Sunday, July 27

Patriot News, Part 5 of 9: Chapter 5, The DPW Cover-Up

The Patriot News went as far as to pretend the 1998 investigation of Sandusky didn't exist in order to cover up the failures of the PA Department of Public Welfare.

By
Ray Blehar


The cover-up of the failures of the Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare (DPW) and Centre County Children and Youth Services (CYS) originated in the November 4, 2011 Sandusky grand jury presentment.  The PA Office of Attorney General’s (OAG) version of the incident involving Victim 6’s allegations of abuse in 1998 made little mention of DPW’s (Jerry Lauro’s) role in investigating and deciding the outcome of the case.  



The Public Welfare Code clearly states that investigations by law enforcement and child welfare officials may be joint, however, the welfare agency is solely responsible for determining if abuse took place.  The grand jury presentment obfuscated that fact and gave the public the impression that the 1998 investigation was conducted exclusively by the PSU campus police with the final decision of Sandusky’s fate in the hands of District Attorney, Ray Gricar.




The P-N dutifully reported the OAG’s deceptive story line, blaming Gricar for closing the child abuse investigation.  Later it would go a step further and treat the 1998 DPW investigation as if it never existed.  

It seemed that DPW was in the clear for not identifying Sandusky’s 1998 abuse for over a decade.  However, on March 23, 2012 the 1998 police report and the evaluations of Victim 6 were revealed to the public by NBC.  Remarkably, the P-N just so happened to conduct pre-emptive strikes about those reports in the two days leading up to NBC releasing this critical information to the public.   I hardly think this was a coincidence.

The Pre-emptive Strikes
On March 21, 2012, Ganim penned a column opining that Ray Gricar had closed the 1998 Sandusky investigation because of the evaluation of Victim 6 by unlicensed counselor John Seasock.  Seasock’s ’98 report would be released two days after that article ran.  Again, the timing of Ganim’s column was uncanny – as if she was told the Seasock report would soon be leaked to NBC.

Her assertion that Gricar closed the case based on Seasock’s report had flimsy support by the speculation of an unnamed source.   Conversely, DPW’s Jerry Lauro clearly told Ganim (in that column) that he had decided not to make an abuse finding because of a lack of evidence. 
  
“At that time, the information that we had wasn’t sufficient enough to substantiate a case,” Lauro said. “I don’t want [the mother] to think we didn’t believe their kid back then. We did, but we didn’t have enough.” 

However, the P-N ran the misleading story under the following headline:

Patriot-News exclusive: Psychologist's report might be reason Ray Gricar declined to bring charges against Jerry Sandusky in 1998

The column broke many rules of journalistic ethics, including: biased reporting, a sensational headline, the use of unnamed sources, reliance on speculative evidence, and reporting of known falsehoods.

At the time he evaluated Victim 6, Seasock was not even a licensed counselor, let alone a psychologist.  And, Lauro made it clear that it was his decision to evaluate the evidence to make the case or not against Sandusky.

However, Ganim and the P-N didn’t stop there.

Her March 22, 2012 column featured an interview with DPW’s Jerry Lauro who denied any knowledge of either evaluation of Victim 6.   But, Ganim had possession of the 1998 police report early in 2011 which revealed Lauro had actually arranged one of the evaluations.  Yet, she never called Lauro out for his patently false statement.  Instead, she knowingly regurgitated Lauro’s lie. 

Again, the P-N ran a further story under another misleading headline – this time blaming the PSU police for not sharing the reports with Lauro.  

Patriot-News Special Report: 1998 Jerry Sandusky investigator would have pursued dropped case if he had seen hidden Penn State police report

In familiar fashion, Ganim was one day ahead of the NBC leak of the police report to the national media.  And, as a result, the other media outlets absolved DPW and CYS of any responsibility for enabling Sandusky’s 14 year crime spree -- based on her (false) story that Jerry Lauro didn’t see any of the evaluations.

Interestingly enough, the evaluation by Dr. Alycia Chambers, which stated that Sandusky's behaviors appeared to be the "grooming" process typical to pedophiles, was never reported in any detail by the P-N.  In fact, the newspaper only mentioned Chambers by name twice during the scandal -- once in May 2012 when she was served a subpoena and in July 2011 when her car struck a deer.

Between the omissions in the grand jury presentment and the P-N’s false reporting, DPW made it through the scandal unscathed.  

The public never learned about DPW’s failures in 1998 and, as a result, believed that it was the lack of a PSU phone call in 2001 that enabled Sandusky to abuse children for 14 years.  The PSU “failure to report” story was strongly promoted by the P-N in op-eds regarding the strengthening of child abuse reporting laws.  These editorials also managed to avoid any mention that DPW had been called in three years earlier to investigate Sandusky and determined he was not a child molester.

As a result of the P-N’s reporting on the scandal, the public and the PA Task Force on Child Protection never learned about the true system failures that enabled Sandusky’s abuse.  None of the solutions offered by the task force attacked the problem of lack of adherence to procedures, which caused children to be harmed both times Sandusky was under investigation and which has led Pennsylvania to have one of the nation’s lowest rates of investigations per reported incidents of child abuse.

Go here for full report (18 pages). http://www.march4truth.com/ray-blehar.html


Next: The CYS Cover-Up


Saturday, July 26

Patriot News, Part 4 of 9: Chapter 6, The Spickler Cover-Up

Once again, the Patriot News used its power of omission to ensure that all the blame for enabling Sandusky's abuse stayed focused on Penn State

By
Ray Blehar


On June 18, 2012, the mother of Victim 9 took the stand to testify about her son's abuse.  During the testimony, she was asked if she had ever reported Sandusky's behaviors to anyone.  She answered that she had reported it to two persons - a school official, Mrs. Short and her son's counselor, Mr. Spickler.

The mother had told Spickler that her son was uncomfortable with Sandusky because he was "touchy feely." Spickler told the mother not to report her concerns because of Sandusky's stature in the community.  See transcripts below.



 P-N reporter Charles Thompson's coverage of the mother's complaint managed to repeat the information about Sandusky being "touchy feely," but as usual, there was no mention that Sandusky's behavior had been reported to the boy's counselor (who is a mandated reporter under the child abuse reporting statute).

At first, when Victim 9 made complaints about Jerry being “touchy, feely,” his mother didn’t pick up the hints of a humiliated child.

Once again, the omission was quite breath taking considering that the only time the words “touchy feely” were used to describe Sandusky’s behavior was during that particular sequence of testimony.






This omission would quite remarkable  if it was not for the fact that it was the P-N’s practice of excusing everyone (CMHS, DPW, CYS, and The Second Mile) except Penn State officials for their failures to act on Sandusky's inappropriate conduct.

I have little doubt that if the name” Spanier” or “Curley” or “Schultz” had been substituted for “Spickler,” Thompson’s column would have spent a lot of "copy" writing about to whom the mother complained and their failure to act.

The bias in the P-N's reporting couldn't be more obvious.


Next:  Chapter 5:  The DPW Cover Up



Thursday, July 24

Patriot News: Part 3 of 9: Chapter 7, The "Corbett" Cover-Up

The Patriot News deleted information and published known falsehoods to ensure that the public didn't learn about the botched Sandusky investigation and prosecution.

By
Ray Blehar

After the news of the Jerry Sandusky child sex abuse charges broke in November 2011, questions quickly surfaced as to why police took so long to arrest Sandusky after sex abuse allegations were made against him in November 2008.

Was the investigation dragged out by then AG Tom Corbett because he didn’t want to upset Penn State alumni voters during his gubernatorial campaign?  Could Corbett have charged Sandusky sooner (based on Aaron Fisher’s charges) and then built the case as other victims came forward?  Were children harmed as a result of the prolonged investigation?

A November 13th column titled “Inside the Jerry Sandusky investigation. Why did it take so long,” provided contradictory information about the AG’s supervision of the case.  At first, Sara Ganim correctly stated the case was transferred to Corbett in March 2009, but later in the column falsely reported that the AG began supervising the case in the fall of 2010.   She also reported that the case took off in January 2011 – after Police Chief Frank Noonan added additional state troopers. 

A check of Noonan’s biography revealed that he was promoted to the Chief of the Criminal Prosecution Division of the Attorney General’s office in July 2009, thus had responsibility for the Sandusky case prior to becoming State Police Commissioner.  Moreover, Noonan was not confirmed as State Police Commissioner until April 2011 (after being nominated on January 18, 2011).  But the recent Moulton investigation concluded that the additional resources were not a critical factor in identifying the victims.

On December 10, 2011, the P-N made a half-hearted attempt to address questions about the drawn-out investigation, but defended the probe by relying on the same falsehoods from the November 13th column.  Then in early January 2012, Sara Ganim (perhaps unwittingly) published potentially damaging information that revealed Sandusky could have been charged earlier. 

She reported that the police[1] had informed the mother of Victim 6 (in January 2011) that they had 400 counts against Sandusky and told her that they “had less evidence in murder cases.”  At that time, the public had been told there were only two victims, Aaron Fisher and the unknown Victim #2.   Ganim, via the mother of Victim 6, had revealed that there may have been other victims found earlier in the investigation.  However, at some point, the editorial board or Ganim scrubbed that information out of the column.


Cover Up of Child Abuse During the Sandusky Investigation

The Sandusky trial revealed that one of the Victims was abused while Corbett was leading the investigation.  On June 14th, Matt Miller reported the testimony of Victim 9, who stated he was abused through his 16th birthday (in July 2009).   Columns published by the P-N on June 23rd, 2012 and on November 21, 2013 changed the end date of Victim 9’s abuse to 2008.  Similarly, Sara Ganim at CNN also wrote a column in November 2013 and she too changed the end date of Victim 9’s abuse to 2008.  On May 30, 2014, they again truncated the end date of the crimes to 2008.  Finally, after the Moulton Report was released the P-N wrote a column stating that there was no evidence on the public record that showed Victim 9 was abused during the Sandusky investigation.  It was a bald-faced lie, considering that the P-N had reported that fact in its post-trial coverage.

The Cover Up of Perjury and Questionable Testimony

One of Corbett’s standard defenses of his lengthy investigation has hung on the prosecution’s success -- Sandusky was convicted on 45 of 48 counts.   In other words, the ends justified the means. Apparently the P-N also ascribed to this theory when it obfuscated the fact that two policemen had lied under oath at the trial regarding their contamination of the investigation. 

In addition, right before the Sandusky trial, the P-N had learned that the OAG had obtained the 2001 emails of Schultz.  Obviously, the emails provided the evidence to change the date of the incident witnessed by McQueary from 2002 to 2001.  However, the P-N ignored the obvious and never questioned the testimony of Agent Sassano, who claimed to set the new date using TV Guides.  Even after Louis Freeh claimed his email discovery reset the date of the incident, the P-N never challenged the story of Sassano. 

Similarly, the P-N never questioned Sassano’s testimony about finding leads for Victims 9 and 10 in July 2011 and April 2011, respectively.   Both victims came forward after November 2011.

The instances of the P-N turning a blind eye to inconvenient facts in the Sandusky case were quite numerous – and they appeared to be intentional.


Next: Chapter 6: The Spickler Cover-Up



[1] Pennsylvania State Police did not participate in Geoffrey Moulton’s review of the Sandusky case, thus the information about the 400 counts was not confirmed by Cpl. Joseph Leiter.


Tuesday, July 22

Patriot News: Part 2 of 9: Chapter 8, Not Anal Rape

When "anal rape" was an allegation in the Sandusky case it was repeated again and again.  When "anal rape" became an acquittal, it was subject to a media blackout.

By
Ray Blehar

The November 5th, 2011 grand jury presentment's statement that a young boy was "being subjected to sexual intercourse by a naked Sandusky" resulted in public outrage at Penn State.  Media broadcasts and newspapers repeated the story that McQueary had witnessed Sandusky raping a boy in the PSU locker rooms for days on end.  

That media drumbeat resulted in Paterno and Spanier losing their jobs -- primarily because of  that single (inflammatory) allegation.

On November 11th, Sara Ganim, after meeting with her editors and local DAs,  began reporting the incident as an "anal rape" instead of the legal term Involuntary Deviate Sexual Intercourse. Allegedly, this was to save "copy" in her columns.   However, her report about McQueary's report of an "anal rape" would be proven inaccurate about one month later.

The December 16th, preliminary hearing testimony of Mike McQueary proved the falsity of the Sandusky grand jury presentment’s statement that he had reported seeing Sandusky engaged in sexual intercourse with a young boy.  It also refuted the Patriot News (P-N) story that McQueary had  reported an “anal rape” to Paterno.

McQueary testified[1] that he never used the words “anal or rape in this since day one” in discussing the incident with Paterno.[2]   

The reports by the OAG and the P-N claiming that McQueary provided graphic details of that incident to Paterno caused a media firestorm and caused irreparable harm to PSU.  

The P-N's error was so egregious that it should have resulted in a front page correction and perhaps even an apology.  Those never came.  In addition, the P-N also never criticized the OAG for publishing that known falsehood in the grand jury presentment.  It was clear that the paper of record didn't care about accuracy in its reporting -- it was more concerned with sensationalism.

The McQueary incident, regardless of all the other facts in the case, was the whole “Penn State sex scandal” in the eyes of the public.  

And the P-N was not about to let the public know they got a major fact of the story wrong.

From November 2011 up until the trial, the public perception never changed because corrections were never made.  

The scenario remained: McQueary had seen a rape on PSU’s campus and that PSU had covered it up.   

The media likely expected that the Sandusky trial would prove the first half of that scenario.

Then it didn’t.

When the verdicts were returned, the jury did not believe Mike McQueary had witnessed a rape.  The charge of Involuntary Deviate Sexual Intercourse (IDSI) in the Victim 2 incident resulted in a not guilty verdict.  It was one of only three not guilty verdicts in the case, while 45 counts went the other way.

The incident – and more specifically, the allegation that inflamed the public against PSU resulted in a not guilty verdict barely garnered any “copy” in the first two days of the P-N’s post-trial reporting. 

Of the nine stories (list below banner at bottom) the P-N ran covering the trial verdicts in the two days following the trial, only one sentence in one story specifically addressed that not guilty verdict.  Sara Ganim’s column, titled, “Jerry Sandusky verdict: Guilty verdict met with rousing applause on courthouse lawn” contained this passage:

“His wife, Dottie, showed emotion only when the first not “guilty count” was read. It was for involuntary deviate sexual intercourse in the case of Victim 2 -- the assault assistant coach Mike McQueary says he witnessed in a Penn State shower in 2001.”















































A story on the jury's deliberations ran on June 24, 2012 and cited the jury foreman Joshua Harper, who explained why the jury acquitted.   It was the only other story go further than to just list the acquittal. 

Former Penn State assistant football coach Mike McQueary testified about seeing Sandusky with a boy in the Penn State football building showers in 2001.

McQueary said he never actually saw penetration by Sandusky, meaning the rape charge would not stand. But after reviewing testimony, Harper said the close contact McQueary did see was enough to carry the day for indecent contact and three other counts.

Others in the media followed the P-N’s lead and simply repeated that Sandusky was convicted on 45 of 48 counts --  with no mention of the most important charge in the case resulting in an acquittal.   
As a result, many in the media and the public continue to believe the false story that McQueary witnessed and reported a rape to PSU officials.  

For an incident that caused a media firestorm when it was an allegation, it caused a virtual media blackout as an acquittal  




[2] http://www.dauphincounty.org/government/Court-Departments/CurleySchultz/12-16-Preliminary-Trial-Transcript.pdf, page 72 “I never used the term anal or rape in this from day one.”  Page 72, “Would you have ever used the term sodomy with Coach Paterno?” “No, never.”


Later this week: Chapter 7: The Corbett Cover-up





Jerry Sandusky verdict: Complete breakdown of charges | PennLive ...


Jerry Sandusky verdict: Victim 1's mom says 'I cried, I'm very happy ...


Jerry Sandusky verdict: Guilty verdict met with rousing applause on ...



Jerry Sandusky verdict: Sandusky found guilty of 45 of 48 abuse ...


Jerry Sandusky verdict: More on the 10 victims | PennLive.com


Jerry Sandusky verdict: Penn State wants to settle with victims ...


Jerry Sandusky verdict: Investigations continue of Penn State ...


Jerry Sandusky verdict: Gov. Tom Corbett commends the victims ...


Jerry Sandusky verdict: Penn State says, 'We accept responsibility ...









Saturday, July 19

What the Sandusky family statement doesn't say

The Sandusky family statement, through attorney Al Lindsey, doesn't say that Jerry Sandusky is innocent and reveals that Dottie Sandusky is in denial.

By
Ray Blehar

In response to Matt Sandusky's appearance on the Oprah Winfrey Network, the Sandusky family released the following statement.

The family's statement that they never witnessed or heard of inappropriate behavior is a far cry from saying that Jerry Sandusky is innocent.  However, the fact is that the statement is untrue.

Dottie Sandusky admitted that Jerry told her exactly what happened in 1998 and, that when pressed by Matt Lauer, admitted that she would have considered it inappropriate if one of her children was hugged by an adult in the shower.


Lauer: One of the victims said he showered with him and hugged him. In the shower, while they were naked in the shower. Someone did that to one of your children and your children came home and told you that, wouldn't you think that's inappropriate?  That's hugely inappropriate.

Sandusky: I would. Yes, but.I would..I...I..I don't necessarily know that that happened. And maybe it did. Maybe Jerry said (trails off).


Next, while I can't speak for the rest of the family, Dottie is clearly in denial because she knew exactly what happened in 1998.  Her own words are below.


Lauer: Can you give me an example of something that he told you that he was truthful about that hurt? What were you referring to there?

Sandusky:  Gee that's hard to decide. To say. Of the...I can't really think of anything.  He told.. I guess..maybe it was the 98 incident.  He told me about that. He told me exactly what happened when that happened. 


However, I will agree that the statement "it is what we lived" reveals that at the time Sandusky's abuse was going on, the family was not likely aware of it.  Like the majority of people who knew Jerry Sandusky, they didn't believe he would be capable of such behaviors.  After the trial concluded, I suspect that some of the family realized that Jerry had committed crimes, although they may not fully believe all the victim's stories.

I agree with the final paragraph of the family statement.

There is no benefit to attacking Matt Sandusky because there is no way to disprove that he's a victim.  While many of the things Matt has said don't add up or make sense, even if someone was to somehow prove Matt was not abused, Sandusky remains guilty of many counts of child sexual abuse.  In addition, many Sandusky accusers/victims were never presented as witnesses at the trial.

Finally, I am in the same camp as many Penn Staters on the payment of victim settlements.  Matt Sandusky is not unique in that regard, as the University should not have paid anyone before its culpability had been established.  While it was explained that it was done for expediency and to avoid bad publicity, the fact is that bad publicity was going to continue as other lawsuits against PSU and the NCAA progress.

PSU has sued the Pennsylvania Manufacturer's Association Insurance Company because of its refusal to pay the settlements.  The policy in effect in 1992 and later excluded coverage for sexual abuse and molestation.  As a result, the $59.7 million in settlements was paid from University funds, according the PSU's 2013 financial statements.


At June 30, 2013, the University has accrued $59.7 million for 26 of 32 known claims, 24 of which have been settled subsequent to June 30, 2013. Such costs are included in institutional support within the consolidated statement of activities. Of the remaining six claims, two have been deemed to have no merit through the due diligence process. Without having knowledge of the number and nature of unknown claims and in view of the inherent difficulty of predicting the outcome of our remaining four known claims, each with their own unique circumstances that give rise to their alleged claims, and given the various stages of the proceedings, we are unable to predict the outcome of these matters or the ultimate legal and financial liability, and at this time cannot reasonably estimate the possible loss or range of loss. Accordingly, no amounts have been accrued in the 2013 financial statements for these claims although a loss is reasonably possible in future periods which could have a material adverse effect on our current and future financial position, results of operations and cash flows. 

In closing, Matt Sandusky's interview should be viewed as a reminder bad decisions made by the PSU Board of Trustees in agreeing to pay settlements.  By Matt's own admission, he was abused prior to anyone at PSU being informed about Sandusky's abuse.  It is truly puzzling why the PSU BOT would have entertained paying any abuse settlements for incidents prior to 2001, given that the University was told Sandusky did not commit any crimes in 1998.




Friday, July 18

Patriot News, Part 1 of 9: Chapter 9, The Pulitzer Prize

“We never lost sight of what the true story was. Sara and the staff kept focused on what was important.”
Patriot News Publisher, John Kirkpatrick


By
Ray Blehar



On April 17, 2012, the Pulitzer committee announced that the Patriot News (P-N) was the Pulitzer Prize winner for local reporting for its coverage of the “explosive Penn State sex scandal.”   The citation read:

“Awarded to Sara Ganim and members of The Patriot-News Staff, Harrisburg, Penn., for courageously revealing and adeptly covering the explosive Penn State sex scandal involving former football coach Jerry Sandusky.”

The fact that the Pulitzer committee would refer to the scandal as the “Penn State sex scandal” was a reflection of the biased coverage by the P-N.  Had the paper of record honestly reported the facts of the Sandusky matter, it would have revealed a problem of much more significant scope that continues to endanger every child in Pennsylvania.  

In order to craft a false narrative of a “Penn State sex scandal,” the P-N’s Pulitzer winning coverage avoided any in-depth coverage of three significant issues in the child abuse investigation of Jerry Sandusky:

·         The Pennsylvania statute regarding child abuse reporting;
·         The practices and procedures for child abuse investigations; and,
·         The roles and responsibilities child protective services.

By not addressing these areas in its scandal coverage, the failures by the Pennsylvania State Police (PSP), Office of Attorney General (OAG) investigators, child welfare agents from the Department of Public Welfare (DPW), Centre County Children and Youth Services (CYS), and individuals from The Second Mile (TSM) charity, all of whom were responsible for protecting the children from Sandusky, were not made known to the public.  

P-N Publisher John Kirkpatrick’s statement that the paper “never lost sight of the true story” was nonsense.

The true story was never written.


In late November 2011, the P-N (inadvertently?) revealed that Sara Ganim had obtained the 1998 University Park police report early in 2011.  Evidence revealed she used it to break the story of the Sandusky grand jury investigation.  






















When Ganim's reporting is viewed through the lens of her having knowledge of the 1998 investigation of Sandusky, it becomes clear that she reported known falsehoods, obfuscated facts, and biased her reports to excuse the failings of the Department of Public Welfare (DPW).  In addition, P-N editor David Newhouse also avoided any mention of the 1998 police report when he described how Ganim "broke" the story.  Three of the paper's Pulitzer submissions contained falsehoods and/or inaccuracies related to the 1998 report.

The P-N submitted ten works to the Pulitzer committee for the judging of its coverage.  Each work varied in terms of accuracy and expertise; however, most of the columns contained errors that were obvious to anyone familiar with the details of the case.  Each of those stories should have been corrected and, in some cases, front page corrections should have been run.  However, as history reveals, the P-N has not corrected the vast majority of errors that plagued its articles.

The Pulitzer jurors [1], due to their geographic dispersion, likely worked from their understanding of the scandal based on national headlines, thus would not recognize many of the inaccuracies in the stories. 

A summary of each Pulitzer nominated story follows.  Please note that some of the errors cited in these stories are errors which the Pulitzer committee could have found if they had done a minimum of fact-checking.

A brief summary of errors, omissions, and biases for each story follow.


Story #1:   Jerry Sandusky, former Penn State football staffer, subject of grand jury investigation March 31, 2011. Sara Ganim boasted the facts in this story "were 100 percent accurate."

Two errors regarding the date the Sandusky investigation began.
Error about when Aaron Fisher’s abuse began.
Error regarding who reported Fisher's incident to Clinton County CYS.
Omission of failures to follow interview procedures by police and child welfare.


Failures to call out the phony retirement of Jerry Sandusky from The Second Mile (TSM)
Failure to identify suspected abuse during TSM programs.
Lack of clarity regarding inflation of number of children served by the charity.



Dawn Daniels, the mother of Aaron Fisher, lashed out at Central Mountain High School more than she did PSU - headline was misleading.
Failure to identify child abuse reporting statute requirements.
Failure to identify failures of CMHS officials to protect children and ensure school safety.


Fabricated a “reporting chain” at PSU regarding the 2001 incident.
Published known falsehood of McQueary reporting an “anal rape.”
Failure to differentiate child abuse reporting requirements between PSU and TSM.


Incorrect date on the AG’s supervision of the case.
Incorrect time frame of  recovery of the 1998 police report.
Failure to prioritize investigative missteps.
Exaggerated role of Frank Noonan and additional investigators in finding victims.



Very little coverage about the TSM official - headline was misleading.
Article mostly focused on lack of transparency in management of TSM.
Did not make clear that Sandusky’s official retirement was a ruse.
Did not report that the charity permitted Sandusky to access children after his abuse finding.


Focused on insignificant relationships between PSU and TSM.
Excluded major business relationships between TSM Board and PSU.
Excluded naming many PSU BOT members who donated to the charity.
Wrote false narrative that PSU built its brand through TSM (opposite was true).


Repeated false story of  2004 kitchen table meeting of Paterno and PSU officials.
Claimed that Paterno “commanded a generous salary” when he was a very modestly paid coach compared to other major college football coaches.


Did not fully report all of the versions of Mike McQueary’s story.
No mention of how the child abuse reporting statute applied to individuals involved.


No mention of child abuse reporting statute.
No mention of requirements for a perjury conviction.
No mention of expunging unfounded abuse reports.


Go here to download the full analysis of each of the Pulitzer stories (33 page report).



[1] Sherry Chisenhall, editor and vice president, news, The Wichita Eagle (Chair)Nicole Carroll, vice president, news and executive editor, The Arizona Republic, Kevin Dale, news director, The Denver Post, Jane Hirt, managing editor, Chicago Tribune, John Winn Miller, publisher, The Concord (NH) Monitor, Debra Adams Simmons, editor, The Plain Dealer, Cleveland, OH, William Snyder*, professor and chair, photojournalism, Rochester Institute of Technology