PSU Scandal

After scrolling through tons of tweets, there were three major themes that emerged. The first was either support for or disapproval of Joe Paterno. The second theme was the foolishness of the rioting PSU students and the shame they reflect on their university. The last theme was people calling to attention to respect and think of the victims and their families.

ESPN has given the subject the air time it deserves as one of the biggest sport stories in recent history, perhaps an excess. ESPN constantly has “Penn State Scandal” on either the bottom or side ticker. The media brought the deviant behavior of Jerry Sandusky to light via the Grand Jury Report. They get to pick and choose the material they feel in news worthy. Most media outlets focused on the amount of power possessed by Joe Paterno and wanted to know why JoPa and the administration didn’t act on the prior allegations of Sandusky and why he was still associated with PSU. Early this I woke up to the PSU students rioting from the previous night. In the afternoon ESPN reported that assistant coach Mike McQueary will not coach due to death threats made against him. There has been public outcry as to why McQueary is still being allowed to coach this Saturday. On talk radio, I heard them discussing the fact that McQueary was not fired due to “Whistle-blower laws.” Following that ESPN covered the Governor speaking about the riots and violence, and how the acts of a few negatively reflected the many in the PSU community. Towards the end of the day, ESPN reported that Cars.com was pulling their sponsorship for the week two PSU games. ESPN did bring up the victims and how the public needs to support them and brought on a former NHL pro, whom was himself, a victim of sexual abuse from his junior hockey coach. Perhaps the media choose not to focus on the victims, since they are still allegations and Sandusky has yet to be fond guilty in a court of law.

Social media can be both a positive and negative tool when it comes to publicity and information. Social media has brought commentary to the subject who would otherwise not be heard, and maybe for good reason. Many of the “tweeters” offered no substance. The actual percentage of tweeters that offered any real information was minimal, certainly not worth reading through the thousands of tweets to find the one nugget of information. Unless you follow tweeters from news outlets, or someone who will re-tweet news, it is hard to find quality information.

J Wilson

KIN 577