How the he'll can mark Schwarz legally do what he did?

[jcuse44]

He just said verbatim on national tv what this alleged victim claimed happened to him without having a single shred of evidence to prove anything, how is that possibly legal? on top of that SchWarz fabricated the possibility that Bernie fie did this possibly thousands of times... How in this world is that a legal thing to do?

 

[orangenauburn]

Yea the thousands of times really????????????!

That was a stretch

 

[LeMoyneCuse]

It's perfectly legal. A credible source came to Schwarz with information. If it proves to be wrong, Fine has the right to sue for slander.

Any law against reporting like this is a clear violation of the First Amendment.

 

[jcuse44]

It's perfectly legal. A credible source came to Schwarz with information. If it proves to be wrong, Fine has the right to sue for slander.

Any law against reporting like this is a clear violation of the First Amendment.

 

[kingottoiii]

It's perfectly legal. A credible source came to Schwarz with information. If it proves to be wrong, Fine has the right to sue for slander.

Any law against reporting like this is a clear violation of the First Amendment.

Credible? Are you serious? If this is proven to be false Schwarz should be FIRED!

 

[jcuse44]

I'm referring to Schwarz fabricating " possibly happened thousands of times". And saying it with a clear distinction in his voice that is leading people to think it is a straight fact, and not actually an allegation. and how is the one person, and only that one person who is making the allegation a CREDIBLE source as you say?

 

[kingottoiii]

I'm referring to Schwarz fabricating " possibly happened thousands of times". And saying it with a clear distinction in his voice that is leading people to think it is a straight fact, and not actually an allegation. and how is the one person, and only that one person who is making the allegation a CREDIBLE source as you say?

And I don't think I heard the word allegedly once from him. If this is false Schwarz is done IMO. He and ESPN should be sued by SU and Fine.

 

[LeMoyneCuse]

Take a breather, guys.

I'm referring to Schwarz fabricating " possibly happened thousands of times". And saying it with a clear distinction in his voice that is leading people to think it is a straight fact, and not actually an allegation. and how is the one person, and only that one person who is making the allegation a CREDIBLE source as you say?

I call him credible only in the sense that the information he is providing is his experience. He's not committing hearsay, sharing the experiences of someone else.

And yeah, as a media scholar and former journalist, I'm pretty disgusted Schwarz delivered the line that way.

The issue is this. In light of the recent Penn State problems, ESPN is trying to break a new story. All outlets do it. I don't know if Schwarz has an axe to grind and I don't care. I'm just telling you he did nothing wrong in the eyes of his editors.

 

[LeMoyneCuse]

And I don't think I heard the word allegedly once from him. If this is false Schwarz is done IMO. He and ESPN should be sued by SU and Fine.

If this comes out to be false, SU and Fine have every right to do that. This is a civil issue and not a criminal one.

 

[cuseincincy]

Credible? Are you serious? If this is proven to be false Schwarz should be FIRED!

Won't happen. And it won't likely be ever proven false as long as there is one person claiming it's true. PSU changed things. I think ESPN got caught with their pants down with the public outcry over JoePa's knowledge.

 

[OrangeXtreme]

Schwartz also made the claim that this kid went to the SPD, and they refused to prosecute because they didn't believe him.

SPD refused to prosecute because the statute of limitations had expired.

 

[kingottoiii]

Won't happen. And it won't likely be ever proven false as long as there is one person claiming it's true. PSU changed things. I think ESPN got caught with their pants down with the public outcry over JoePa's knowledge.

Precedent. ESPN said not worth reporting in 2003. Nothing has changed with this case. Schwarz is trying to make a name for himself. Not being a good journalist.

 

[LeMoyneCuse]

Precedent. ESPN said not worth reporting in 2003. Nothing has changed with this case. Schwarz is trying to make a name for himself. Not being a good journalist.

I partially disagree. Schwarz found someone to back up Davis' claims. Ethically speaking, that's all that matters.

Now, Schwarz didn't use the word allegedly. That's a big problem. A big problem. Even if that was an accident, that's a big problem. That's one of the first things they teach you in J school. Never assign guilt unless it's been proven by a court of law.

 

[1040su]

Was Schwarz the original investigative reporter on this story back in 2005? Could he have convinced this person to come forward again at a most opportune moment - but this time with reinforcements so he could run with this now?

 

[cmr27]

I partially disagree. Schwarz found someone to back up Davis' claims. Ethically speaking, that's all that matters.

Now, Schwarz didn't use the word allegedly. That's a big problem. A big problem. Even if that was an accident, that's a big problem. That's one of the first things they teach you in J school. Never assign guilt unless it's been proven by a court of law.

Don't know much about libel law, but Fine must have some recourse even if he is considered a public figure, right?

 

[cuseincincy]

I partially disagree. Schwarz found someone to back up Davis' claims. Ethically speaking, that's all that matters.

Now, Schwarz didn't use the word allegedly. That's a big problem. A big problem. Even if that was an accident, that's a big problem. That's one of the first things they teach you in J school. Never assign guilt unless it's been proven by a court of law.

The substantiator is even weaker. He's the 45 year old step brother of Davis. Claims it started when he was in the 5th or 6th grade. That would have been 1976 or 8 years before Davis claims it happened to him. This is 35 years ago. not that it matters if it is true. Where was this step brother in 2005?

 

[kingottoiii]

The substantiator is even weaker. He's the 45 year old step brother of Davis. Claims it started when he was in the 5th or 6th grade. That would have been 1976 or 8 years before Davis claims it happened to him. This is 35 years ago. not that it matters if it is true. Where was this step brother in 2005?

If that is true it makes even less sense. So when the first kid was 18 he doesn't bother to stop his step brother from becoming a ball boy? He doesn't try and protect him?

 

[LeMoyneCuse]

Don't know much about libel law, but Fine must have some recourse even if he is considered a public figure, right?

I'm not 100% sure, but this is an assault on his character and could cause financial damage. I'm pretty sure that's the road he'd have to take.

 

[LeMoyneCuse]

The substantiator is even weaker. He's the 45 year old step brother of Davis. Claims it started when he was in the 5th or 6th grade. That would have been 1976 or 8 years before Davis claims it happened to him. This is 35 years ago. not that it matters if it is true. Where was this step brother in 2005?

That's your opinion. The key is to find a second source to back things up. Family members have the most credibility because they're closest to the case.

 

[PoppyHart]

Don't know much about libel law, but Fine must have some recourse even if he is considered a public figure, right?

Yes, if the claim is indeed false and Schwartz knew it was false or had reckless disregard for its veracity.

 

[RF2044]

If that is true it makes even less sense. So when the first kid was 18 he doesn't bother to stop his step brother from becoming a ball boy? He doesn't try and protect him?

That's an interesting point. The older brother [step] is a ball boy and gets molested 15 times or so [per his ESPN clip], but then doesn't intervene when his younger brother hang with Bernie and eventually also becomes a ball boy?

Doesn't add up.

Something else that struck me as odd about the older brother's version of the story from the interview ESPN aired: he claimed that he told Bernie to stop, that he wasn't into that...and yet he claims it still happened 15 times???

 

[cuseincincy]

If that is true it makes even less sense. So when the first kid was 18 he doesn't bother to stop his step brother from becoming a ball boy? He doesn't try and protect him?

This may be the single best post on this topic tonight. I'd like to ask Scwarz what Lang's response was when asked this question. I'm sure he asked it right? where is that in the story?

 

[realorange]

And how was Bernie able to keep up his supposed molestation when the guy was in his mid 20s?

 

[SUFAN1]

Allegedly was not stated once and that is WRONG !! Without it, It slanted the story to sound like facts. P!ss poor job by ESPN. Nothing found first time around so lets try again, BS !

 

[OttoMets]

Don't know much about libel law, but Fine must have some recourse even if he is considered a public figure, right?

He'd have the burden of proving that ESPN and Schwartz either intentionally disseminated something that they knew was wrong, or acted with reckless disregard for the truth (in addition to the other elements - that the story was in fact false and that Fine was harmed by its dissemination).

High burden to meet.