waters said PS would have run story too

[goodroc]

craighoffmanMike Waters of the Post-Standard told @ESPNCNY that the PS would've gone with this story with Lang's account too. Food for thought.

 

[wfschrec]

craighoffmanMike Waters of the Post-Standard told @ESPNCNY that the PS would've gone with this story with Lang's account too. Food for thought.

Then Whitlock would have had a field day with him too

 

[Garbs]

Mike Waters is an idiot too

 

[AZOrange]

craighoffmanMike Waters of the Post-Standard told @ESPNCNY that the PS would've gone with this story with Lang's account too. Food for thought.

Based on what? The new accuser? Why is the story any more concrete now than it was in 2003?

 

[pearl31]

Just because they would have run it doesn't mean they would have reported in the same way, in the same tone, selectively leaving out key elements.

 

[goodroc]

Based on what? The new accuser? Why is the story any more concrete now than it was in 2003?

yes based on new accuser even though they interviewed him 8 yrs ago and he said he was not molested

 

[armory]

Sadly this is the exact message that both the P-S and ESPN gave Davis in 2003, and it is because Davis was made aware of this that Lang hopped on the blame-train this time.

You don't tell an accuser who has no support/evidence exactly what they would need to gain 'credibility', then believe it when he comes back with the minimum requirements you gave.

 

[RF2044]

Even so, I doubt that Mike Waters would have presented the story in such a biased, almost evangelical way.

 

[phil77]

So the first time they asked Lang about the story and he denied everything but now 8 years later Lang comes out and backs the story he would now run with the story? I can't believe that is true

 

[AZOrange]

Even so, I doubt that Mike Waters would have presented the story in such a biased, almost evangelical way.

Not trying to be argumentative here RF, but how do you present these allegations in a non-biased way? You accuse someone of child molestation publicly there is no way to do that unbiased or to unring that bell.

 

[pearl31]

Listening to the CBS podcast, it seemed pretty clear to me that the PS was desperately looking for just one corroboration in 02-03 so that they could publish. Now, with Lang (sketchy and flip-flopping as he is), there is that corroboration.

 

[DoctorBombay]

Just because they would have run it doesn't mean they would have reported in the same way, in the same tone, selectively leaving out key elements.

 

[themole]

The PS may not have -- who knows -- it wouldn't be Waters' call. I am guessing they'd have simply reopened the paper's investigation and not rushed to publish it, at the very least.

 

[armory]

Joe Schmo: I caught a huge fish today, HUGE ONE!

Mike Waters: If you showed me the fish I would believe you.

...

(8 years later)

Joe Schmo: Here's the proof!

*hands Mike a Filet-o-Fish sandwich*

Mike Waters: Eureka! That's all I needed! I believe you now!

 

[fairfaxcuse]

Just because they would have run it doesn't mean they would have reported in the same way, in the same tone, selectively leaving out key elements.

Yep- and if presented with the information, Waters should have run the story. This is totally credible and not really newsworthy. However, it does show transparency by the PS, which is a good thing. In short, with two sources, you can and should run with a story. ESPN is on ok legal ground here. The difference is that when PS had the opportunity to run the story, they reported the full thing, including the interview that appeared on Sunday. Whitlock's article from today isn't complaining that ESPN posted the story. He is complaining about how the story is being depicted without a full summary of all the facts. He isn't sticking up for SU. He is trying to stick up for ethical reporting.

 

[goodroc]

Listening to the CBS podcast, it seemed pretty clear to me that the PS was desperately looking for just one corroboration in 02-03 so that they could publish. Now, with Lang (sketchy and flip-flopping as he is), there is that corroboration.

Makes me think they believe he is guilty -- do not believe they would run story locally if they didnt believe he was guilty-- espn totally different story

 

[nycfan]

craighoffmanMike Waters of the Post-Standard told @ESPNCNY that the PS would've gone with this story with Lang's account too. Food for thought.

Let me get this straight---Deadspin says today that even they wouldn't have run with the story based on the current facts, and the Post Standard would have? What is wrong with this picture? And the PS is basing it on a 45-year old man's seemingly drunkin' account nearly 30 years later---the only person in the entire world to corroborate the accusations of his brother??? (since no one else would the other times he tried this) Come on Mike, get your head in the game!

 

[rrlbees]

So the first time they asked Lang about the story and he denied everything but now 8 years later Lang comes out and backs the story he would now run with the story? I can't believe that is true

I have no idea if these guys were abused as kids by Bernie or anyone. But I do know 2 other adults that were sexually abused as kids. One took until they were in their late 20's to admit it to anyone and the other was in their early 40's before they could gain the strength to admit it to someone and also face their abuser. I'm not defending these guys and their statements, but this stuff is a lot harder and more difficult for the abused than some are making it.

 

[AZOrange]

Let me get this straight---Deadspin says today that they wouldn't have run with the story based on the current facts, and the Post Standard would? What is wrong with this picture? And the PS is basing it on a 45-year old man's seemingly drunkin' account nearly 30 years later---the only person in the entire world to corroborate the accusations of his brother??? (since no one else would the other times he tried this) Come on Mike, get your head in the game!

I cannot believe Daulerio has held off on this...

 

[rrlbees]

Joe Schmo: I caught a huge fish today, HUGE ONE!

Mike Waters: If you showed me the fish I would believe you.

...

(8 years later)

Joe Schmo: Here's the proof!

*hands Mike a Filet-o-Fish sandwich*

Mike Waters: Eureka! That's all I needed! I believe you now!

Really?

 

[phil77]

I have no idea if these guys were abused as kids by Bernie or anyone. But I do know 2 other adults that were sexually abused as kids. One took until they were in their late 20's to admit it to anyone and the other was in their early 40's before they could gain the strength to admit it to someone and also face their abuser. I'm not defending these guys and their statements, but this stuff is a lot harder and more difficult for the abused than some are making it.

But wouldn't you think when approached the first time he would have supported his brother in-law and had a we are in it together attitude? It isn't like at that point Lang was on an island by himself reporting these things? He was asked to back up the same story with his Brother in-law then and decided not to. Now all the sudden 8 years later he is backing it? Wouldn't you ask WHY? And get to the bottom of that before you ran a story and destroyed a career (if innocent)?

 

[DoctorBombay]

Not trying to be argumentative here RF, but how do you present these allegations in a non-biased way? You accuse someone of child molestation publicly there is no way to do that unbiased or to unring that bell.

No, but more presentation of the HISTORY behind this story would've put things in better context, IMO.
And certainly, the comments of a babysitter/ex-GF who noticed "drawn shades", & creepy looks, or Bernie waiting at the top of the stairs, or Lori Fine "looking nervous", as somehow implying guilt, wouldn't have been aired as part of the story.
This has been character assination by innuendo & omission.

What turned this from a total media lynching was when JB came out strong for Bernie. I think ESPN expected SU to distance themselves from this thing, just like PSU & Sandusky. When JB basically told them GFY, they stumbled, & still haven't recovered.

 

[rrlbees]

But wouldn't you think when approached the first time he would have supported his brother in-law and had a we are in it together attitude? It isn't like at that point Lang was on an island by himself reporting these things? He was asked to back up the same story with his Brother in-law then and decided not to. Now all the sudden 8 years later he is backing it? Wouldn't you ask WHY? And get to the bottom of that before you ran a story and destroyed a career (if innocent)?

I can't imagine what was going through his mind then so I can't say why he didn't come forward or why he denied it (if it did happen). I am also willing to bet the investigators have asked him why now but not before.

 

[RF2044]

Not trying to be argumentative here RF, but how do you present these allegations in a non-biased way? You accuse someone of child molestation publicly there is no way to do that unbiased or to unring that bell.

By not being the mouthpiece for the accusers, and interpreting what they say in sensationalist ways.

Reporting the news is one thing; manufacturing news is what Schwartz is trying to do.

At least, that's how I see it AZ.

 

[AZOrange]

By not being the mouthpiece for the accusers, and interpreting what they say in sensationalist ways.

Reporting the news is one thing; manufacturing news is what Schwartz is trying to do.

At least, that's how I see it AZ.

Gotcha. I just really despise (as a lawyer) how allegations of such things are played out in the media first. I mean, they did nearly 3 years of investigation on Sandusky and had a grand jury convened before that story "broke". I think all of this is fallout from the public outcry from that event.