Joel Mathis of the Philly Post reports that some of Joe Paterno’s supporters have crossed way over the line. They have targeted Sara Ganim.
Apparently, the “Paterno Truthers” have forgotten that without Ganim’s Pulitzer Prize winning reporting, Jerry Sandusky might be free and capable of doing his unthinkable acts.
At one point, Ganim, now with CNN, tweeted last week about quitting Twitter:
There are really some scary people out there. Absolute nutjobs. Thinking about ditching twitter. Not sure of its value anymore.
Writes Mathis:
Let’s put aside how incredibly tedious, tiresome and unavoidable the “Paterno truther” brigade has become for anyone who dares write (or even tweet) credulously about the downfall of Saint JoePa. What even the truthers should understand is this: Fighting back against Paterno’s critics by using sexually demeaning and degrading language is really not the best way to demonstrate that you have your priorities in the right place when a sex abuse scandal—and the ease with which it was overlooked—is at the heart of the whole neverending mess in the first place.
You don’t have a ton of credibility, truthers, except with each other. You reduce it further every time you call Ganim a “bitch” or suggest she’s been sleeping around. And you reduce it when you keep your silence in the face of such misogyny, just because you don’t like Ganim and her work. All of which will actively short-circuit a renaissance for Paterno’s memory, or Penn State itself.
Yet another reason to be sickened by the entire situation.
What a sad story. I didn’t even realize these “truthers” existed. Pathetic. I’ll see what my friends think about this. Lastly, truthers : wake up. You are protecting a culture of silence, a culture protecting pedophiles. If you don’t like it, you need to grow up. If you don’t like what I’m saying, focus your anger on me. I can handle it.
Glad that you are surfacing this harassment. A good reporter doing a great job was instrumental in surfacing horrific acts. It also was a catalyst for deeper discussions about people (also, mostly good) looking the other way or trusting those in responsible positions to manage a criminal situation. Too bad the “Paterno Truthers” are oblivious to that fact. They pride themselves in being followers of the sainted one. I bet even “JoePa” himself would be ashamed of these misguided sycophants.
Ed,
I hope that you can understand how some of the reaction to people like Sarah is related to how Penn Staters have been treated since the Sandusky scandal broke. For instance, my three children have been called pedophile enablers, child rapists, and immoral in places like Ohio Staduim, Illinois Stadium, walking down a street, a place of employment, and by co-workers and supervisors.
Other frustration is due to the lack of due process for Joe Paterno and others, especially when it is clear the media is not educated on many of the facts related to Penn State’s part in the scandal. That is not hysteria. I’ve had hundreds of conversations with people who think Penn State is guilty but can’t recite one fact or reason anyone at the school is guilty. They can’t and won’t engage in an intelligent conversation about it because they have no facts and are ill prepared to engage. All we are asking is for the media to slow down and review all the evidence and make a reasonable conclusion.
No one wants to focus on Jim Clemente’s report on pedophilia because they realize it may exonerate Joe Paterno if they really gave it some thought. It’s very unfair and frustrating to hear someone claim that Joe should have done more because he must have been aware of the breadth of Sandusky’s crimes. Why is that a reasonable conclusion when law enforcement, multiple social service agencies, the second mile, a district attorney, child adoption and foster care services, teachers, victims’ parents, coaches, principals and many others were fooled every day? What omniscience did Joe Paterno have that all those others didn’t?
There are only two cases remotely related to penn state. 1998 which was investigated by law enforcement, hence in no way a cover up. And, 2001, which we know now from victim 2 that there was no assault on that particular date. In fact, Sandusky was acquitted of those charges. That alone proves McQueary is not a credible witness and that Joe Paterno did not know what the media presupposes he knew because it had the benefit of much more advanced information on the abuses.
By the way, how ridicuLous in it to conclude that Joe Paterno would actually think the football program would receive negative publicity if he turned in Sandusky? IF JOE KNEW, and he somehow figured out how to “turn in” Sandusky, he would have been hailed as a hero. He certainly would have done so IF HE KNEW in 2001 what we all learned in 2011. No question.
Thanks for considering these points.
RME