'Spinning' to condemn
Published: Tuesday, Feb. 19, 2013, 9:00 p.m.
In response to the editorial “Spinning JoePa” (Feb. 13 and TribLIVE.com): I've always held a favorable opinion of Joe Paterno. The Sandusky scandal, as documented in the Freeh report, has not changed my opinion.
In years past, I also held a favorable opinion of Jerry Sandusky. He appeared to be guided by a moral code — much like “JoePa.” But I was wrong. The evidence is overwhelming. He was an evil, sick man.
But Joe is not Jerry. Joe positively influenced the lives of many young men — on and off the field. Some described Joe as cranky, stubborn and a bit out of touch with modern culture. But no one called him a liar or manipulator — at least not until the Freeh report. That report provides plenty of suspicion — but no concrete evidence that Joe deliberately hid anything or provided cover for the reputation of a friend or a university.
For sure, there are legitimate, unanswered questions. What and how much did Joe know? Why didn't he press Sandusky or university staff for answers? I wish we knew. But we don't. That's where the Freeh report comes up short.
Maybe someday, evidence will surface that either exonerates or condemns Joe Paterno's integrity. Until then, I withhold judgment.
The Trib asserts that the Paterno family is “spinning” in its “attempts to exonerate the family's beloved patriarch.” But those who never liked Joe are spinning to condemn him. Spin goes both ways — but serves no one.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Prevailing wage downsides II
- Us & them
- Unconstitutional funding
- Prevailing wage downsides I
- Fuel tax increase
- Prevailing wage misunderstood
- Name game