Thursday, November 10, 2011

Meta-Penn State

I'm a fan of thinking about things. More than reacting, I love watching reactions. Looking at how others look at it. I love debating debates, discussing discussions.

Going meta-, if you will.

What's happened (and is still happening) in Penn State is engrossing. As a member of a culture and society, you can't not be interested in it. Wednesday night, ESPN had wall-to-wall, commercial-less coverage from 7:00pm PST until 9:45pm PST. You're crazy if you think I changed the channel once.

Today, it's the fallout. Columns, articles, podcasts, TV opinions. Condemning the Board, Joe, students, the media, McQueary, "the institution," and Sandusky. Everyone's pointing fingers. Everyone's assigning blame.

That's not necessarily unjustified.

Who knows how many children were ruined. Someone should pay. Dearly. That's the mentality.

Not necessarily unjustified.

I don't want to read everything there is to read. I want to read rational thoughts. I want to know what people think, not feel. I want to go a layer beyond: I want to know what people think about what they think.

One of my favorite columns Thursday is called "Scampering around the word Rape." Why do we place a veil around something that should be uncovered and dealt with?

My other is an independent review of ESPN's coverage of the scandal, starting nearly five days ago when news broke. Simply titled, "ESPN stumbles with Penn State coverage," it starts by directly saying ESPN was slow to grasp the full implications of the criminal indictments.

Wednesday, watching the action was fascinating, mesmerizing.
Today, that's how I feel about watching the counteraction.

No comments:

Post a Comment