You know the story. Penn State University is mired in a scandal where an assistant coach allegedly used university facilities to sexually abuse young boys. When this was reported to those in charge, they didn't report it to the police and now the proverbial stuff has hit the proverbial fan. And everybody has an opinion, including the alleged perpetrator Jerry Sandusky, who recently made statements to the press saying he never did any of the stuff he's accused of.
So now it's in the news and everybody's 'taking a stand'. Trouble is, those stands are based on a lot of innuendo, hearsay, partial stories reported in a biased or half assed manner, etc. This is typical of Americans: grab a handful of facts from your favorite source - left, right, doesn't matter - draw a conclusion and then argue the point vehemently with anyone who disagrees.
This is like two twelve year olds debating the validity of string theory: neither one of them understands what they are actually discussing, they are just disagreeing based on their take on 'the facts'.
Proof of my point ladies and gentleman - the actual grand jury report related to the Penn State scandal. You can view it here: http://www.freep.com/assets/freep/pdf/C4181508116.PDF
It's available because it's a public record. It was conducted according to the laws of the state which means people who are NOT reporters, columnists, opinion makers and social critics did NOT write it. It's just a bunch of information gathered by people who talked to everyone involved. There's no motivation to sell it, make money from it, base your campaign for governor/president/dog catcher on it. It's just a report.
And i bet you didn't read it. If you had, you would have all the facts, not just the ones your favorite media mouthpiece wants you to have. Mostly it's boring. But the parts that are not are graphic and sickening.
It's really a shame that 'news' sources are required to print this thing in its entirety. It's also a shame that people who consider themselves intelligent didn't do the obvious thing - google it and go find it like i did.
Now just imagine how many self appointed know-it-alls are out there shooting off their mouths with just fragments of information taken from one source. "Big thinkers" talking about 'what oughta be done' about immigration/gun control/poverty/jobs/exploring space/giving vaccines to kids, etc while none of them has read anything in depth on any of these subjects.
So the next time you open your mouth to preach - or stand up to applaud your favorite commentator - ask yourself this: how do i "know" what i "know?" and how does that commentator/source "know" what he/she/it "knows?"
So now it's in the news and everybody's 'taking a stand'. Trouble is, those stands are based on a lot of innuendo, hearsay, partial stories reported in a biased or half assed manner, etc. This is typical of Americans: grab a handful of facts from your favorite source - left, right, doesn't matter - draw a conclusion and then argue the point vehemently with anyone who disagrees.
This is like two twelve year olds debating the validity of string theory: neither one of them understands what they are actually discussing, they are just disagreeing based on their take on 'the facts'.
Proof of my point ladies and gentleman - the actual grand jury report related to the Penn State scandal. You can view it here: http://www.freep.com/assets/freep/pdf/C4181508116.PDF
It's available because it's a public record. It was conducted according to the laws of the state which means people who are NOT reporters, columnists, opinion makers and social critics did NOT write it. It's just a bunch of information gathered by people who talked to everyone involved. There's no motivation to sell it, make money from it, base your campaign for governor/president/dog catcher on it. It's just a report.
And i bet you didn't read it. If you had, you would have all the facts, not just the ones your favorite media mouthpiece wants you to have. Mostly it's boring. But the parts that are not are graphic and sickening.
It's really a shame that 'news' sources are required to print this thing in its entirety. It's also a shame that people who consider themselves intelligent didn't do the obvious thing - google it and go find it like i did.
Now just imagine how many self appointed know-it-alls are out there shooting off their mouths with just fragments of information taken from one source. "Big thinkers" talking about 'what oughta be done' about immigration/gun control/poverty/jobs/exploring space/giving vaccines to kids, etc while none of them has read anything in depth on any of these subjects.
So the next time you open your mouth to preach - or stand up to applaud your favorite commentator - ask yourself this: how do i "know" what i "know?" and how does that commentator/source "know" what he/she/it "knows?"
No comments:
Post a Comment