Thankfully @LBerkland is vigilant.
Sally Jenkins is at it again
- Thread starter Zenophile
- Start date
Thanks Zeno. If memory serves right, isn't she the woman that Joe invited into his kitchen and spoke at length. Washington Post?
So sad that many persons are so challenged today. I may have a decade left or maybe a few additional years, and hate to think the issues my grandchildren will face. No more morals, no thought, whip out a device and spread poison to thousands in an instant.
If I remember correctly, Jenkins admitted in a follow up Q&A to her interview with Paterno that there was likely a generational gap regarding Paterno's ability to grasp the whole concept of child molestation. I believe she even referenced her own father's inability to relate to the idea. Paterno tried to tell her this in his near death state and he also relayed this to Posnanski and also in a conversation with Jay that Jay put in his book. Yet with Paterno's own words directly to her, as well as her own father's example, she completely ignores everything and sticks to the narrative she wants to believe in her own mind - talk about lying to one's self. I would say the only revealing element in Jenkins' comments is that I expect that if a psychological profile were done on her it would probably be closer to that of Sandusky than to her own father.
Last edited:
There are two things that stand out here. The first is her assumption that an average person is able to spot someone like a Sandusky--that there are signs that are clear. In hindsight, yeah. Anyone in this case might well say to themselves "I should have seen this coming". But that's in hindsight. Clemente dealt with that in his report. The second is the interpretation of the e-mails. When I first saw those, I kinda felt the same way as Sally did. But given that it is unclear who they refer to, if they have been possibly altered, and that they may well be taken out of context, that changed things pretty quickly for me. I do think she is trying to be honest and honestly feels she was played--because people do that in her field all the time. But Joe probably was confused at the time he gave the interview as he was a lot closer to death than folks thought. What she interprets as being "played" was a guy who wasn't quite sure about all that had happened at that point and was trying to figure it out himself.
Joe masterfully handled the media in his career. Is it so outrageous to believe that a man at the end of his life would be concerned about his legacy? Given his media skills, might he have used Jenkins' interview as an opportunity to try to rehabilitate that legacy? To simply pounce on Jenkins as (essentially) a liar ignores that possibility.
None of us will ever know for sure, including Jenkins. But she was there. We were not. She is a trained journalist, has interviewed hundreds of people in her career, and makes judgments based on her experience as a journalist all the time. She observes their facial expressions, body language, etc. Maybe she is all wet and trying to get some publicity for herself. Maybe she is offering an honest opinion. But to simply dismiss her outright seems to be a bit overly defensive.
None of us will ever know for sure, including Jenkins. But she was there. We were not. She is a trained journalist, has interviewed hundreds of people in her career, and makes judgments based on her experience as a journalist all the time. She observes their facial expressions, body language, etc. Maybe she is all wet and trying to get some publicity for herself. Maybe she is offering an honest opinion. But to simply dismiss her outright seems to be a bit overly defensive.
She couldn't take the heat she was getting for sticking up for Paterno so she took the coward's way out.
Maybe, but I wouldn't trust her as far as I could throw a battleship.
Paterno was almost dead when he gave this interview and by Jenkins own admission he could barely stay coherent and conscious during much of the interview. He did the remainder of the interview from his bed. She further admitted that the whole Paterno family was moving about and talking during the interview which created further distractions. What facial expressions and body language would even come into play at that point? Not to mention that you write as though Jenkins is an analyst with the FBI behavioral science unit - she's not. She's a reporter and not an exceptional one at that.
Trained journalist? Pretty funny stuff, right there. What is a trained journalist? IMHO, its a person that can master sentence structure and make up stuff that is titillating but defendable. In other words, bend the truth so far you get readers but not so far as you can be accused of lying.
Nice to see her walking back her story....but God forbid anyone admit they were wrong. JS fooled hundreds of people with his creepy closeness and worldclass charity for at-risk boys. Who would believe them? Certainly not trained psychologists and law enforcement for decades.
But Joe was supposed to rip off his suit in the nearest phone booth and save everyone? How about Joe report what he was told and let the experts address it? That's the NCAA new (and old) policy....but somehow for 80 year old Joe, that isn't good enough.
But Joe was supposed to rip off his suit in the nearest phone booth and save everyone? How about Joe report what he was told and let the experts address it? That's the NCAA new (and old) policy....but somehow for 80 year old Joe, that isn't good enough.
Talk about a narcissist. I remember reading a column by Reilly in SI (I think in the 80's) where he incorporated what he could bench press into the story.
I partly disagree with that. I heard Rene talk on the topic to our alumni chapter a long time ago. One of her main issues was that, at the time, there were a lot of programs around where if you didn't "play on coach's team, you didn't play". That was well known to be the case at at least one Big 10 school at the time (I have a buddy who's brother was a varsity athlete at that school--and that buddy was also good friends with some of that' school's female varsity athletes--both had it directly from the horse's mouth, so to speak). Whatever you may think about gay or straight, it's wrong to coerce behavior--and Portland expressed that at the time she had a lot of parents who were relieved with her stand, as they feared their daughters getting pushed into that in order to play. We are molded in life by more than our genetics in any situation--environment and choice also play a role.
Read about the "Chipmunks" some time and you will see where some of that started.... No, that's not a reference to the PSU logo either but to the "new breed" ca. 1960 of sports writers in New York. "October 1964", by Halberstam, discusses it.
Sally was duped by the Freeh report but will never admit it. She's trying to backtrack by saying it was unfair to say Paterno enabled child molestation but he's obviously lying.......cause.......um.....well....look at those emails in the Freeh report! Anyone who uses those emails to imply Joe had to know, and was lying to protect his legacy is laughable. What also is laughable is thinking that an 84 year old man dying of cancer and getting chemo treatments somehow manipulated Sally Jenkins.
Agree. And even if he knew, what should he have done differently? He didn't see anything. All he could do is report what was reported to him to his boss ad outside his department...which is NCAA policy and what he did. Legally, he had no other choice except to go vigilante. After that, it was up to the authorities with the appropriate responsibility and authority to do more...and MM to push it if it didn't. MM told Joe everything was good.
I'm sure he was concerned with his legacy at that point. But I doubt he was up to "handling the media" at all--certainly not in a masterful way. He was far too ill for that.
At the same time, I'm not saying Jenkins is a liar--but I think she's wrong. That's not the same thing.
I don't know Sally Jenkins from a hole in the wall, and I did see the interview, and I did see what she wrote about Joe after the Freeh report.
that being said, is there zero possibility that Sally sincerely feels the way she feels?
It's easier for me to believe....she's being cowardly for the reason you state......but what proof of that is there (i mean, i hope you're right)?
why can't it be....she actually sincerely feels the way she feels? she was in his house, she spoke to Joe in his kitchen, i'm pretty sure she has a better perspective/feel for Joe or the situation than most of us, no? does she have a motive to lie?....to throw Joe under the bus?.....if so, i'd love to hear the theory.
for the record, i'm just being devil's advocate here.
Interesting that you take this position. Ms. Jenkins was in full defense of Paterno's position until Freeh leaked the context-less Tim Curly email to CNN. To this day she still credits that email with changing her mind.
So please tell me more about this "journalism training" to which you refer.
I don't know. I wasn't there. But then again, neither were you. That's my point.
As brilliant a writer her father Dan Jenkins is ( I believe he is now 86 ) wonder if Sally feels his memory is sharp as ever... ?
So Dan would have been 82 4 years ago... And he has tweeted and written plenty of questionable things today that have made people say " what?"... His " fake parody" interview of Tiger Woods a couple years ago was just another one of those awkward moments.
My point... I don't care who you are... But when you start getting in your 80's... Things change... Including memory.. Recollection... Often a real understanding of what is transporting in today's world etc.
Sally interviewed Joe at 82? Guess what... As we all knew... This was not the same Joe memory wise as Joe was when he was 60... Just saying...
Well, remember, that the "team" of detectives had the year of the MM incident wrong for two years of investigation and a year after the indictments until the Freeh report was "leaked". Imagine that...and exhaustive and comprehensive investigation had the year wrong...the freakin YEAR WRONG.
Yet Joe was supposed to recall every last detail. Imagine that.
LOLOLOLOL. In this case it would appear a certainty that she blew off all her experience as a trained journalist, and all her observations of facial expressions and body language, etc., and blew off everything else she ever knew about Joe Paterno, and put her entire stock and belief into three e-mails that were purposefully misrepresented by Louis Freeh. Why would a person like that go into journalism? Would that be because there where no more openings left for town idiot?
yeah, i hear ya....don't disagree w/a word you said.
but that has little do with Sally Jenkins believing or disbelieving Joe regarding having any knowledge of Jerry prior to 2001 (the 98 incident) in addition to his involvement w/Curley regarding the MM incident....at least, that's what it seems she's referring to in the OP.
though, I just listened to the podcast, and she still cites the Freeh report regarding the emails. I can see jumping the gun in July 2012 w/the Freeh report, but to still use it against Joe after all we know?....seems odd she's still going there.
nonetheless, i'm not ready to call Sally insincere, a liar, or has some ulterior motive.....I might just disagree w/her......though, I'm not a trained journalist sitting in Joe's kitchen interviewing him.
some things people need to remember:
1) Sallyjenx is never wrong
2) Sallyjenx is smarter than all of you
3) Sallyjenx is never wrong
1) Sallyjenx is never wrong
2) Sallyjenx is smarter than all of you
3) Sallyjenx is never wrong
Jenkins is a self-promoting, lazy hack.
And
Don't think Sally is a liar but... She is human and therefore has flaws as anyone else. Just because these people are " trained" journalists does not mean they make critical mistakes.
Brian Williams was one of the most respected " journalists" in media... Even having his a helicopter shot down during a blazing gunfire with the Taliban... Oops... Sorry... I gues that was a tiny mistake.
If you really think Joe... In he condition he was in... Aging... Dying... Was trying or able to " dupe" Sally Jenkins... Wow... Then maybe Brian Williams really was in head to head combat...
And that's exactly the issue. Seems she's too busy being the story to put aside her ego and start asking some journalistic questions.
Joe's mistake was that he trusted people to handle the situation properly
https://search.yahoo.com/yhs/search...sted+us&ei=UTF-8&hspart=mozilla&hsimp=yhs-001
yeah, I'm not really familiar w/her work at all. Though, I do know the Paterno family picked her for a reason, for at the very least...she was reputable, fair, and competent.
I always worry I'm being biased in these situations......feel it's too easy to say....well, I obviously have to question her work now since she's criticizing my beloved hero.
at the same time, i really don't understand how she can hang on to the Freeh report email findings.....3.5 years after it's been ripped to shreds.....I don't know how to feel...lol
maybe i should be more critical of her, but again...I feel i'm too close to the situation, in favor of Paterno to do so.....opposed to Dan Bernstein who's obviously a worthless hack like some people on this thread accusing Sally of.....but he's too easy
Joe's mistake was trusting that the folks ultimately in charge of Penn State were people of integrity. This was also my mistake.
Last edited:
I find the whole affair of her going to the Paterno house and interviewing Joe while he was practically on his deathbed distasteful even if she was invited by Joe and the family. At some point, doesn't a real journalistic have to use some common sense and realize that this person is gravely ill and perhaps not even of right mind. Can any reliability really be made of his words, even she admitted that he was in and out of sleep and consciousness and did the interview in part while in bed.
At some point, a credible and ethical journalist should say "This just isn't right, I should not be doing this". But she was after "the story" and ignored the situation.
At some point, a credible and ethical journalist should say "This just isn't right, I should not be doing this". But she was after "the story" and ignored the situation.
nah...the Paterno's were more than eager to get their side of the story out. They knew Joe was on borrowed time. The picked Sally Jenkins, and who can blame her for agreeing to the interview since it was such a hot story at the time.
unfortunately, it blew up in their face
Well, she actually supported him after that. But she game him no opportunity, since he was dead, to refute the allegations brought up by Freeh.
wasn't the interview before Freeh's report? If so, Joe and the family never got to tell their side of the story after Freeh. Sally has taken freeh as etched in stone....she needs to see who Freeh really is (a paid opinion).
The problem with Jenkins is that she visited with Paterno and came back with one story, then changed her position after Freeh's report and the media $h!tstorm that followed. I don't think she even read and analyzed the report before flipping. She just bought into the media hype.
What you say could be true. Who knows? But the thought that occurred to me a immediately after reading the first post in this thread was: What purpose does it serve for Sally Jenkins to be publicly rehashing this yet again? "To this day, I think he lied to himself as much as anybody...He passed the buck....But I was never unsympathetic to him." (Uh, yes you were. And still are.) Her report reads like a huge, steaming pile of speculation and amateur psychoanalysis, and the only purpose I see in her serving it up again is to garner some public attention for herself, whether good or bad. Well done, Sally.
Similar threads
