Option #3: Jerry Sandusky trial verdict
In CNN’s article, “ Painful chapter closes with Sandusky’s conviction for child
sex abuse,” framing is obvious. First of all, the title of the article suggests that once this
whole scandal is over, the town can move on and resume to be the perfect place that they
used to be. This is an example of one of Gans’ values of journalists, the romanticization
of a small town life, which is where the journalists often discusses rural life and small
towns as inherently better or more pure than urban life. The Sandusky scandal in the
college town is not something that occurs commonly, which is why it is made into such a
big deal. The fact that it involves a college football coach makes it all the worse. Students
say that this incidence has infuriated the Penn State community especially because, “the
scandal has unfairly defined the university.” This displays that Penn State is generally
seen as a nice community but this one scandal has completely ruined their reputation and
the peacefulness of their town. It is obvious that the author is displaying how much this
college town has been affected with this one scandal. With phrases such as, “now we can
begin to heal,” and “the school needed this verdict in order to move on,” shows the author
believes that now that the scandal is over, the Penn State community can go back to its
pure lifestyle.
Another Gans’ values of journalists that is used in this article is commitment to
altruistic democracy which is the belief that journalists should support political systems
that do things for the good of the people, not themselves. When this is not done, they
attack. The author exposes two former administrators of Penn State for not doing their
job. They chose to protect one of their own staff instead of the student, who was being
sexually abused. The article states that, “Vice President Gary Schultz and Athletic
Director Tim Curley – are awaiting trial on charges of perjury and failing to report
abuse.” These two men were leaders of the college; they are the ones who are supposed
to make sure that everything is running smoothly. But, as the article, points out, they did
not do what would have been good for the students, they chose to do what was better for
themselves and the reputation of their institution and remained silent. Due to the fact that
the two Penn State officials did not commit to altruistic democracy, the author zoned in
on their mistake. They should have turned in Sandusky as soon as they found out about
the sexual abuse. It would have been better for the abused, their families, and the
community. But, because these two officials were selfish, they decided to do what was
best for their job and their reputation. The lack of altruistic democracy is what this article
keys in on.
After reading the blogs, I can tell that the “influencer techniques” are definitely in
play. Although not all three of them are used, they are definitely there.
The first blog, “How Responsible Is Penn State For What Jerry Sandusky did?”
offers an additional perspective of the case. The author attempts to show that the
Sandusky scandal is definitely not over yet; people cannot close this chapter in their lives
and move on, especially Penn State. It almost appears as if the author is on Sandusky’s
side. Even though Sandusky committed the crime, the author clearly believes that he
could not have done it alone. The author reinforces this perspective with a quote by
attorney Tom Kline who announces Penn State as the “enabler.” The author then goes on
to ask the reader a question, really getting them to think about the situation and who is
really to blame for this scandal, “The University said that it would ‘compensate’ the
victims – but will that be enough to avoid another trial?” In doing this, the author shows
how shady the university is. They are assuming that the victims who have been sexually
abused will forget all about it if they are financially compensated. This really pushes
readers to think, is Penn State a bigger part of the blame? Most people blamed Sandusky
for everything that happened in this scandal but the author shows them an additional
perspective; that Sandusky is not the only one to blame. The school is to blame as well.
In the second blog post written by K.E. Loe, “Jerry Sandusky: Is Pedophilia a
Mental Illness?” he also offers an additional perspective to the Sandusky case. He argues
that it was a mental illness that Sandusky had that made him act the way that he did. In
doing so, he uses ethnocentrism to challenge the current culture of America. He displays
that the Sandusky case is more than about sexual abuse, it is about the current
homosexuality culture of America. He uses the example with Bob Kostas asking
Sandusky, “Are you sexually attracted to young boys?” Loe states that the issue here is
not about the gender of the child, it is about being sexually attracted to a child in general.
It was incorrect for Kostas to narrow it down to just boys. This is not an issue about
homosexuality it is about sexual abuse. He then gets to the center of the problem and
states what Americans need to do, “We as a citizenry need to take sexual orientation out
of the spotlight and focus on victim’s rights.” In doing this, Loe displays an additional
perspective to the Sandusky case. It is not just about sexual abuse; it is also about taking
gender into consideration. The gender does not matter; it is the crime that does.
In the final blog, “Leaked Penn State emails Suggest Joe Paterno Protected Jerry
Sandusky” by Sean Newell, he also offers an additional perspective. Instead of focusing
on Jerry Sandusky, the one who committed the crime, he focuses on school officials that
he believes are a big part of the blame as well. In the beginning, some school officials
wanted to report the sexual abuse to the state but after Joe Paterno, the football coach said
something to the athletic directors, they decided not to. Newell uses this fact to display
that these administrators are to blame as well stating that when, “Joe Paterno says
“jump,” university officals say “how high?” Much of the abuse could have been
prevented if these school leaders had done something. Newell doesn’t take the blame
away from these officials either stating, “That doesn’t excuse anything.” He offers an
additional perspective, the one where Penn State officials are a huge part of the blame. In
his article he barely mentions the abuse that Sandusky has committed, he only discusses
the faculty members and their faults showing the audience that all the blame cannot be
put onto Sandusky.