waters said PS would have run story too

[Dick_in_MI]

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

agree

 

[Noexcuse]

Maybe the PS would have run the story because there is now corroboration, but I hope they would have also notified the police or DA first. To me, publishing a story about an investigation is a lot different than creating a story and causing an investigation to ensue.

 

[dash-30-dash]

it's one thing to publish a story is a straight forward way, laying out the total background. That includes the loan, any legal history the accusers may or may not have.

 

[orangenirvana]

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.

It shouldn't matter. Making accusations public before an arrest is made is immoral and disgraceful, plain and simple.

 

[All4SU]

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.

Not true. You can report the allegations, and report the history of the allegations as you understand them. OTL went the sensational route, and glossed over the history of these allegations and previous findings.

 

[kuethstheman]

See Wikipedia, Watergate.

It shouldn't matter. Making accusations public before an arrest is made is immoral and disgraceful, plain and simple.

 

[EastCoast2]

If two of us contact the PS and say Mark Schwarz touched us, would they run a story?

 

[Cusefan95]

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.

Really goes to what I was saying over the weekend, we give way too much credibility when - by their own standards - they're all writing for page six.

I feel like the only "journalists" with any integrity are the ones working for TMZ and Cindy Adams. At least they know they're paid to gossip. The rest have deluded themselves into believing they are serving higher ideals.

 

[EastCoast2]

ESPN = National Enquirer

 

[arbitragegls]

...here is what is going on...with Lang now saying he was abused...it gives added belief to Davis's story...even though it may be untrue. Apparently, abused children, women etc...bury these memories and/or do not want to deal with them...so no accusations made...but over time they change and are more willing to tell and discuss...I find this difficult to believe but police, FBI and psychologist support this theory...so, one more person comes forward and that makes the accusation more credible...doesnt mean it is true.

 

[kingottoiii]

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.

Nope. He should be fired for even saying that. The media should have the responsibility to check into the credibility of its sources before running any story. Even a jaywalking one. This story has waaay to many holes in it to be published. Remember the SPD only reopened the case because of pressure from ESPN.

Now if Davis and Lang went to the SPD first, and the SPD reopened the case, then it would have been news worthy and the PS should run a story on it. That is because there would be an investigation on Fine. But without an investigation there is no story.

 

[arbitragegls]

..not necessarily true...same old story but an added abused kid...now it has some so called "feet"...opens a whole new look...not saying it is true...only that its a game changer insofar as being brought up

 

[Toga]

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.

My GF is in the general field and has direct experience with that being the case.

 

[Ghost]

It's a tough call, it's very much believable that people would be afraid to come forward and they may be reluctant even upon being approached initially.

However, when the only person supporting the story is the dude's brother-in-law, a person that denied it previously, and a person that apparently would have been allowed to hang w/ Fine even after abusing the other brother, it just seems like you should go for a bit more before going forward. If this people had something to lose, or were pillars of the community, that might be enough, but I don't get the impression that's who were dealing with here.

I know, I know, Bernie used to close his blinds, and that's pretty damming evidence, but call me crazy I would need a bit more than that. Maybe if there was some rumor about a secret tape - that might be enough though.

Again, it doesn't mean they're not telling the truth, it just feels so flimsy without more. Too flimsy to destroy a man's career imo.