Jay's Open Letter to Sally Jenkins
- Thread starter PSU_1991
- Start date
Me too. I was hoping Wen, Chi, Ray, Jimmy or one of the others that are so well versed on things might have figured out what wasn't in the unsealed documents that was reported.
Worse yet: She was the one that the Paterno's presented with an opportunity nobody else had.
What kind of person do you have to be to so quickly devolve from that? Boggles the mind.
Its a deposition. A deposition is for the opposition to ask questions and judge the strength of the claimant's case. It is also used to intimidate. So questions are typically closed and pointed, not open. Answers are typically "yes" and "no". You don't want to "show your hand". I am sure the discrepancy was noted and stored away for another day. You don't "win" deposition. And that's the problem with judging cases on deposition.
Listen, and I say this with 100% certainty; the press is owned 90% by people with money. If you want your spin published, you hire a good publicist who (ostensibly) writes the article and feeds it to the press outlets. Most often, writers will use that written narrative as an outline for their article. Watch any of the news outlets. Both political parties, send out people with a list of "talking points" to get across. You'll see the same set of talking points, spin terminology, used across the board by different people, different outlets, different mediums. Why? They just digest the talking points so that they don't have to think. Meantime, that entity spends millions on ads. the skids have been greased.
I guess there are a handful of honest writers out there....but I don't know of a single one.
Its just one question and I think you have the option to not answer. Its no biggie.
bwifan
Well-Known Member
Hmmm... good question... maybe ask Ira Lubert he might have an idea on who is spoon feeding information behind the scenes to the press to continue to control the narrative...
I went to a wrestling camp at PSU in 1980. We showered in the dorms.
It wasn't as if someone said Sandusky was wearing a green shirt when the shirt was really red. O'Dea wasn't even there in 1988. How can a supposedly unbiased journalist simply overlook such a huge factual inaccuracy?? "The date is in dispute"? Gee Sally, you think so?? A real journalist would raise an eyebrow and dig deeper.
Last edited:
I think you answered your own question by stating "a real journalist". Note Jay's comment, "For years I admired you too. Maybe someday I will again."
bwifan
Well-Known Member
Correct... I went to numerous soccer camps at PSU and we always showered in the dorms.
Both having accomplished parents, I think one would be proud, not so sure about the other.
Reading that article put a little tear in my eye.
This article is the reason we shall continue to fight.
This article is the reason we shall continue to fight.
Why wouldn't he send this letter directly to Jenkins paper as a response to her comments?
I bet they would publish it...
I bet they would publish it...
Bravo. Any response from Sally will be completely dismissive and will paint Jay as a weak defender of his father. Jay is on spot on.
Might find it was the same person leaking e-mails to the press a month before the Freeh report was released...
Well, when the facts are on one's side - the people in the wrong have no other choice but to resort to personal attacks and other methods to win their arguments.
As for getting years wrong...
Statement: "Christopher Columbus' first journey to the Americas was in 1492."
Rebuttal: "No, pretty sure it was in 1495."
Reaffirming: "Trust me. It was 1492."
Total Nonsense Spin (pick your favorite strategy: "Well, I guess the date is in dispute and we'll just have to agree to disagree. Besides, you're just trying to defend the genocide of the native American people. You have your opinion, and that's fine but I think you'll find most people agree with me."
"What????"
Jay is eloquent, but more importantly, he is factual. Of course, to Sally Jenkins, like to our November, 2011, Board of Trustees, facts mean little. Agendas are all that matter.
Send it to Wolf and the OAG as well with a demand for immediate investigation. The letter is repleat with provable facts that demonstrate the PSU BOT and the head of its Legal Subcommittee (and the presumptive new Chairman of this Board), Ira Lubert & cronies, egregiously violated their legally-binding Fiduciary Obligations and Responsibilities in this matter and led an effort by PSU which is clearly an attempt to commit Insurance Fraud.
I am sure the 2014 deposition date was just a type error but it was in 2015. Also can someone show where MM testifies at Sandusky's trial "he didn’t discuss this with people he worked with"
I don't remember that nor did I see that in the transcripts but I only looked quickly
Last edited:
Most major newspapers have become Fourth Estate vanity projects for the uber wealthy. They make for wonderful fishwrap and judging by their plunging ad revenue, I'm not alone in my thoughts.
Kind of ironic how all the character judges out there in this story have proven themselves to be the lowest of the low.
Makes sense. Look how quickly these latest anti-Paterno allegations reached NBC, New York Times, Philadelphia Inquirer, Disney/ABC/ESPN, Washington Post, etc. where they were given prominent and uncritical coverage.
And....delayed one day so that these new claims were made four years to the day of Freeh's bombastic press release and report. I see an FU in there somewhere from somebody.
...and, not coincidentally, on one of the slowest sports days of the year. Both releases appear to be deliberately timed for effect.
I figured the one day delay was to give an extra day for the Dallas sniper interest to die down, so there wouldn't be as much coverage competition.
the very small portion of MM's deposition that was made public was in the PSU suit against PMA - it had nothing to do with MM's civil suit. The portion released was PMA's attorney asking the questions.
PMA deposed bradley and gantor but their depositions were not released. It would have been much better if all and full depositions were released but only the portions that were used in actual filings is all that were made public.
Sally Jenkins is a sports columnist who writes opinion pieces. She is not an investigative reporter. If the Washington Post was serious about getting into this story it wouldn't assign a sports columnist to write about it.
The truth is slowly but methodically revealing itself. I'm certainly not a big John Ziegler fan, but as the facts continue to bubble up, it confirms everything he's been telling us.
In the years I covered PSU football, much of the time the seat next to me was unassigned to regular beat writers. It was saved for writers from larger papers, Sports Illustrated, NFL general managers or scouts, etc. There were only two people who were not friendly. One was Sally Jenkins, who couldn't lower herself to speak to someone from a dinky paper with a circulation under 50,000. The other was a blogger from ESPN at the Nebraska game after Joe's firing. (I offered to fill him in on what was going on, but he apparently had his mind made up ahead of time.)
MM's brother doesn't even come on here on any more to defend the cowardly lyin' Mike.
They still shower in individual stalls. My son went to the PSU football camp in 2013. He stayed in Pennypacker in East Halls and that is where he showered.
Jay's letter was great. As usual Jay gives great rebuttal and offers viable & intelligent counterpoints.
BUT ..... unfortunately it will not get any traction. Like we've seen over and over and over, time after time the last 5 years, the media has already set their narrative and it will take a monumental development for this narrative to be changed.
The media is beyond frustrating. First of all, you would think after similar cases like the Duke lacrosse case they would have learned their lesson and not jumped to a pre-set conclusion for their narrative. And secondly, once their narrative is established it is nearly impossible to have it changed.
Eventually the Paterno v. NCAA case will have it's day. The day we've all been waiting for, because it is the day when Joe's name will finally be vindicated. My fear is that the media will either simply not report the story. They simply will not cover a Paterno side victory. Or, if they do actually cover a Paterno side victory it will be slanted in a way that Paterno's won by some sort of slick legal maneuvering or technicality.
BUT ..... unfortunately it will not get any traction. Like we've seen over and over and over, time after time the last 5 years, the media has already set their narrative and it will take a monumental development for this narrative to be changed.
The media is beyond frustrating. First of all, you would think after similar cases like the Duke lacrosse case they would have learned their lesson and not jumped to a pre-set conclusion for their narrative. And secondly, once their narrative is established it is nearly impossible to have it changed.
Eventually the Paterno v. NCAA case will have it's day. The day we've all been waiting for, because it is the day when Joe's name will finally be vindicated. My fear is that the media will either simply not report the story. They simply will not cover a Paterno side victory. Or, if they do actually cover a Paterno side victory it will be slanted in a way that Paterno's won by some sort of slick legal maneuvering or technicality.
