penn State.
Syracuse Police had everything ESPN had, at the time ESPN had it. ESPN knew that. As much as I dislike Colin Cowherd, he's right on this issue - ESPN had no moral, ethical, legal or other obligation to air/print what paltry evidence they had and had every reason to not air/print it should it have turned out to be false, doctored or otherwise corrupted, lest they open themselves up to a libel suit. I'd take greater issue with Fine's wife. That sick b*tch apparently knew everything from the get go. If she was any sort of decent she would have (A) done everything she could to prevent any crime her husband was committing or going to commit against a child and (B) immediately gone to police with her suspicions/evidence to find out what she could do to bring the sick fvck to justice.
The more information that comes from the PSU situation, the more it's obvious there was knowing and witting systemic cover up and enabling of blatant child abuse by multiple responsible parties at the institution. While at the moment we know less about the Syracuse situation, there doesn't appear to be any institutional witnesses, cover up or enabling of known offenses.
I really don't understand why more legitimate threads are killed here while the founder is able to post such uninformed nonsense.
This thread is an excellent example of why an Ivy League education is not worth it for some students.
Who watches ESPN?
Moral of the Sandusky/Fine Stories? Men are disgusting pigs and should not be trusted with children.
I don't have enough info to be able to rip ESPN or the newspaper in Syracuse (both of whom apparently had this tape in 2002), but if that tape is the most damning thing they had, I can see perhaps not going forward with it. She doesn't flat out say her husband was a pedophile. She says he had "issues" and that there were likely other "victims" (but a person can be a victim of unwanted advances and it not be a crime) when she does talk about Bernie doing inappropriate things with the guy, it is unclear how old he was at the time.I do find it odd that Fine's wife stayed with him knowing that at a minimum he preferred young men and at a maximum could have been a pedophile. Very weird.
rojo wrote:
1) Did anyone just see Syracuse xc runner Forrest Misenti on SportCenter talking about the case? Way to go xc/track. When's the last time an xc runner showed up on Sports Center? That might have been a first.
He was expressing his outrage because "coaches are supposed to be role models" and called it upsetting.
2) On a serious note, will there soon be some serious outrage soon directed at ESPN.
Quite honestly, I had thought in some ways the media had gone way over the top in prematurely crucifying everyone at Penn State for not acting in that case when as of now we in reality have no idea who actually knew or did what, particularly when we are talking about the GA McQueary.
Everyone in the media, tons of people on ESPN radio, had had this holier than though approach of, "How could all these people not do anything at Penn State?" when in reality it's not clear yet who did or didn't do anything.
And then the Syracuse story breaks and ESPN acts like they are breaking this story and doing this great investigative piece.
A week passes and then it comes that ESPN has for nearly 10 years sat on a tape where the wife of the Syracuse coach admits that her husband is a pedophile. They had this tape for nearly a decade and they didn't broadcast it then or even last week or report it to authorities or do anything?
Where is the outrage?
And their excuse for not doing so is laughable. Check out what ESPN wrote on its own website:
ESPN wrote:FR: What was the basis for introducing the Bobby Davis/Laurie Fine audio tape 10 days after your initial report on the Fine allegations?
Doria: When we had the audio in the past we had never been able to confirm that it was Laurie Fine. Part of it was we had no independent video of her and her voice – something we could look at and say, “Yes, that’s her and yes, that appears to be her voice.”
http://frontrow.espn.go.com/2011/11/espns-doria-on-syracuse-coverage/#more-18250So their excuse (in part) for not publishing the tape a decade ago or even last week is because they had no independent video of the wife to confirm it was her voice.
Really?
They are journalists with tv cameras at their disposal. A moron could have walked up to Mrs. Fife at a game and asked her a question to get her voice/picture on a video camera and yet ESPN offers this excuse.
In reality, they probably didn't publish it as they feared a lawsuit.
Any other explanation?
But I just think this is a prime example of people had better be careful before the cast stones at others.
I can sort of understand of not publishing the initial accusations because only oner person was making them, but when there is a video tape supporting that, give me a break.
If there excuse was, "Maybe the tape was doctored" which apparently is what Mrs. Fife is saying that would be one thing but ESPN isn't offering that excuse.
Your thoughts?
Occupy Tardville wrote:
rmbr scholastic sports america wrote:They are every bit the propagandist machine that the Ministry of Public Enlightenment was for Hitler and Nazi Germany.
Oh-oh! Godwin's Law is already in play!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law
Nice that somebody figured that out. Hitler didn't exactly invent this form of control, he just was most famous for using it so it makes a great comparison.
Espn was a great station for years. They took sports that were rarely shown or sports in other areas and made them available. Before they started doing that, the local cbs, nbc or abc would broadcast the games. Besides watching your local team, you could also watch other teams across america. The most exciting game I watched was New Mexico/New Mexico st. basketball late one evening in the early 90s and I live in the midwest.
At some point though, they became more interested in everything NEGATIVE about sports (ever hear Dirty Laundry by Don Henley?) and used shows like Outside the Lines to start doing "investigative" work where they now spent more time doing this than showing actual sports. Instead of looking forward everyday to the BEST plays, they even started showing the 10 worst plays. From that it just became the 10 plays of only the sports they were happening to broadcast. Any sport that was shown on another network was treated like it didn't exist.
Once they had gotten everybody to watch, took control of the cable companies, and everybody liked them, they used that for greed and power exactly like Hitler did. While espn is not killing people, they are doing a very good job of destroying a lot of peoples lives and will eventually kill off sports viewing as we know it.
luv2run wrote:
[quote]rmbr scholastic sports america wrote:
How would a local station come up with the money to show most sporting events? You also need to learn what a tax is unless you are reading the Trib in which case you need a new paper.
I like the crawl, allows me to keep up with scores of other games. Apparently few dislike it since it is on every news channel as well.
Those ridiculous commercials pay for the broadcast you moron. TV is not about entertainment or sports, it is about advertising.
1.
Local stations or affiliates of the big 3 networks were showing ALL the sporting events long before ESPN came around. ESPN didn't invent showing sports on tv.
2.
That crawl is probably nice for the news. I don't watch a basketball game to see the news though. If I want to see what the news is then I'm smart enough to turn it to the news channel.
3.
I understand you have to have commercials to pay for the production. Years ago when the local stations showed the games (remember I told you this in #1 in case you weren't yet born back then) you watched for free (before cable) and the advertisers hoped you bought their product so they would make money and continue to advertise.
The problem comes in when they sell so much advertising that they now control the game they are showing and besides having forced stoppages in play for commercials in some sports like basketball, in other sports like baseball , they won't let them start until all of their advertisements are finished. With breaks of 4 or 5 minutes you have players just standing around waiting and fans not knowing what is going on. It also makes the games take a ridiculous amount of time to play.
4.
If the sports networks are extorting extra money out of the cable company and those costs are charged to EVERYBODY but only about 10% of the people actually care about watching sports, then the other 90% are being charged for something they care nothing about and cannot just opt-out of sports programming. That sure seems similar to a tax to me. I guess you could call it "Welfare for the rich corporation" if you wanted to.
If you enjoy watching, then go ahead. Just don't be surprised when they keep reaching in your pocket a little more everytime that big "game of the year" comes on.
I think the big difference between ESPN and the people at Penn State is that when ESPN got the tape in 2002, the accusations of child abuse had also been reported to the police. In the Penn State case, McQueary, Paterno and the rest did not report the charges to the police.
If you suspect child abuse your duty is to report it to the police. You don't have a duty to second guess the police if they decide not to press charges.
In this case, ESPN didn't think it had solid enough grounds to run a story, which is a matter of journalistic judgment. Few things are more damaging than accusations of child abuse, so I would hate to see a situation where the press is supposed to publicize all accusations of child abuse even when the police don't think there is enough to bring charges.
that part of the u.s. in particular has a widespread practice of boy rape. many of the union prisons for homosexual rebel troops were frequented by men from pennsylvania and new york as favorite places for sex with rebel traitors to punish them for slavery.
Maybe I am missing some of the facts - if so, please inform me.
Syracuse investigated the Fine allegations in 2005 and Jim Boeheim was apparently unaware of the allegations until recently. If this is the case, why is there no one calling for that Board and, in particular Nancy Cantor, to resign. Again, I may have the facts wrong here. But if Cantor led an investigation that never interviewed Boeheim, I have a real problem with that. I cannot imagine that Boeheim wouldn't have been brought in at that point.
This youtube video explains what I'm thinking perfectly:
I don't think people in America really care what happened. America is a society which condones pepper spraying nuclear and particle beam weapons students at UC Davis afterall.
hoopla wrote:
Moral of the Sandusky/Fine Stories? Men are disgusting pigs and should not be trusted with children.
Don't generalize this to all men. It's really only white men who act like this.
Fine is not white. He's a Jew.
That pepper spray was watered down.
I don't think society condoned it anyway, despite the fact that police can use reasonable to achieve compliance with there orders.
The civil judgement will make the kids rich S.O.B.'s and bankupt UC Davis that's for sure.
runup wrote:
Again, I may have the facts wrong here.
u du