<p>If they could look the other way after the rape, they would have been able to look away at what they would deem “lesser” offenses</p>
<p>Just had dinner with DS and his roommate, who is on the investigative reporting team at CNN. He wouldn’t/couldn’t tell us what new information was being double/triple checked for authenticity before being released. Bummer :(</p>
<p>Himom-
Did not ever mean to suggest that refusing to change an athletes’ failing grades is the same as witnessing a rape. Was merely reporting the course of our conversation at lunch, as we each related situations in which we stood up for what was right.</p>
<p>I do have one issue with most of the reporting I’ve seen - the bathroom incident is referred to in almost every way but rape … assault, molestation, etc. I wonder why it is so rarely referred to as an “alleged rape” … because that is what it was. Just take note of this when you see the story, or read an article - just as the one linked above about the missing DA.</p>
<p>Myturnnow:</p>
<p>Nor is there a need to speculate about depths of depravity that are possible, but not supported by any facts at the moment. Certainly, investigators should be looking at any angle, but the public need not be carried away by possible misconduct that is not yet alleged or supported by any facts.</p>
<p>MaterMia,
Perhaps (again merely postulating) that as this is reported on the news during “primetime” as well as other hours, maybe the reports are being sensitive to the eyes and ears that are hearing it. Its a stretch, but just a thought. Is there a reason/need to be so directly blunt or graphic by using stronger words?</p>
<p>There is a column about how the Penn State Scandal is symptomatic of what Division I football has turned into. It brings some points that need to be addressed if we dont want to go down this road again.</p>
<p>[Penn</a> State scandal symptomatic of football economic monster](<a href=“http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=%2Fc%2Fa%2F2011%2F11%2F08%2FEDCD1LS2IE.DTL]Penn”>http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=%2Fc%2Fa%2F2011%2F11%2F08%2FEDCD1LS2IE.DTL)</p>
<p>jym626 Well - I work in the news bz, and I can tell you we, and every other outlet report on “rapes” all the time, using that word. The only time it is not used is to protect a victim, as in a case of incest, so you don’t say rape, because with incest the victim would be identified. Since this alleged victim is unknown, that would not be the case. I wonder, if it’s because it was a boy. </p>
<p>Yes, facts will be brought out in court …and there was obviously enough evidence and testimony for the grand jury to proceed.</p>
<p>Is there a reason/need to be more graphic in the choice of terminology? We understand what they mean when they say “sexual assault”. To me using stronger words is merely for effect, which isn’t, IMO, necessary. We all get it. And there is more than one victim. And some have stepped forward. I think that sensitivity , whether in terminology or keeping family members in the shadows to prevent disclosure of their identity, is fine.</p>
<p>Well - I would disagree - most of the people I talked to in the early days of the story had no idea the GA had witnessed a rape. A sexual assault can be many, many things. All of the stories I saw that were being fed by the national press did not use the word rape. So - until the Grand Jury report came out, I didn’t realize it was a rape that had been witnessed.</p>
<p>I have heard ‘rape’ used in daytime news, but usually when a child is involved it seems that I hear the word ‘molestation’ more.</p>
<p>I shudder more when the Viagra and Cialis ads come on, all hours, all channels, and pretty descriptive…</p>
<p>Re: #1929: Well, if that was true for what may have been initially reported when the story first broke, it isnt true any more. Most people are pretty aware of what was reported. Don’t need it in our face. Again, JMO.</p>
<p>@ kumitedad
Thanks for the link to an insightful article</p>
<p>Agreed - thanks kumitedad.</p>
<p>And agreed jym626 - it is out now. Just wondering why it took so long. I think it goes somewhat to why the students protested early on when Paterno was fired, then apologized for their actions - because they didn’t know the whole story. </p>
<p>Enough said.</p>
<p>I think the only one who appeared to be truly clueless was Ashton Kutcher!</p>
<p>Bogney- I respect your perspective, please respect mine.</p>
<p>Expressing my thoughts and frankly fears, that this was known and covered up for a long time is hardly kmaginsd depravity.</p>
<p>Sorry, should say Imagined depravity.</p>
<p>It WAS known and covered up.</p>
<p>In 1998 he admitted to being naked and physical in a shower with a young boy. Admitted this. They all knew he admitted it. He left the team, but he was given keys to the locker room and an office and emiritus status and a full pension. </p>
<p>In 2002, when Mcqueary witnessed Sandusky raping a child in the shower, nobody went to the police. Nobody attempted to find the young boy. An “internal investigation” was undertaken. He was allowed to bring boys on campus and he continued to recruit for Penn State. Nobody called the high school, and nobody told the charity he should not be allowed around young boys.</p>
<p>There’s no question there was a cover-up, only a question of who was involved in the coverup, how much they knew, and for how long. </p>
<p>But, nobody has any doubt Penn State engaged in a cover-up for a pedophile. The only question is how much Paterno actually “knew” and how much he was involved in the cover-up. Heck, if this happened in any other football organization, if it wasn’t Paterno, there wouldn’t even be much question about that.</p>
<p>Well - I think someone folks have doubt that Penn State covered anything up … I wouldn’t be one of them. </p>
<p>Read the Grand Jury report … interesting to learn that the GA testified he told Paterno EXACTLY what he saw that night/next day … and the university did not talk to the GA for 10 days,that’s right 10 days. A rape was witnessed on campus, and it took them 10 days to follow up on this report! Noone even tried to find the victim. </p>
<p>And the only consequence was that Sandusky was not to bring children on campus - which was not enforced. He hosted a sleep over camp at one point at the campus! </p>
<p>It’s all too unbelievable to even read. Keep in mind - this was all AFTER the 1998 incident where Sandusky admitted showering, naked, with a boy. The mother confronted him and he apologized to her and said it was wrong. It’s all in the report. Paterno knew all of this.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>With all due respect, I think that there is a very important reason to use graphic terminology. By using vague terms such as sexual assault or molestation we contribute, in my opinion, to the stigmatization of victims of rape. As one poster said, there are many forms of sexual assault but when a vague term is used rather than the term rape, the reader is “given permission” to fill in the blank with whatever they envision when they hear about sexual assault. This, IMO, invalidates the experience of the rape victim and adds shame where none is deserved. If the graphic terms make the reader feel uncomfortable…well, they should. It is horrifying and the reader should be horrified.</p>
<p>It is truly, genuinely awful that victims (or more appropriately survivors) feel shame and guilt. But with all due respect I am not convinced that thrusting the word rape into the morning news when kids are munching on their cheerios or being carpooled to school is going to solve that problem (and yes I know that many kids walk and ride the bus to school-- was meant as a general commentary)</p>