Latest from John Ziegler’s blogging at FramingPaterno.com, in which he cites the Manti Te’o, Lance Armstrong, and Steubenville football team stories to yet again filets a media far too in love with spinning its own narratives, facts and logic be damned. Naturally, John also ties it nicely to his continuing examination of how it relates to reporting on the Sandusky scandal.
Obviously, much as with Te’o, the media desperately wanted the Armstong story (cancer surviving philanthropist dominates a sport of cheaters without cheating) to be true and they fought tooth and nail for him until Armstrong literally had to tell them to give up by “confessing” (isn’t it interesting that many in the media wouldn’t convict Armstrong until he confessed, and yet didn’t care that Paterno always maintained his innocence?).
Similarly, the media so fell in love with the Paterno downfall narrative that almost nothing was going to allow them to let go of it, especially once they became so committed to it that their perceived credibility was then permanently attached to that storyline being seen as not only true, but universally unquestioned.
One of the most maddening aspects (of many) of the how the media has handled the Penn State story is that you are considered by them to be “nuts” if you don’t accept the conventional wisdom. Making this concept particularly galling is that the “Conventional Wisdom” scenario is one that makes absolutely no sense and for which there is shockingly little evidence.
So we end up with the bizarre spectacle of the same members of the media who defended Armstrong despite a mountain of circumstantial evidence which fit a guilt narrative which was based in sound logic, destroying Paterno despite the fact that there wasn’t even a remotely plausible motive for him to have done the alleged misdeeds for which there is almost no evidence he committed.