New Yorker Article on Spanier Lawsuit

[psute]

Last paragraph is below, entire article at link


To be sure, Spanier's case against Freeh will always be a long shot. The legal standard for public figures, like Spanier, who bring a defamation case is extremely, and appropriately, high; Spanier will have to prove either that Freeh knew his report was false or that Freeh displayed reckless disregard for whether it was true. Still, the very complexity of the facts as they have eventually emerged should remind us of the risk of rushing to judgment.

Link

 

[71camaro]

Don't have time to read the whole thing right now, but that last sentence, yes.

 

[psu00]

Oh good- so the New Yorker wants to remind people of the risk of rush to judgement. Meanwhile they have previously said PSU was guilty and would still say so now.........while lecturing others on how they have to be careful in avoiding a rush to judgement.

This post was edited on 3/20 3:24 PM by psu00

 

[Aoshiro]

Originally posted by psu00:
Oh good- so the NY times wants to remind people of the risk of rush to judgement. Meanwhile the NY Times has always said PSU was guilty and would still say so now.........while lecturing others on how they have to be careful in avoiding a rush to judgement.

The article is in the New Yorker, not the New York Times.

 

[psu00]

Thanks. Fixed it. In any event- same difference.

 

[9fold]

Originally posted by psute:
Last paragraph is below, entire article at link


To be sure, Spanier's case against Freeh will always be a long shot. The legal standard for public figures, like Spanier, who bring a defamation case is extremely, and appropriately, high; Spanier will have to prove either that Freeh knew his report was false or that Freeh displayed reckless disregard for whether it was true. Still, the very complexity of the facts as they have eventually emerged should remind us of the risk of rushing to judgment.

We all know that freeh's report was false, but can it be proven through discovery or testimony that freeh knew it was false? I think a simple analysis of the conclusions that freeh drew when compared to the "evidence" that he cited in his report could demonstrate "reckless disregard". Such an analysis may also lead the court to conclude that freeh had to know that his report was false.

 

[Michael.Felli]

How do you PROVE a negative? How do you PROVE unicorns dont exist?

Yes. I agree with you, that Freeh's "conclusions" were wrong (not necessarily, false).

But, like the B*I*B*L*E, people are given some informationa and then can "interpret" that information any way they seem fit. Louis Freeh uncovered some information. From that information, he drew some conclusions. Wrong conclusions? Yes. Inaccurate? Yes. False? Not according to him.

I think that an Email would have to found of Freeh saying he doesn't believe his findings are accurate BUT he's gonna draw the conclusions, anyway, for anything to change. And, the probability of that happing? Less than 1%

 

[Pardlion]

Originally posted by 9fold:

Originally posted by psute:
Last paragraph is below, entire article at link


To be sure, Spanier's case against Freeh will always be a long shot. The legal standard for public figures, like Spanier, who bring a defamation case is extremely, and appropriately, high; Spanier will have to prove either that Freeh knew his report was false or that Freeh displayed reckless disregard for whether it was true. Still, the very complexity of the facts as they have eventually emerged should remind us of the risk of rushing to judgment.

We all know that freeh's report was false, but can it be proven through discovery or testimony that freeh knew it was false? I think a simple analysis of the conclusions that freeh drew when compared to the "evidence" that he cited in his report could demonstrate "reckless disregard". Such an analysis may also lead the court to conclude that freeh had to know that his report was false.

The main benefit, for someone like Freeh, of the heightened public figure standard is that it allows them to file motions to avoid trial. But, if the claim gets in front of a jury, all bets are off. And, this one gets to a jury.

 

[VaNtyLion]

Proving the reckless disregard is not the same as proving falsehood...

For Freeh to reach the conclusions he did in spite of contradictory evidence and total disregard for material witnesses that contradict him would, given the nature of the accusations towards the admins, be reckless at the very least.

This isn't a 3rd grader ignoring an eyewitness on a news project. This is a man paid millions of dollars to use his so called expertise.

Also, this is not a case where Freeh ignored one or two exculpatory facts. His reckless disregard for any conclusion other than the one he was preordained to reach was systematic and consistent throughout the report as Spanier's suit cites numerous examples.

If Freeh has a good reason for omitting exculpatory evidence in his report, fine - depose him and find out what that logic is, because it certainly isn't anywhere to be found in the report that did irreparable damage to several people in the total absence of due process.

 

[Sandinista!]

The New Yorker or any magazine or newspaper isn't a monolith.
Their writers have varying opinions and they publish them.

The New Yorker never said one or the other, their writers did.

 

[Obliviax]

so we've got that going for us, which is nice

and, so your saying their's a chance~

 

[psu00]

Your splitting hairs now. Maybe it's just me but I don't recall all the pro Psu articles talking about how bad the Freeh report was or give the university the benefit of the doubt, etc. Maybe you can find a token article or two but I'm not sure you're going to win the argument that the New Yorker or NYT (or any other paper/ media outlet) has come down even with guilty/ not guilty articles with regard to PSU.

 

[Obliviax]

the second to last paragraph is interesting too.

The Sandusky story set off an understandable, and immediate, storm of outrage. Many news reports condemned the university, especially Paterno and Spanier, for purportedly enabling a molester to operate in their midst. Freeh used his report to reinforce that initial impression. As it turned out, Freeh's denunciations of Spanier were a lot clearer than his actual evidence against him. Indeed, in the years since, the story of the university's behavior has turned out to be considerably more complex than it originally seemed. For its part, the N.C.A.A. has eased up on some of the sanctions that it initially imposed on Penn State. It restored a hundred and twelve football victories, which had been stripped from the university's record, and allowed all of a $60 million fine paid by Penn State to be spent in Pennsylvania, instead of being spread around the country.

 

[psute]

Re: the second to last paragraph is interesting too.

Originally posted by Obliviax:
The Sandusky story set off an understandable, and immediate, storm of outrage. Many news reports condemned the university, especially Paterno and Spanier, for purportedly enabling a molester to operate in their midst. Freeh used his report to reinforce that initial impression. As it turned out, Freeh's denunciations of Spanier were a lot clearer than his actual evidence against him. Indeed, in the years since, the story of the university's behavior has turned out to be considerably more complex than it originally seemed. For its part, the N.C.A.A. has eased up on some of the sanctions that it initially imposed on Penn State. It restored a hundred and twelve football victories, which had been stripped from the university's record, and allowed all of a $60 million fine paid by Penn State to be spent in Pennsylvania, instead of being spread around the country.

The NCAA did ease up, at the point of a gun, lol...

 

[tboyer]

Actually the New Yorker's Malcolm Gladwell was the most significant voice of reason in ALL of the world of journalism in 2012. He wrote an extensive piece on Sandusky and child molesters, the gist of which was -- they don't LOOK like child molesters, so people around them get fooled. Gladwell's piece was basically arguing against the Freeh hypothesis that everybody at PSU "had to know" and had therefore covered for Sandusky.


Originally posted by psu00:
Oh good- so the New Yorker wants to remind people of the risk of rush to judgement. Meanwhile they have previously said PSU was guilty and would still say so now.........while lecturing others on how they have to be careful in avoiding a rush to judgement.

This post was edited on 3/20 3:24 PM by psu00

 

[Aoshiro]

The New Yorker also published an interview with Spanier dated August 21, 2012.


http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/former-penn-state-president-graham-spanier-speaks

 

[psunovaluvr]

I remember that column well. I could never understand how a respected writer like Gladwell did not get any traction with that article. He was a lone voice in the wind at the time. That article should be required reading for anyone who thinks they know what happened at PSU.

 

[Aoshiro]

Originally posted by psunovaluvr:
I remember that column well. I could never understand how a respected writer like Gladwell did not get any traction with that article. He was a lone voice in the wind at the time. That article should be required reading for anyone who thinks they know what happened at PSU.

The entire country became so attached to the "feet of clay" narrative (cemented firmly in place by Edelman with Penn State money) that it became impossible to dislodge.

It's probably the first time in history that an organization has spent millions of dollars of its own money to trash its own reputation.



This post was edited on 3/20 5:53 PM by Aoshiro

 

[B_Levinson]

Originally posted by psute:
Last paragraph is below, entire article at link


To be sure, Spanier's case against Freeh will always be a long shot. The legal standard for public figures, like Spanier, who bring a defamation case is extremely, and appropriately, high; Spanier will have to prove either that Freeh knew his report was false or that Freeh displayed reckless disregard for whether it was true. Still, the very complexity of the facts as they have eventually emerged should remind us of the risk of rushing to judgment.

The contents of the Freeh Report itself are strong evidence that Freeh knew his report was false, and displayed reckless disregard for the truth.

 

[bmusser24]

Oh good- so the New Yorker wants to remind people of the
risk of rush to judgement. Meanwhile they have previously said PSU was
guilty and would still say so now.........while lecturing others on how
they have to be careful in avoiding a rush to judgement.

This post was edited on 3/20 3:24 PM by psu00

It provides the narrative for Jim "Sir-whines-a-lot" Boehiem.

 

[tboyer]

No, the New Yorker was one of the few good guys in journalism who were not part of the witch hunt.

Can't say the same for the New York Times which was horribly one-sided and very cozy with the BOT and their PR firm.

Originally posted by bmusser24:
Oh good- so the New Yorker wants to remind people of the
risk of rush to judgement. Meanwhile they have previously said PSU was
guilty and would still say so now.........while lecturing others on how
they have to be careful in avoiding a rush to judgement.

This post was edited on 3/20 3:24 PM by psu00

It provides the narrative for Jim "Sir-whines-a-lot" Boehiem.