Posnanski and the Paterno book

Feel free to refrain from reading and posting.

 

Yep... That's what SportsJournalists.com does best; wait until all the facts are out before weighing in. No supposition or jumping to conclusions here. Ever. Nope, never happens.

Given Pos' subject and DD's staunch defense of the man (Pos), compared to his eager willingness to shit all over anyone who gave Paterno the benefit to the doubt (prior to evidence actually coming out that vilified him) am I the only one who sees the hypocrisy irony here?

Why does the discussion of Pos' book - and that's all this is - have to wait until it's published? Why does he get special consideration over Cam Newton's HOF debate, Michael Vick's career or Lynn Hoppes future? Or any other fucking thing we discuss here?

He doesn't. This place is a mix of journos, writers and others. Boom, who admits he's not a writer, is free to offer his opinion on journo threads and it's taken and discussed.
DD's post came off exactly like one of those asshole athlete you-never-played-the-game rants. And it doesn't fly with me.

Pos' is a tremendous writer - far superior than I could ever hope to be, along with about a half-million other writers - but there is very little supporting evidence (Murray Chase, Damn It!!!!) he's capable of writing about Paterno in a warts-and-all way. At least in a way that's not showing the warts through rose-colored glasses.
Of course, I think Pos' task of being tough on JoePa got easier because he died.

I don't know Pos. I have never written a book, but if it's OK with you guys I'll offer my two cents on the subject anyhow and then we can see who's wrong and who's right and buy each other CGI-generated beers and bust each others' chops in the SportsJournalists.com spirit of camaraderie, fellowship and I-Told-You-So-Cockersucker!-isms that we have all grown to love!

 

Difference is you had to be naive as hell or blinded by Penn State loyalty to believe that Paterno was not involved in some sort of cover up.

 

Why would I "wait to read" a favorable portrait of a man I am now fully convinced was a piece of trash?
What is the point of that exercise?
What is the point of this book?

 

People are free to write/post whatever they like. You miss my point. I'm asking you to consider for a moment what the fuck you would do if you were in the same situation. I'm arguing a point of view, which is that it's easy to act like you have all answers, and Posnanski doesn't live up to you standards. For flip's sake, the last thing I'd like is for this thread to get locked up, unlike some people who are always begging to lock up the PSU threads when they're posting an unpopular opinion.

Whatever you think about this, it's an interesting debate. If you shit on Poz and act like you have all the answers, you're probably going to hear from someone like me who believes Poz is one of the best we have in this business. That's my point of view. I'm confident I can argue it well. If you can argue otherwise, you are welcome to do so. That's the spirit of SportsJournalists.com. It's a lot more noble than getting all butthurt over me lighting you you up for making an allusion to Jason Fucking Blair in a thread about Joe Posnanski.

 

Because you DON'T KNOW it is going to be a favorable portrait of Paterno! Jesus. Everyone is making these assumptions. Read the book or don't. But wait until it comes out to rip the guy for kissing Paterno's ass.

 

When has Posnanski made something other than gooey candy?
When has Posnanski ever gone to a dark place in his work?
These are honest questions.

 

Don't know his full body of work as I said before, but he is an excellent writer and journalist, and I'm pretty sure he knows full well that a glowing book on Paterno would not be too big of a hit right now. This thread is depressing.

 

If DD vouches for JoPo, who vouched for JoPa, who vouched for Sandusky, it seems clear the "humane" thing to do here is reserve judgement because we don't want to "scapegoat" any innocent parties.

 

If no one should criticize the book before reading it, that's fine. But by the same token, there shouldn't be any advance praise for it until reading it, too.

Fair is fair.

 

Since we haven't heard anything from Posnanski since the facts were known, I will reserve judgment, yes. Maybe he's hard at work making this the book it should be. But why wait to jump his shit? Why is it that many of our best writers are torn to shreds on this site for so-called journalists?

And BWIP, who is praising the book here? Names, please.

 

So journalists should never say anything that's not glowing about another journalist? Yep, that's what I want from this profession: groupthink.