Penn State Scandal

The scandal that surrounds Penn State football has been dramatically unfolding the last few days and continues to develop with mixed reactions. Social media has been a platform for everyone from expert analysts to Average Joes to share their thoughts and opinions on this devastating scandal. Most of the reactions are regarding the ethical responsibility that Joe Paterno had, the actions of the Penn State students, and the discussion of whether or not this is the worst thing that has happened in college football. The latter being the most insignificant of the three. The focus of this story should be ethical consequences that have been or should be imposed.

While following this story from the beginning, the headline shifted from focusing on Sandusky to Paterno. This is due to Paterno’s lengthy tenure as head football coach and responsibility to be a role model for all of college football. The media has the power and influence to shape this football scandal as they want. They can either treat Paterno as a 409 game winner or as the man who did nothing. The media must remember who the criminal is in this case. Because Joe Paterno is a role model for many, he has been criticized for being the deviant one, when in fact he did nothing. Sometimes doing nothing is worse than doing something.

Social media can be both a positive and negative tool for sport management careers. Also, I think it can be more useful for certain careers, especially media (hence the name social media). Social media can be a positive tool because of the number of users and the accessibility. With today’s technology, people can access the internet almost anywhere at any time. Breaking stories, like that of Penn State, can be spread throughout the world in a matter of seconds. Social media can be a negative tool though. If role models such as athletes tweet the wrong thing, they will be criticized by their followers and could even face fines by their employers.

Jeremy Reed
KIN 577