Joe Posnanski: Lord of Lists
- Thread starter John Marzano Olympic Hero
- Start date
There may have been a context to some of those quotes that was not expounded upon enough to really give a clear indication of what Pos meant by them.
Some of the quotes seem pretty straightforward, however, and that's really, really disappointing.
Some of the quotes seem pretty straightforward, however, and that's really, really disappointing.
I guess it only takes 3 months in Happy Valley for the Kool-Aid to kick in. I am really disappointed that he rushed to his own judgement.
My thoughts exactly. I have complete confidence, based on his past work, that Posnanski getting to know Paterno before the scandal broke will actually lead to a better book.
In what way did he rush to his own judgment?
I'm reading what Posnanski is saying as, "Just because I don't write the eight millionth article this week crucifying everyone who ever had anything to do with Penn State doesn't mean I support child molestation."
Well, the money quotes for me are:
"I think [Paterno] is a scapegoat. I definitely think that...I think he tried to do the right thing, and the right thing didn't happen."
"The rush to judgment here has been extraordinarily. The lesson to learn might be that we screwed this thing up."
First off, scapegoats are guys who are not in charge.
Second, a rush to judgement would be firing him either before or right after the Grand Jury Testimony came out, not nearly a week later after several Board meetings.
Posnanski has to defend that position somehow, and unless there is some material information that Posnanski has that we don't, it comes across that he's already staked out his opinion, which is dangerous in this situation.
First off, scapegoats are guys who are not in charge.
Second, a rush to judgement would be firing him either before or right after the Grand Jury Testimony came out, not nearly a week later after several Board meetings.
Posnanski has to defend that position somehow, and unless there is some material information that Posnanski has that we don't, it comes across that he's already staked out his opinion, which is dangerous in this situation.
Someone yesterday in the Sandusky thread said college was a "make believe land."
Maybe Posnanski needs to leave the college life and re-join the real world. Go visit his daughters or something.
I am very disappointed with Joe Pos -- if he can't see that a book about how a man who had everything most people want threw it all away out of a misguided sense of loyalty to an old friend, out of fear of being exposed as a fraud, about losing a gravy train for his family and friends and himself, out of wilful ignorance and disregard for anyone but himself -- then he's not even half the writer I thought he was. In fact, I'd say he has no integrity as a journalist if he still forges ahead with a puff biog about how Joe Pa got railroaded.
The book we want to read could be one of the greatest pieces of journalism written in decades, "All the President's Men" level stuff. What a shame.
The book we want to read could be one of the greatest pieces of journalism written in decades, "All the President's Men" level stuff. What a shame.
I understand the frustration, but what makes you so certain that this is how the book will turn out? Pos is making comments after having about three days to digest a story that's really close to him and also happens to be one of the most horrific stories in recent football history. He just seems overwhelmed right now. (He described himself on Twitter as "like a surfer in a tsunami".)
Moreover, Joe Posnanski isn't Tony Mazzarotti who takes one angle on a story and sticks with it through the end of time - I suspect he will do a lot of soul-searching before he figures out what the book will be about. In fact, Pos pretty much admitted as much in his blog post; he said that right now, he's going to "read but not write".
If Joe is still making these comments in six months, I'll be worried, but I think that his comments are little more than reflexive at this point.
I don't understand how
jives with
Isn't the fundamental reason that people are furious with Paterno that Paterno knew one that of his trusted assistants was doing something horrific to little kids in (at the latest) 2002, and yet did functionally nothing to stop it? I don't understand how Posnaski can admit the answer to that question is "yes" and not understand why people are absolutely furious and calling for his head.
My take from Posnanski's essay is that he understands why so many people feel such rage towards Paterno for his actions and inaction but that he has not decided whether he himself should feel such rage and disgust about Paterno and will hold off on those feelings until he knows all the facts about Paterno's involvement and Paterno's bad actions.
I also think that Posnanski was right to call Paterno as the scapegoat in this scandal, based on the standard definition of the word. Realistically, it is justified that Paterno is being scapegoated because his failure to bring Sandusky's actions to the attention of the police was abhorrent and morally bankrupt. Paterno has been fired and has been the subject of the lionshare of the scorn and anger of the media and public so in effect he is the scapegoat for all of the disastrous failings that pervaded PSU in this situation.
Bullshit.
Unless you think Joe Paterno is literally a goat of some kind, he is not being scapegoated. a) He is not bearing the blame for others, because at least one person will certainly go to jail for this and another was fired along with him; and b) the hostility is completely rational. He had all the power, and did nothing with it. He was criminally negligent.
I completely agree that the anger and vitriol is rational and justified. Paterno's actions and inactions are horrific and lacking in any moral strength.
I am going off this definition of scapegoat:
a person or group made to bear the blame for others or to suffer in their place.
In terms of the media scrutiny right now, Paterno is bearing almost all of the blame for the failures of many people. I agree that many others will suffer severe consequences and harsh scrutiny for their involvement in this disaster as they should but I believe that at this moment, Paterno is standing in for almost all of the other people involved. All I was saying is that I think Joe Posnanski did not make a huge mistake in calling Paterno a scapegoat, as that word has varied definitions in parlance. To be clear, I think Paterno is a deserving scapegoat for his failings.
I am going off this definition of scapegoat:
a person or group made to bear the blame for others or to suffer in their place.
In terms of the media scrutiny right now, Paterno is bearing almost all of the blame for the failures of many people. I agree that many others will suffer severe consequences and harsh scrutiny for their involvement in this disaster as they should but I believe that at this moment, Paterno is standing in for almost all of the other people involved. All I was saying is that I think Joe Posnanski did not make a huge mistake in calling Paterno a scapegoat, as that word has varied definitions in parlance. To be clear, I think Paterno is a deserving scapegoat for his failings.
If Joe Pos. had one weakness as a writer, IMO, it was his tendency to get too touchy-feely about a story. For whatever reason, I think he's been doing that more over the last 2 years than he did prior to that. Sometimes it works, but sometimes it can be distracting and a little over-the-top.
I think his sentimental side is really getting the better of him now, and its at the worst possible time.
This is not a human interest story.
I think his sentimental side is really getting the better of him now, and its at the worst possible time.
This is not a human interest story.
See, I firmly believe "deserving scapegoat" is one hell of an oxymoron.
Also, one cannot suffer in the place of another if that other person is also going to be punished. It...doesn't work that way. A scape goat is someone who takes the blame, and someone else gets less blame as a result.
The term you are looking for is "lightning rod." And tough shit! He was the face of the university during the glory years, now he has to take the bad with the good. That's how it works.
I admit that it is possible that my take on this is wrong and off-base but I view the word scapegoat as apropos to Paterno's situation. Usage of the word scapegoat is not fixed, in my opinion. Again, I could be very wrong on this.
[quote name='drleather2001' timestamp='1320973978' post='3845460'
The term you are looking for is "lightning rod." And tough shit! He was the face of the university during the glory years, now he has to take the bad with the good. That's how it works.
[/quote]
I completely agree, Paterno deserves the deluge of criticism, I just view the words scapegoat and lightning rod as describing very similar things.
The term you are looking for is "lightning rod." And tough shit! He was the face of the university during the glory years, now he has to take the bad with the good. That's how it works.
[/quote]
I completely agree, Paterno deserves the deluge of criticism, I just view the words scapegoat and lightning rod as describing very similar things.
Once upon a time, several summers ago, I broke my ankle in three places and walked around on crutches for a couple of months. Invariably, people would try to make me feel better by saying things like, "Well at least you didn't break it during the winter when there's ice everywhere!" or "At least you didn't break your writing hand!" To which I would respond:
"I DON'T GIVE A S**T ABOUT A BAD THING THAT DIDN'T HAPPEN! MY LEG IS BROKEN! AND MY CAST ITCHES LIKE HELL!"
I wasn't completely miserable most of the time, but I couldn't stand that crap.
Humans are capable of simultaneously a.) realizing that there are worse things out there, and b.) still feeling bad about what actually happened. We can do multiple things. Penn State students/alumni can be capable of feeling bad for the children while simultaneously feeling bad that the administration has been (justifiably) shamed, their icon is not the man they thought he was, and their college is a national punchline to everyone except Kremlin Watcher, who told us in the other thread that we should never joke about rape. I know it sounds insensitive, but much as humans try to find silver linings in bad situations, so too are humans able to perceive lesser, concurrent tragedies in the face of greater tragedies. Urging people to "Get some perspective!" simply runs contrary to how the human mind works, in large part because it requires the mind to be able to deal rationally with pain.
The girl is right. Everyone lost. It's a bad outcome for all. And it's much, much, much worse for the children than for anyone else. But noting that "everyone lost" doesn't mean that you support child molesters or that you don't understand the gravity of the situation for one of the parties in particular. It just means that you have tried to process what this means to many people, and in every case, it's something bad.
Yup, I have absolutely no affinity for PSU or JoePa, I just hate them all for this whole mess...and Posnanski dropping down a notch in my book hurts.
I'm fine with this as long as you're willing to go all the way with it. I doubt if someone asked that girl or Joe Poz if they feel any sadness for Jerry Sandusky they would have the guts to say yes. But oh, let's cry because a man can't coach a stupid football team anymore. You are way over-intellectualizing what is a simple lack of perspective, which is not the superpower you make it out be.
To be honest, it doesn't even sound a real thing a person would say, it sounds like Joe's artistic license taking over.
My respect for Joe Pos has plummeted since reading that article.
Look at this picture and tell me that it matters how this guy was fired.
http://twitpic.com/7cx6p6
Look at this picture and tell me that it matters how this guy was fired.
http://twitpic.com/7cx6p6
It's more concerning to me that I believe there might not be legislation on the books that would punish Joe Paterno (and anyone involved) for not reporting molestation of children to the police than it is to me that he was fired.
I'll break it down as simply as I can. Joe said nothing. More kids were molested for it. That is despicable and utterly void of defense.
And to counterpoint an argument I've heard made before, which is "We don't know how much he knew!"... well, nobody disputes that a claim was brought to him that someone saw Sandusky doing something inappropriate to a child. If Joe didn't follow up on that, that's equally as bad.
And honestly, what parent wouldn't form a lynch mob if they found out that their child was molested, and multiple administrators and coaches at a school knew, and not one went to the police?
And last, but not least, to the Joe Pos quote that "Everybody lost". Yes, everybody lost. But when a serial killer goes to the gas chamber, everybody loses then, too. Some people deserve to lose. Particularly when they cause so much pain to so many who didn't.
You guys are totally right. We need BLOOD! If Posnanski was half a man he would go to Paterno's house and punch him in the face.
Fuck, I'm pissed off. I'm a fan of Posnanski, this could have been "In Cold Blood" territory. He's getting starry eyed?
That article was a joke. "Shame on them." Jesus Christ.
That article was a joke. "Shame on them." Jesus Christ.
Super Nomario, I referenced it directly in the post you're quoting. That means I've read the book. Several times, actually.
Have you stopped and thought out that last post? I'm going with no. No one wants blood, clownshoes. They want someone they respect to show some spine and some fucking common sense.
I was hoping to get from Posnanski what I've always gotten. An extremely well-written, honest take on the situation, that shows a lot of thoughtfulness and intelligence. What I've gotten so far is Pos as Paterno's friend, blaming the media for scapegoating Paterno(?!), saying people who think differently about this are being reactionary and sanctimonious, and a writer emotionally wiped out and upset that the book he signed up to do is now officially wrecked and impossible to do. I think he should get out of Happy Valley. Come back to us Pos.
I think he is showing spine. He knows his stance is not remotely popular.
In my opinion, one of the things that makes In Cold Blood so compelling is that Capote portrays Perry Smith with sympathy even as he renders the crime in all its heinousness. Without comparing Capote and Posnanski as writers, that strikes me as similar to the mindset Posnanski is taking here.
Taking a nuanced, empathetic view of the situation is fine. Arguing that Joe Pa has lived a decent life and has been a decent guy his entire time at PSU is fine. But wagging his finger at the board of trustees for their "disgusting" method of firing him? Casting shame on people for not supporting JoePa... I mean, what the hell, he's been at fucking State College through this whole thing.
I'm sorry, but when you're dealing with a case with this much heinousness, politeness shouldn't really factor for those doling out the conequences, no matter how revered one is for the number of buildings they've paid for and football games they've won and churches that have their name on plaques. Sandusky was on more than decade long rampage. It was covered up and/or just plain not reported as it should've been. Joe Pa fucked up, in a case where fucking up was completely unacceptable. It's fine to argue that that mistake doesn't negate everything else Joe Pa has done. It's stupid to try and parlay that into some silly moral high ground about Joe Pa not being paid due reverence. And that's where JoePos lost me. Completely. I don't think that the whole article was bad. But that segment? Yeah, that was.
I'm sorry, but when you're dealing with a case with this much heinousness, politeness shouldn't really factor for those doling out the conequences, no matter how revered one is for the number of buildings they've paid for and football games they've won and churches that have their name on plaques. Sandusky was on more than decade long rampage. It was covered up and/or just plain not reported as it should've been. Joe Pa fucked up, in a case where fucking up was completely unacceptable. It's fine to argue that that mistake doesn't negate everything else Joe Pa has done. It's stupid to try and parlay that into some silly moral high ground about Joe Pa not being paid due reverence. And that's where JoePos lost me. Completely. I don't think that the whole article was bad. But that segment? Yeah, that was.
Obviously Joe Paterno is the representation of Penn State and yes, I am aware that in struggles with Spanier and other higher ups, Joe Paterno would come out on top. To some degree that is overblown, because the major struggle he won was in maintaining his position.
And just because no one outside State College didn't know who his superiors were, evidence indicates that his superiors were far more culpable in this than Paterno. Paterno's lack of action was immoral, but he did take more action than those he reported this too. Paterno is most likely naive and willfully blind in this unless you believe that because he generally won struggles over his superiors that he controlled everything and knew everything at Penn State. That doesn't really hold water when thought about rationally because (1) Joe Paterno cannot make every decision at Penn State. No administrator is capable of that. (2) Joe Paterno is really fucking old and has been for a while.
Just pointing to the fact that Joe Paterno is the whole fucking show get at what happened because "the whole fucking show" is not the only thing that caused this. What I mean by this is that the "Joe Paterno/Penn State" cult isn't the only cause. Focusing on Joe Paterno makes it seem that is the case.
I am not just saying to call for more accurate facts, though I think that is a worthy goal because we all know that the media is terrible at reporting accurate facts. I say this because without thorough reporting, there really is no purpose to this.
What does inaccurate moralizing reporting do? It doesn't help the victims. In fact there is evidence that victims are hurt by it because the shame they feel from these deeds is magnified because they are not only constantly reminded of what they did, they are reminded that they didn't speak up and report it even though it was so clearly and obviously wrong that only a coward would not report it. Victims internalize that. They believe themselves to be cowards or perhaps they convince themselves they are freaks to some degree because clearly they would have reported it if they were normal. It would be far better for the legal process to take care of things without the media if what they will do is prove how much they know that child rape is wrong.
What does this type of reporting do? It doesn't prevent these scandals and cover-ups from happening. It certainly doesn't stop a Sandusky. One would hope that the immense backlash would stop people from initiating cover-ups. However, there are ways this type of reporting encourages coverups. It makes friends of the pedophile overcautious about reporting these things because they know that even a whiff of this would set up a firestorm that ruins a person's life, which I think is one factor in why people did engage in the cover-up, considering that everyone involved knew Sandusky for decades and were friends with him. It creates a fear that if a pedophile is outed, it will destroy the institution no matter what because there will always be questions about whether he could have been discovered earlier and someone might have kept quiet at some point. These beliefs are certainly irrational, but with the way the media conducts itself, the irrationality critique runs both ways as the media is already behaving irrationally.
This type of reporting certainly doesn't teach the people related to the institution but not involved with the cover-up to not be reflexively defensive of the institution. The reporting on student behavior has been abjectly terrible. The rough approximations on how many students were involved in the rioting is around 2000 to 3000. That is less than 10% of the student population. There have been gatherings in support of the victims on campus as well, but those have not been covered at all. Instead, we get the wailing student crying, "Joe Paterno is Penn State." The prevailing attitude is that Happy Valley is a cult center where everyone worships Joe Paterno. Anyone with a functioning brain should be able to deduce that not everyone in State College was rallying and rioting for Joe Paterno. The most vocal ones are going to because generally, those who are the loudest, are often fuckwits. Not always, but when we are talking about large crowds, the rule becomes more applicable. I am not saying that this cult wasn't part of the reason this disgusting behavior was covered up, but there are a lot of people affiliated with the university, students, faculty, staff, people living in State College who have been profoundly disturbed by what has happened here and they want to know who is responsible and what can be done to fix it, what can be salvaged, because the Penn State that they know is not slavishly following Joe Paterno or even if it was, they want to salvage something good not from this situation, but from the remnants that remain after the scandal.
The efforts of the media to paint the whole situation with a broad brush is only going to galvanize people around Penn State because they realize it does no good to try to be rational and deal with situation, as trying to sort things out is a sign that you are just as good as a child rapist. The calls for swift action were right, but the actual meaning of swift demanded was unrealistic considering the scope of the scandal. In any normal situation, the President of the University would make the quick decisions required. In this case, President Spanier was compromised, expressing unconditional support for two people indicted. The Board of Trustees initially were to convene on Friday but decided to convene on Wednesday. Many people were fired pretty fast after the magnitude of the incident became clear. I am not saying this to defend Penn State, because obviously those fired were all Penn State administrators who either covered this up or were massively delinquent in their duties. The Board of Trustees delay was met with claims that they would be keeping Paterno and that he would coach on Saturday and be able to go on this magical farewell tour. Maybe the media was the reason the Board fired Paterno so quickly. I am more inclined to believe that reading the Grand Jury report was easily enough. The iota of delay in firing Paterno was considered evidence that everyone in Happy Valley worshiped Joe Paterno and that he was untouchable.
The media coverage could help prevent cover-ups like this in the future by presenting details of what happened. Massive scandals and cover-ups don't happen for simple reasons. Institutional protection is one reason, but on the other hand, institutional protection would also be a reason not to ever engage in a cover-up because they blow up in your face all the time. Some level of arrogance is necessary, the arrogance that the institution is more important than the tortured individuals. Certainly the cult atmosphere contributed to this, that because they were doing good things, evil could not be present in the institution. This belief was fed because everyone kept telling them that football was extremely important, and Joe Paterno was the architect of this exceedingly important institution.
But then again, the institution did do good things. People did benefit from it. Some of the money taken in by football went into the University. Intangibly, football brought in alumni donations, allowing Penn State to still thrive academically, at least for a state university. Football also brought a sense of community, not only to the people who worked and learned at the university, but those who had once been there and those who were in the area. I note all of these positives because this institution and its surrounding cult were not absent good. This is part of what causes this, that real good is done by the institution. While there are certainly selfish motives as well, such as pecuniary gain and reputation to be had, there is evidence that there is some misguidance as well. The ultimate calculus in the end is that innocent children, the most vulnerable of those innocent children, were sacrificed for the Penn State football institution. Repeating that calculus incessantly, getting louder each successive time, does not accomplish anything except feeling good about yourself. That has some importance, but it doesn't help prevent stuff like this from happening in the future. Everybody already knows that. Detailing the process on how a few people forgot is important because then it can better be prevented. People can see where potential blind spots might be and how you could potentially build a football program that does some good without having kids raped.
And so I finally get to Posnanski's quick post. While I obviously agree with his assessment of the howlers, I don't agree with his point that people should be shouting on the rooftops supporting Paterno. People have been doing that and it has been an embarrassment. Also Paterno benefited from that his entire career. His name is on the Big Ten trophy. He had the respect of his adversaries, even many fans of opposing teams. He was practically a god in State College. Posnanski is probably too close to his subject and should have remained dormant until he could achieve a critical distance. The public doesn't need an outcry of support for Paterno and he doesn't deserve it. However, being reminded of the good Joe Paterno has done is needed. It's needed because his goals for the institution were admirable. His goals became the institution's goals. Knowing how those good intentions and oftentimes good outcomes turned out this way is important. It would be easy to think it only happens because of evil vices such as hubris and greed infect and institution, encouraging opacity and fear of authority's reprisal.
It isn't that easy. Some people in the institution were only interested in preserving its image, Schultz and Curley most obviously. Paterno is harder to figure. He could easily have reported nothing, just listened to McQueary, told him he'd take care of it, and then lie about it if McQueary followed up. McQueary quite likely imagined Paterno a father figure and would have acquiesced. That would be the easy way to cover it up, by not involving anyone else. He did report it. Why? Maybe Paterno was concerned with doing the bare legal minimum to cover his own ass and then allowed the cover-up to happen knowing he was safe. Possible I guess. I think it is far more likely that he did the bare legal minimum to protect his friend and longtime professional colleague. He knew he had to do something but he didn't want to be the one to call the police. What is gruesomely astounding in case of sexual abuse of children is the level of denial and willful blindness that occurs because of the horrific nature of the act. People will disbelieve allegations against a family member or a friend even in the face of overwhelming evidence. It comes across as callous, and it is, but it happens all of the time. Generally good people, decent people fall into the trap. Those in Paterno's generation are particularly susceptible to it.
If this explanation is true (which it could be, there are a lot of explanations that could be true aside from Paterno, evil incarnate) it does not mean Paterno should not have been fired. He was rightfully fired. But trying to find these explanations does much more than repeating the gruesome details of these allegations and vowing to beat the shit out the next guy you meet raping a child in the shower. It has the potential to prevent evil from fostering within an institution. There are so many that didn't do the right thing at so many points in time. McQueary could have called the cops immediately or at anytime. Joe Paterno could have called the cops immediately or made sure an effective investigation was conducted or made sure that his superiors called the cops. Schultz and Curley could have called the cops or conducted an effective investigation. Who the fuck knows what Spanier could do. Could an institution be constructed that would avoid this? Could Curley and Schultz not have been stooges? If the bare minimum of Pennsylvania law required Paterno to report it to the police, could this have been averted considered Paterno did do the legal bare minimum in this case? Just saying, "These people are evil," doesn't help, because the solution at that point, "Don't allow evil people to have power," is pretty useless.
This is the type of piece that's been needed in all this, and hasn't been written yet. Outstanding writing.
Holy molely, fantastic post. Thanks very much.
I also don't agree with Joe Poz' take on the subject and it seems he's a little too close to Joe Paterno to think accurately. I am surprised by his position, just like I am surprised kids would riot in the streets because a football coach was fired. But the draw of Paterno must be strong, that's for sure.
I wish Poz had maintained his silence, but I understand why he didn't. He didn't want to address that class yesterday, but he felt (rightly, imo) that he should. Once his remarks there were broadcast on Twitter, he had little choice but to put those remarks in context.
Poz's ill-considered words will be soon forgotten. Let's see what he writes in his book. If he breaks through the Manichean duality that has characterized this story, that's a good thing, even if some people will be pissed about a book that portrays Paterno as anything besides a monstrously evil man.
And speaking of breaking through Manichean dualities -- great post, A34.
Poz's ill-considered words will be soon forgotten. Let's see what he writes in his book. If he breaks through the Manichean duality that has characterized this story, that's a good thing, even if some people will be pissed about a book that portrays Paterno as anything besides a monstrously evil man.
And speaking of breaking through Manichean dualities -- great post, A34.
Its probably a bit more popular where he is, in Happy Valley.
The ICB reference was more of a shocking-crime-in-an-idyllic-setting with the journalist injected into the bloodstream of the town kind of thing. Fair point on the Perry Smith idea.
I can't believe Posnanski just can't see that bad people can do good things, and good people can do bad things. He doesn't know Paterno enough to know which way it falls. I guess I don't know either, but when shit like this happens, it's not time to talk about the good things.
That's where I'm coming from. Now is not the time for people to step forward and say what a good man Joe really was. Maybe when he dies, that's the time, I don't know. But the whole shit about calling Paterno's naysayers "howlers" and stuff like that, it's denial. Total denial.
Paterno may have been the guy who reported up, satisfying some minimal standard, but in the process he apparently grotesquely watered down the significance of the event. An assistant reports an anal rape of a child in a Penn State locker-room to Paterno and between a day and 10 days later when the AD is involved, that gets recast as inappropriate contact and ultimately horseplay?
Paterno is not a victim here. The victims are the victims here. Paterno was an enabler. A genial, generous enabler.
Paterno is not a victim here. The victims are the victims here. Paterno was an enabler. A genial, generous enabler.
There is no such law, just as there is no "Good Samaritan" law that requires (unless excepted by statute) someone to report a crime in progress or to save someone in peril.
Paterno did all he was required to do by statute (I believe).
However, that by no means absolves him of any moral or ethical standards he violated. People have every right to judge him, just as they might judge a person who does nothing to save a dying man on the street because he was late to work.