Of course it is.
And zig begins his attacks on the Paterno family, including Jay this time.
Update on Malcolm Gladwell's book "Talking to Strangers"
- Thread starter francofan
- Start date
Of course it is.
And zig begins his attacks on the Paterno family, including Jay this time.
Here's a little tidbit from someone who might know a little more than anyone speculating.
Jay Paterno: New book explains why so many missed signs of abuse by Sandusky ... and why Joe Paterno was blamed | Opinion
Today 3:16 PM
THE PATRIOT-NEWS
Joe Paterno and Jay Paterno worked together on the same Penn State staff for 17 seasons.
121 shares
By Guest Editorial
Editor’s note: Jay Paterno wrote this column after receiving an advance copy of Malcolm Gladwell’s latest book, “Talking to Strangers.” The book is due to be released in stores Sept. 10.
By Jay Paterno
“With the benefit of hindsight, I wish I had done more.” –Joe Paterno
With those eleven words issued as part of a statement in the early days of the Sandusky Scandal, Joe Paterno became a central yet misplaced focus of the story. How did that happen?
This and much more becomes clear in Malcolm Gladwell’s new book “Talking to Strangers.” The book’s powerful lessons address our inability to process the meaning and intent of people we don’t know. For an increasingly disconnected world “Talking to Strangers” is a book of tremendous importance.
Gladwell’s chapters change understandings of high profile stories we think we knew well. Having lived on the inside of one of the cases Gladwell cites, “Talking To Strangers” hits home with amazing accuracy.
Gladwell writes about society’s common failings, starting with the concept of “Truth Default Theory.” Simply, we “default” to believe that people are honest and readily accept explanations from people concealing sinister actions. As Gladwell points out, even parents of Michigan State doctor Larry Nassar’s victims were among his defenders. Some of them were in examination rooms while he engaged in “medical procedures” that were part of his sexual assaults.
They defaulted to believe someone who carried the weight and credibility of authority. But those parents are not alone.
In the Sandusky case, highly-trained experienced professionals with advanced degrees saw Sandusky interact with children for years and repeatedly missed signs. Yet the narrative focused on Penn State President Spanier and Joe Paterno rather than those professionals.
Never once did we suspect that Sandusky’s charity and his life’s work were anything but noble endeavors. Joe Paterno’s own kids and grandchildren (including my children) were around Sandusky. If we suspected even the slightest inclination of that kind of behavior would we have allowed that?
“Talking to Strangers” explains how people repeatedly miss these things. Savvy investors and SEC regulators missed the signs of Bernie Madoff’s fraud. Counterintelligence investigations staring at massive evidence miss detecting colleagues who are double agents. Even experienced judges make the right call on granting bail at a rate barely higher than the 50/50 odds of chance.
But, as society’s cynicism has grown our default is changing. We default to explanations we’re programmed to believe or that we want to believe. Sometimes that explanation is planted in our minds.
As the Sandusky story broke in November 2011, the Grand Jury presentment started with an outright lie about what a witness had told Joe Paterno. Gladwell writes, “The prosecutors, in order to serve their own ends, had turned gray into black and white.”
By 2011, after over a decade of stories about Catholic Church cover-ups for priests this was an explanation that prosecutors could sell to society and the media. That scandal created this default belief; powerful men always cover up child sexual abuse to protect their institution’s pristine image.
The presentment’s false opening reinforced that belief, unleashing a news cycle onslaught strong enough for many to toss out the presumption of innocence.
Gladwell writes of the similar media blitz that engulfed the Amanda Knox case: “The three were arrested, charged, convicted and sent to prison—with every step of the way chronicled obsessively by the tabloid press.”
As the Sandusky case broke the media laid siege to Joe Paterno’s house and the Penn State football offices. Across town the offices of Sandusky’s charity The Second Mile were clear of the media assault. The intensifying media narrative, driven in real time by newly empowered social media, targeted Penn State football. Our people inside were powerless to stop the surge.
Similarly in Knox’s becoming the media target Gladwell writes: “It is completely inexplicable in hindsight. There was never any physical evidence linking either Knox or her boyfriend to the crime.”
The same was true for Paterno. He was cleared by the Attorney General of any type of cover-up and was cited for being honest and cooperative in reporting the only allegation ever brought to him. But the media train steamrolled these explanations.
So why did this go so wrong? Gladwell’s concept of “Transparency” is where we read signals and actions of people as being a key to ascertaining their guilt. We have hardened misperceptions of how both innocent and guilty people should act.
Gladwell cites research showing that our assumptions are not good indicators. Our assumptions only work when those we’re judging are not “mismatched.” If a guilty person “acts innocent” they fool us, and if an innocent person “acts guilty” we condemn them.
Starting with the release of the Grand Jury Presentment, in November 2011, the “mismatch” was everywhere.
By including Paterno’s name in a publicly released presentment mislabeled as a “Finding of Fact” the prosecutors created guilt by association. In a 2013 issue of the Tennessee Law Review, University of Arkansas Law Professor Brian Gallini wrote that Paterno’s naming in the presentment was unnecessary. It also would’ve been illegal in a Federal case as well as cases in almost every other state.
Gallini wrote “Allowing the public to view sensitive grand jury documents—untested by a proof beyond a reasonable doubt standard—harms the reputation of any named third party.”
A plan to address the issues publicly in real time was killed when Penn State President Graham Spanier was told to stand down. Joe Paterno was ready to address the issues but the administration’s last-minute cancellation of his press conference looked to outsiders like a sign of guilt-driven internal turmoil.
A day later Joe Paterno announced his plans to retire at season’s end, which he’d been planning for several months with no idea that any of this was coming. He stated “With the benefit of hindsight, I wish I had done more” neither as an admission of guilt nor culpability. Rather it was an honest man stating he would’ve acted differently if he ‘d understood the full scope of this behavior. Who among us wouldn’t feel that way?
But because society equates remorse with guilt his statement was “mismatched.” Many writers “re-contexted” the statement by ignoring the qualifier of “with the benefit of hindsight.” Others misquoted Paterno’s words as “I should have done more.”
But for those who knew Joe Paterno, we knew a man who always looked first at himself and where he could have done a better job—even when blame for a setback clearly belonged elsewhere.
That night, although neither Paterno nor Spanier had even been charged with a crime, they were fired. Paterno’s six-decade reputation for integrity should’ve earned him the benefit of the doubt. But for society, innocent people don’t get fired, so “mismatched” responses led to a false guilty judgment.
Other elements of Gladwell’s book will also be controversial, but frank discourse is vital to today’s society. His detailed analysis of college sexual assaults in drinking environments should be understood by parents and students alike. Historical data offers insight into changes in Police procedures that led to tragedy. No one wishing to seriously discuss these issues should do so without getting the message that misunderstanding strangers can lead to failure.
“Talking to Strangers” highlights the danger of misperceptions hardened into an accepted but false reality. Default the truth has probably even devolved into seeking and accepting only explanations that comply with what we want or feel to be true.
While Gladwell’s Sandusky chapter is not focused specifically on the journey of Penn State, my father and my family that journey is a witness to the truth in Gladwell’s work. I defaulted to a truth of Jerry Sandusky; a man given a gold seal of approval by experts at State agencies who placed thousands of children with his state-wide charity and allowed him to adopt six children.
People defaulted the truth about Penn State and Joe Paterno because they believed that powerful institutions always cover up crimes. The misleading Grand Jury presentment led to a mismatched University response driving a media and society default to misplaced guilt.
Two months after being fired, Joe Paterno died leaving a notepad found on his nightstand. Some of his last written words were scrawled by a hand unsteadied by the ravages of cancer treatments.
“silver lining—maybe some good can come from all of this.”
He hoped newfound attention for these issues might open society’s eyes. His wife Sue Paterno commissioned a vital February 2013 report by former FBI profiler Jim Clemente to educate society about “nice-guy” offenders.
But people who didn’t know Sue Paterno’s heart cynically viewed the report as an attempt to whitewash their inaccurate “defaulted” history. Powerful people ignored the report because their inability to understand her intent kept their minds closed.
Clemente’s report laid out specific behavior of people like Larry Nassar. Offenders might even be doctors brazen enough to conduct assault behavior right in front of parents. Had someone at USA Gymnastics or Michigan State read that report in early 2013, perhaps Nassar could’ve been detected earlier.
Gladwell’s important and insightful book asks a vital question: “Because we do not know how to talk to strangers, what do we do when things go awry with strangers?”
Society’s future stability will belong to those with the necessary tools to understand and work with people we do not know. “Talking to Strangers” is an important lesson on how to develop those tools. Take it from someone who knows.
John Ziegler is not impressed with Jay Paterno's opinion on Malcolm Gladwell's new book.
I am going to reserve judgment on the Penn State/Sandusky chapter until I receive my copy of the book and listen to John Ziegler's interview of Gladwell.
I read Jay Paterno's opinion of the chapter and have heard Ziegler discuss the chapter as well. They are somewhat at odds, but maybe not that much.
I don't believe that Jay indicted Sandusky in his opinion piece.
Ziegler said that he was dissappointed that Gladwell didn't go the "Full Monty" and proclaim that Sandusky is innocent. On the other hand, he stated that Gladwell fully exonerated Tim Curley, Gary Schultz, Graham Spanier, and Joe Paterno and that nothing nefarious happened in the v2 incident that Mike McQueary walked in on that actually happened on Dec. 29, 2000. In my opinion, these facts, if proven, go a long way to supporting Sandusky's contention that he was railroaded.
I was never a huge fan of Jay's coaching, either, but I've come to realize that he was not as bad as some of us think or remember. e.g. He rarely gets credit (without prompting) for MRob's and Daryl Clark's wildly successful seasons. He does not get credit for seeing the value in using gaming to complement pure video, which is far more common now. He rightfully gets blame for pushing for Bolden over McGloin (as many of us fans deserve blame for being on the Bolden bandwagon as well).
Yes, he's smart and can express himself well. I'm guessing there was some element of that in his coaching, too, but we don't hear about it. He remains very loyal to his players and to PSU, and that alone is admirable imo.
He has 10 million reasons not to speak again.
How do we know they didn't? Are you ready to swear that Fina and co. were above bending the rules/circumstances etc. to frame CSS? Documents were shredded in full view of PSP at TSM....who knows what was in Gary's "secret Sandusky File".....that was so "secret" he left it behind. LOL ....I for one rest my case on the crying janitor...God only knows!
As a prosecutor.....you can present to the average IQ of the jury.
It is perfectly possible for the Penn State administrators to have been railroaded and Jerry Sandusky to have been a pedophile.
The file was was so secret it was on the master file list.
Thank God we hired Louis Freeh who uncovered evidence with a little luck and hard work. LOL
I agree. However, if Sandusky is not a pedophile then it becomes clear that the Penn State adminstrators were railroaded. As I believe Gladwell will prove; Curley, Schultz, and Spanier were railroaded.
I'm 100% sure GSS were railroaded. I'm also 100% sure that most if not all of the "claimants" lied. The question is how much did they lie and even though they enhanced their stories....did Jerry still cross the line?
I have said and done a lot of stupid things in my life so I am an expert. This post may be the single dumbest thing I have read in a very long time.
Hang on, I have faith he can do even better..........
I think it's clear C/S/S/P and PSU were railroaded, regardless of whether or not JS is a pedophile.
Jay lived it. Where was JZ during all of this?
Ziegler has a point though, he is prominently cited by Gladwell in the book and I am guessing that Jay isn't.
Maybe the notes disappeared when Baldwin “found” the “secret file”.
Many could have made things go away. The mere fact that TSM had a shredder truck in full view and nothing was done to stop the process should tell you what happened in this case.
I agree with you first point.
Honestly, and sadly, I’m not sure the second point matters. I don’t think opinions are changing in any widespread way at this point. It happened 8 years ago and the vast majority of people don’t care anymore.
On the contrary, the Paterno's released a report. The report is cited in Gladwell's book. Specifically, Clemente's section is crucial to understanding Sandusky, how Sandusky fooled people, and how he continues to fool a small set of people.
For gosh sakes, Jerry's team is trying to prove which night Jerry showered naked with V2. He's not even arguing that didn't happen and hasn't offered a good alternate explanation as to why he & the boy were there.
Gladwell's book does not entertain the possibility that Jerry is innocent, only others. Up thread, a lot of folks including francofan said Gladwell was unbiased and would be giving an honest take, after hearing out Ziegler and others extensively.
I expect I'll agree with Gladwell's assessment near 100%. The free Jerry crowd will just ignore it, and stay on board with Ziegler, whose main goal is to bash the Paterno family.
I'm not really sure Sandusky needs any explanation, other than that he and AM had worked out and then took a shower afterwards.
Unless you have prejudged Sandusky, there's not even enough here with which to charge him. Subsequently, you have a signed statement from the boy....a statement made voluntarily (That mean's free of charge!), by a 26 yr. old USMC sergeant, in which he says nothing sexual happened that night or ever. You have 5 highly respected members of the community who knew of the incident and did not treat it as a crime for over a decade. And you have an email record of Jonelle Eshbaugh telling MM that if she corrected the false information regarding Mike's testimony included in the GJ presentment, it would hurt her case.
If the truth would hurt her case, what does that say about how good it is?
Jerry could still be guilty of something, but all I see here is a ruse created by the AOG to establish PSU as the epicenter of Jerry's activities, rather than TSM. This whole mess could have and should have missed PSU entirely.
Because the OAG was LEGALLY RESPONSIBLE for the oversight of TSM as a Charity in PA. This is doubly so when a direct report of potential Child Abuse is made directly to the OAG by the PA Dept of Welfare's County-Level Office of Chlidren's & Youth Services (a report which absolutely was made to Attorney General Tom Corbett in March 2009). Rather than immediately investigate TSM (the OAG does not need a supeona to investigate a Charity - in PA Charities report to, and are subject to search & seizure by the OAG without notice, in PA), Corbett allowed them to shred documents which were later farcically reported "missing" to the Grand Jury which did nothing and simply looked the other way. Not only that, but Corbett was taking massive contributions from TSM Executives and allowed the Chairman of TSM to host a fundraiser for his Gubernatorial Campaign during the very same timeframe he (Corbett) was looking the other way, not investigating TSM whatsoever and allowing them to destroy incriminating evidence related to Children & Youth Services Child Abuse allegations (i.e., filed report of "Indicated" Child Abuse).
But you don't see what possible motivation Attorney General, turned Governor, Corbutt would have to "bait-&-switch" a corrupt Grand Jury from TSM to PSU??? Seriously? Good Lord some of you people are ridiculously obtuse and disingenuous.
That's a really good question.
There was animosity between Corbett & Spanier, but it doesn't seem like any state wide campaign would think taking on Penn State would be a great idea unless there was almost no choice.
In fact, the OAG pointed out, before and after, that Joe did the right thing.
If Corbett wanted to, he likely could have had Spanier removed with much less fuss (a big understatement).
Why pick Sandusky as the main fall guy if there was nothing there? The only possible result was the end of his political career.
The theory that Sandusky was railroaded makes no sense.
Got it. Makes sense. So how again is Sandusky innocent because of what you said above?
Also, TSM was a non profit, not a charity? I think.
Nice try - your arguments are so lame, it's ridiculous. Guess what genius, all charities are registered "NPOs" - are you for real with this lame crap? Again, in PA Charities (and all NPOs) fall under the purview of the OAG (in fact, the PA OAG has 3 separate offices accross the State and entire dedicated Department to NPOs and protecting the general public from Charitable fraud" and crime.).
BTW, where precisely did I say a word about Sandusky being innocent? Creating false accusations like this is a clear ad hominem attack and a violation of Board Rules. According to you, the OAG under the clear direction of Corbutt did't falesly accuse multiple PSU Administrators using completely cooked up charges based on lies and complete fabrications of OAG Investigators (especially as they apply to the V1 Episode and McQueary).
I mean, 2 of the admins pled guilty. I personally don't think they were, but that's what they chose to do.
And the state has departments to protect everyone from crime. That's why we have states and governments. So what.
Because they were promised no jail time. If they had not, any conviction would have been overturned like Spanier.
No need to end the post in such a douchey way.
So you are saying that after the report from the high school they had to do something?
For everyone’s information. A pedophile is defined as someone who is sexually attracted to prepubescent children. The Sandusky accusers who claimed sex acts with Jerry were well beyond puberty during the time periods they claimed abuse.
Several explanations come to mind:
1) The AOG had to take a quantity over quality approach. Aaron Fisher wasn't very credible and the other victims didn't accuse Jerry of anything more than being creepy until they used memory regression therapy and PSU's open checkbook to convince them otherwise. How else do you explain the AOG charging Jerry in the janitor case, where they had no victim, no established date of a crime, no report of a crime, no physical evidence of a crime and no witness of a crime?
2) They had to change Saint Jerry into Monster Jerry in the eyes of the public. Having a "credible" eye witness to Jerry raping a boy in the PSU showers turned the trick.
3) They had to make this a PSU football scandal to divert attention away from TSM.
4) All of the above.
Welcome back, Bushwood!
The OAG thought he was guilty. So they stopped at nothing to try and prove it.
You might be correct, but JZ does sometimes use some conjecture that is questionable. The one I keep hearing is the 9/11 thing and the tie to MM's memory. Really, not everyone's memory works the same way. I wish he'd stop using this as it damages his credibility in my opinion. Makes it look as though he's grasping at straws.
Ziegler's interview with Gladwell is out. I would encourage anyone who is interested in what exactly happened and did not happen in the Penn State/Sandusky fiasco to listen to the interview and to read Gladwell's book. Here is a link to the interview:
The money that is being spent on aerial banners would be better spent bringing Gladwell to campus for a talk
The podcast linked above is definitely worth a listen for the interview with Gladwell. I'm actually surprised he mentions V2 by name in his book. Unlike most JZ interviews, JZ is actually very measured and under control.
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
Football James Franklin offers update on Penn State DE Abdul Carter
- Latest: Dylan Callaghan-Croley
