http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/11/10/penn-state-students-flood-streets-after-firing-paterno/
I think it's kind of interesting every now and then to read FOX news. Maybe it's just my liberal conditioning talking here, but I always assume FOX is censoring the news to some degree. In this article it seems like the author is kind of understating the extent of Paterno's wrongdoing. He goes on and on about the regretful comments Paterno made upon hearing he'd been fired, but only mentions at the very end that he didn't report the rape of children.
Are you kidding me? Honestly. The man knew that innocent children were being raped and said nothing. He deserves a lot worse than a lost job. I'm just astounded that people can be heartless enough to complain about a potentially worse football season in light of the horror that is Jerry Sandusky and how it was handled.
1 comment:
My bird group also chose the Penn Scandal, so I read the Huffington Post for my article. Huffington Post and FOX are polar opposites, but I think they both may have played up biases. FOX knew it was reaching an audience of football fans, Huff Post knew it was reaching an audience of liberals at their computers. The article that I read had unneccessary interviews of people who had met Sandusky only once or twice saying they had "always thought he put his hands on the boys a lot." He was charged for multiple accounts of rape. We know he was handsy with the boys. Parts of my article just got to the point of unneccesary gossip.
Granted, I agree with you and Huff Post. A little gossip isn't as bad as completely disregarding the issue of a man turning his back on a horror he knew was happening. Just thought I'd point out how its funny that both articles were skewed.
Post a Comment