As a longtime broadcast newsman and member of the Penn State community, Lou Prato has a special perspective on the media coverage of the sex-abuse scandal that has rocked the university over the past month. And he doesn't like what he has seen. "There has been good reporting on the national level, but I am ashamed, embarrassed and I’m angry at how a large contingent of the media has reported and analyzed this story with such a pile-on mentality."
EXECUTIVE SESSION WITH LOU PRATO
Penn State Coverage Shows Media At Worst
Lou Prato’s been around big news stories all of his life and he’s around one now — the Jerry Sandusky sex-abuse scandal at Penn State.
After a long career in TV and radio news, he moved to State College to rejoin the Penn State community, where he earned his journalism degree in 1959. After authoring The Penn State Football Encyclopedia, he became the first director of the Penn State All-Sports Museum. Now retired from the university, he still writes about Penn State sports.
Prato’s media career includes working and leading television and radio newsrooms in Pittsburgh, Detroit, Chicago and Dayton, Ohio, as well as work with the Associated Press. His academic credentials include 12 years as head of Northwestern University’s broadcast graduate program in Washington. For years, he was a columnist and contributing writer for the American Journalism Review.
Many news directors know him for his more than 35-year stint on the board of the Radio-Television News Directors Association (now the Radio Television Digital News Association), including 22 years as its treasurer.
He’s shaken by the scandal, but he also believes that the national media has unfairly blackened the entire institution with their “rush to judgment, the speculation, the innuendo, the outrageous commentary based primarily on a grand jury report that is yet to be proven in the court of law.”
Never one to mince his words, he discussed his feelings with Contributing Editor P.J. Bednarski in a series of emails, excerpted below.
BRAND CONNECTIONS
I know the horrible things are alleged to have happened with those kids sicken you. But I know that on a journalistic level, you’re appalled by some of the coverage.
Concern about the coverage is nothing compared to the obvious concern all Penn Staters have for the victims of child abuse and their children, and I mean that sincerely.
But the way most of the media has continued to portray Penn State, the people who live and work here, the students and faculty, the university’s football team and even our alumni base, one might get the idea this whole area is inhabited by a horde of callous, heartless child sex abusers. One cable TV talk show host called the Second Mile “a molestation farm.” Come on!
Now the many sanctimonious, self-serving, second-guessing critics in the media and the gullible, blood-thirsty public they incite and influence have made Penn State symbolic of all that is bad in the American culture — that is until the media moves on to another shark fest, leaving in its wake a lifetime taint of Penn State that will never go away no matter what the ultimate truth may be.
I am worn out arguing, debating and thinking about everything that has happened to Penn State, to me, my family and many of my friends in the last few weeks, and it is difficult to believe everything reported thus far by the grand jury. Furthermore, it is even more difficult to believe Joe Paterno was so morally deficient as his millions of baying detractors in the media and outside it proclaim. It is so out of character of the man.
As for [Athletic Director] Tim Curley, I have met many liars in my life — particularly in academia — and I cannot believe Tim is a liar and morally deficient. OK, I understand. I and hundreds, if not thousands, of others were duped by Sandusky. So, as to Joe and Tim, we shall see, won’t we?
So, after all these years, this has taught you something new about the media?
I will never watch, listen to, and read the news or watch or listen to talk shows as I had before.
You know what hurts me the most, besides what may have happened to those boys? I was once a part of the media, a journalism graduate who was taught not only to be fair, balanced and objective, but to be sensitive of others, to get every side of the story, never to assume, and to not interject my personal or political beliefs into any story.
I was also taught to be careful of the personal agendas of sources as well as my own, to be cautious of whom to trust, to be skeptical but realistic, to resist the temptation to be first without first assuring you have it right, and to never report a rumor just because you may believe it to be true. My, how idealistic and old fashioned.
Maybe you don’t see it being so up close and personal to this story, but this is what a lot of people would say media do with stories like these all the time.
Look, there were times in my career I didn’t meet my own high standards. That bothers me to this day. But I never expected journalism to fall to this level of irresponsibility and shameful, malicious depth that it has in the last 20 years. I am sure there are thousands still working in the newsrooms of this country who share my view.
There has been good reporting on the national level, but I am ashamed, embarrassed and I’m angry at how a large contingent of the media has reported and analyzed this story with such a pile-on mentality. The rush to judgment, the speculation, the innuendo, the outrageous commentary based primarily on a grand jury report that is yet to be proven in the court of law. It has already ruined the reputation of many people as well as Penn State University and the entire State College area community.
It’s abhorrent to me that a large share of the media and the public has already made up its mind without waiting for all the facts to come out through the court process that Joe Paterno is the ultimate villain here for what he did or didn’t do — not Jerry Sandusky — and that Penn State and anyone even tangentially connected with Penn State is responsible for what happened. The criticism is vicious and most of all, so self-righteous. Not just the scurrilous websites, where you might expect it, but so-called “legitimate media” websites as well. If you want more examples, read and see them on the Internet yourself.
Well, you worked for the athletic program. Didn’t you hear anything?
For the record, the first I heard of Sandusky’s alleged — and I continue to use that word as I was first trained to do in journalism school — child abuse was in mid-June of 2009 when I was volunteering for the annual fundraising Second Mile golf tournament. I didn’t know Jerry well, but I had been around him at golf tournaments and I had interviewed him a couple of times.
I was more mystified than shocked. I remember. I said, “Jerry??? You have to be kidding!” I knew nothing of what was then the two reported incidents in 1998 and 2002, and like others I was stunned by the 23-page report to the grand jury. It’s sickening and hard to read but I did.
I know you think some local reporters did some good solid reporting on this. But why didn’t this story come out sooner?
There are three reporters who were on it. Sara Ganim, once the crime reporter for the Centre Daily Times, who broke the first public news of the investigation after she had moved on to the Harrisburg Patriot-News; Gary Sinderson, a veteran “one man band” reporter-photographer for WJAC in Johnstown, who knows the Pennsylvania court system and this community inside out; and Pat Boland, the reporter-newsman for the local dual-ownership State College radio stations WRSC and ESPNRadio1450. He helped Ganim in her first job fresh out of Penn State’s journalism program in May 2008. You don’t hear much about Pat because he died of brain cancer at the age of 42 in early July but he was deep into the story.
Ganim looks like a throwback to the journalism of my youth, and based on what I have observed, she seems to have more judgment and street smarts than many of her older, more experienced media peers in Pennsylvania and nationally. She’s just 24 and has to be somewhat overwhelmed with a story like this. I just hope she doesn’t slip into the sloppiness that often infects other young reporters who are overtaken by their ego when they find themselves on top of a big national story.
On this Sandusky story, I call Ganim, Sinderson and Boland “The Three Musketeers.” They didn’t share all their information, but like many reporters elsewhere they frequently collaborated on their research. It’s no surprise that Ganim has been the leader in informing the public of this story. Newspaper reporters and many TV reporters, particularly in the major markets, can do that. Sinderson and Boland were hampered by the medium they were in, the myriad of obligations dictated by their specific jobs combined with the need to get people to talk publicly on the air, disguising their faces or voices if necessary. That limits a lot of things.
Sinderson is my kind of old-time reporter, and he’s not your average cameraman or videographer. It was Sinderson who first discovered the grand jury’s report was posted on the Internet that fateful Friday, Nov. 4 — placed there one day prematurely, by mistake — and then he posted it on his station’s website, and then he surprised Ganim with the news.
But these reporters must have known a lot was going on long before November.
Outsiders have criticized the local media and regional media for not uncovering more of Sandusky’s alleged grave transgressions; of not informing the public earlier than this past spring of the investigation; and, most egregious of all, of not reporting the unsubstantiated rumors that were swirling around the community.
Yet, look it up. Ganim’s first Patriot-News story of the investigation was on March 31. It hardly made a ripple even in Harrisburg and State College. Check out Ganim’s initial story that can still be found on the Internet. There were just six comments from Internet readers at the time — two of them skeptical. Now, people have gone back to read it and there are a lot more comments now. But Ganim has said publicly she was surprised by all that lack of interest.
And you are surprised, now, by all the nasty stuff you’re hearing about Paterno, Penn State, everybody? But isn’t that what happens with sports and celebrity journalism?
Now, if there is anything that has spurred the downward slide of the media into smelly muck, it is the Internet, in collusion with the print and electronic mediums. The owners and managers in the media encourage instant commentary and analysis by the people who work for them — many who are grossly misinformed themselves — and instant comments from the public and websites rarely demand that people use their own names to support their often ugly, vituperative and ignorant diatribes.
At least there is some sanity left in the letters-to-the-editor section of newspapers, which verify the true identity of the writer before going to print, and at many local TV stations and networks that at least require names on the e-mails they use on the air. Yet, these same organizations then turn around and allow that frenetic, mob free-for-all on their Internet sites. Many of my last remaining friends in the media acknowledge this hypocrisy but even they think it is too late to turn it around. To use an old cliché, they tell me “the genie is out of the bottle.” Heaven help us.
Comments (13)
Hope Yen and Charles Babington says:
November 28, 2011 at 10:23 am
Nice commentary from a veteran journalist. The internet shouldn’t be blamed, rather it should be called an enabler. It enables people with little or no appreciation for at least common decency in communicating their thoughts to flame-throw literally anything, be it 100% false, pure conjecture, finger-pointing, or just personal opinion. As pointed out by Mr. Prato, there are no screens in the internet world, as there are in newspaper newsrooms, vis a vis Letters to the Editor. Add to this the almost endless number of cable and satellite channels with gobs of time to fill, and throw in those from J-school who would never last due to their poor retention and non-use of the lessons taught in the classroom, and you have the morass our business is in today. Yes, God help us. Maybe we’ll have to look at Journalism the same way we look at most of the products we consume today. Its unfortunate to compare news sources to bars, but some of us have the good sense to stop in at a reputable restaurant or tavern and steer clear of the ‘fight club’ streetfighter bars. There was a day many of us remember when nearly every broadcast outlet and daily newspaper had excellent standards and hired only the best and brightest. Today we have more outlets and more airtime to fill, and a decreasing number of really well trained and self disciplined practitioners. I’m afraid that’s a fact of life we live with in our technologically driven, all-about-me society.
matt fess says:
November 28, 2011 at 11:03 am
Journalists have done it to themselves. Research shows that people still want balanced, objective and investigative reporting but what I have seen take place in the major media over the past 20 years is that that kind of reporting is gone. NBC, ABC, CBS used to have proud newsrooms that people relied on to hold people accountable and to shine the light on corruption…to show people the truth. These 3 network news divisions have gotten soft, spineless and almost irrelevant. Look at what is happening in our society today and it has not happened just in the past 4 years. It is clear that there has been corruption and dishonesty in our political environment for decades and the media were given a constitutional protection to get out there and shine the light on it and expose the truth. CBS, NBC and ABC news have failed miserably. They are an embarrassment to journalism and so people are searching all over to find it. Want to know why FOX News is kicking butt? They are the only cable or broadcast network that is bold and unafraid. Politicians are now afraid of them and that is the way it should be. There is no fear of NBC, ABC or CBS anymore. The reporting that they miss is sickening. You want to win back viewers? Get some backbone, get out there and shine the light on all the crap going on and stop appearing that you are controlled by the politicians. Americans are starving for it.
Mohles K Segululigamba says:
November 28, 2011 at 11:13 am
Totally agree. Thank you, Mr. Prato.
Gregg Palermo says:
November 28, 2011 at 11:20 am
Word choice: “the obvious concern all Penn Staters have for the victims” — well, apparently not as many as you’d think! Prato drips with sanctimony but we all saw the students’ behavior; cannot blame the media for that!
Roy Mayhugh says:
November 28, 2011 at 11:45 am
Ugh; spare me. You claim that the media has portrayed Penn-Staters as callous, uncaring people when it comes to the allegations of abuse… then you imply that — when the allegations were first exposed– no one in the community seemed to care. You say you heard about rumors, but apparently did nothing about it. So, you’re no better than the many others who heard rumors or knew it was going on… and did nothing. Obviously, many media organizations have reported on this. Some have presumed guilt more than appropriate. However, where there’s smoke, there’s fire.
Sean Kimber says:
November 28, 2011 at 11:58 am
Spare me is right; I like the two or three references to the victims and how they’re really the most important thing here, yet all the author really cares about is the reputation of PSU and the “players” involved. I understand why alumni, current students, people involved in PSU would all want this to go away; it’s painful. But don’t blame the media for what any human being with common sense can see happened here — don’t once again discard those victims for the sake of PSU’s reputation, least not under the guise of blaming a blood-thirsty media.
Linda Stewart says:
November 28, 2011 at 12:58 pm
In fairness to Lou, he wasn’t being asked about the victims. He was being asked about the media coverage.
len Kubas says:
November 28, 2011 at 12:22 pm
The empire is embarassed that the news came out — finally. Uh, just what football program will Penn State have? Even before the NCAA gets done with them, “recruiting season” takes on new meanings.
Jaclyn Hansen says:
November 28, 2011 at 1:04 pm
So seriously, journalists out there: How do you responsibly report rumors? When you hear it five times, go ahead and report it? Ten times? Blind item? “Is Penn State shielding a pedophile whose last name is also the name of a city with an amusement park with lots of roller coasters?” Central Penn. press is filled with young journalists at understaffed places. If you are the news manager how do you weigh the risk/reward ratio of putting a young journalist on a story without having much time to pay attention to what he/she is doing? If Jerry Sandusky rumors were well-circulated BS, you and your station would rightfully be hung out to dry and you’d deserve to be fired. And what would people be saying about the media then? They’d be saying: “Don’t report rumors.” “If your mother says she she loves you, check it out etc.” “It’s Journalism 101!” Fact is, you can’t trace sex crimes like you can follow the money to a crook, or an on-the-take politician. As for the implication Lou is paying lip service to victims, this IS a journalism/media Web site. He’s being asked about the reporting,not the emotional scarring of victims. If this was SociopathNewsCheck, I’d expect a different conversation.
Joseph Denk says:
December 1, 2011 at 10:17 am
Four of the nine comments regarding my critique of media coverage prove my point in the TVNewsCheck Q&A.
Three identified themselves by an online nickname. I would think they would have the courage to use their real names.
I was taught never to assume but I will assume here that Mary O’Malley is the real name of the fourth commenter. She criticizes me because I was asked about the media and I did not write more about the victims. Of course the victims are the most important and each and every time I am asked to comment on this affair I preface that by my sincere concern for all child abuse victims. Naturally, that isn’t good enough for Ms. O’Malley who certainly has her own opinion and her own agenda. She claims “any human being with common sense can see what happened here.” Common sense–which Ms. O’Malley apparently has a lot more of then me–isn’t the question here. Facts and the rush to judgment are the questions.
Then there is the comment by RustbeltAlumnus2, who also thinks I have no concern for the victims. Then he states “we all saw the students’ behavior; cannot blame the media for that!” And what did he see–not in person but on television? I am not defending the disturbance that a small group of students–about 2,000 out of 45,000 enrolled on campus–did that night. Nor am I going to described what really caused it and exactly how it occurred. There has been a lot bad and some good reporting on that. ButRustbelt Alumnus2 didn’t mention the 20,000 mostly students that turned out on the Old Main Lawn for a long prayer vigil two days later? How much media coverage do you think that received?
The person named Tones attacks me for not reporting Sandusky to the authorities. He or she wrote: “You say you heard about rumors, but apparently did nothing about it. So, you’re no better than the many others who heard rumors or knew it was going on… and did nothing.” I didn’t say I heard a rumor. That was Tones’ assumption, which is typical of the public. They automatically assume based on their own perception.
I wrote that I first heard about Sandusky’s alleged child abuse at a Second Mile Golf Tournament in June of 2009. Unfortunately, in putting together this Q&A from a series of e-mail exchanges, what I actually heard about Sandusky was left out. I didn’t hear a rumor. Sandusky was not at the tournament’s reception on that first day and a lot of us wondered why because he always had been there in previous tournaments–making the rounds thanking people for being there. When we started to inquire, we were told by Second Mile officials that he had other business to take care of. As the reception was winding down, I was among other surprised people told by a couple of the media people that Sandusky was being investigated by the police for an alleged assault on a child. This was the investigation that touched off the impaneling of the grand jury.
Then Tones concluded: “Some [media] have presumed guilt more than appropriate. However, where there’s smoke, there’s fire.” Yes, don’t wait for the facts. Presume guilt. Then throw gasoline on the fire. That’s what Tones, much of the public and most of the media has done, and continue to do. Who is guilty here? Sandusky? Joe Paterno? Everyone connected with Penn State? Didn’t the media and public learn anything from the infamous Duke Lacrosse case? Why wait for facts?
I’ll repeat my first, second and last sentence from that TVnewscheck Q&A for Ms. O’Malley, RustbeltAlumnus2, Tones and everyone else out there:
“Concern about the coverage is nothing compared to the obvious concern all Penn Staters have for the victims of child abuse and their children, and I mean that sincerely.
“But the way most of the media has continued to portray Penn State, the people who live and work here, the students and faculty, the university’s football team and even our alumni base, one might get the idea this whole area is inhabited by a horde of callous, heartless child sex abusers.
“Heaven help us.”
Michael Katz says:
December 1, 2011 at 12:32 pm
Excellent commentary, Lou. And I post under my real name.
John Lee says:
December 2, 2011 at 10:35 am
The reply comments to Lou’s commentary strike me as appropriate to this story: Like the media’s reports they are all painted in black and white stripes rather than the shades of gray that most situations warrant. Either Lou’s commentary is great or it stinks. Whatever happened to insightful analysis that gives the piece credit for some valid points while missing the boat on others? I think that’s one of Lou’s best points here: I have listened to hours of sports talk radio on this story and the sanctimonious blatherings that have emerged from most mouths has been sickening.
It’s easy for these saints to say NOW that they would have gone straight to the police or followed up to make sure Penn State authorities did the right thing. But how do we know that’s true? How do we know the same media types that has raked the school over the coals — based purely on a grand jury report, not a trial — would have hesitated as well or felt they had discharged their duty by informing their higher-ups?
I do think, however, that Lou is TOO close to the situation. His insistence that Paterno, Curley and the others at the school could do no wrong based on his relationships or familiarity with them smacks of a purely emotional response rather than a reasoned one.
I give Lou a “B” on this column — right on target about the news media circus and lack of nuance in rushing to judgement. But off-target in closing his eyes to the human weaknesses allegedly exhibited by many Penn State officials.
Scott Libin says:
December 7, 2011 at 2:30 pm
Lou has hit the nail squarely on the head. I have known Lou for some time, probably more years than most of the commentors are old. I too am appaled at the rush to judgment by the media and the Penn sate Board of Trustees. The media are a bunch of vultures any more .Rather than accurately reporting the news there appears to be much frenzy in taking a disatsteful subject and “creating the news”. The media keeps referring to it as a Penn State football program scandal which it is not. It is an Administration scandal. The adminitration failed to properly handle the situation when they were informed of the act. The media has also been crucifying Joe Paterno, and his “HOLIER THAN THOU” image. The media may not realize it but THEY created that image of joe, over the years he was at Penn State. A reporter from the Tribune Review in Greensburg or Pittsburgh, PA referred to this as a football program scandal. The public picks up on comments like that and make it to be the gospel truth. I for one believe the media is just as quilty as those who committed the crime.