I agree with Ray in #35 and I'm still not sure what kind of research was needed that Pos is incapable of doing.

Serious, long-term biographical research on Paterno, that might shed some light in what ways the scandal fit into the patterns of his life. Barra pointed this out, but Barra was only working off a few things he knew and on Poz's thin bio work.

Some people, like the Salon guy, are basically ignoring the fact that the book is supposed to be a biography of Paterno, not a true-crime story of the Sandusky scandal. I am sure those books are coming, but that is not the book Posnanski was trying to write.

Posnanski, based on his track record, sensibilities, and output, is neither a biographer nor an investigative reporter. He is an observer, a recorder, an empathizer, a distiller--and, again, a guy who gets close to his subjects and tries to find the good in them. He stated very directly that one of the reasons he wanted to write about the 1975 Reds was to show this generation some good things about Pete Rose, and he openly supports Rose for the HOF.

Posnanski, based on his track record, sensibilities, and output, is neither a biographer nor an investigative reporter. He is an observer, a recorder, an empathizer, a distiller--and, again, a guy who gets close to his subjects and tries to find the good in them. He stated very directly that one of the reasons he wanted to write about the 1975 Reds was to show this generation some good things about Pete Rose, and he openly supports Rose for the HOF.

If I can quote a very wise computer, sometimes the only way to win is not to play.

Serious, long-term biographical research on Paterno, that might shed some light in what ways the scandal fit into the patterns of his life. Barra pointed this out, but Barra was only working off a few things he knew and on Poz's thin bio work.

Some people, like the Salon guy, are basically ignoring the fact that the book is supposed to be a biography of Paterno, not a true-crime story of the Sandusky scandal. I am sure those books are coming, but that is not the book Posnanski was trying to write.

Robinred, I fail to see how the actual book that Posnanski wrote, whatever it was, should not have covered as much of the Sandusky stuff as possible.

No "serious, long-term biographical research" - and what the hell was Posnanski doing by relaying 40 year old stories about all-you-can-eat salads, if not that? - was required to simply ask Paterno et al questions and record their answers. Posnanski showed virtually no interest in this; it's not that he was incapable as you continue to claim, but that he was disinterested.

The book he wrote WAS a defense of Paterno, despite his claim that he was merely compiling facts for the reader to decide.

If I can quote a very wise computer...

I sense injuries. The data could be called "pain."

I sense injuries. The data could be called "pain."

Learn, damn you. LEARN!

Salon review by a law professor bludgeons Posnanski with the Freeh report.

Paul Campos isn't just "a law professor". For years, I've strongly suspected he's a BBTF lurker, and possibly an active poster.

Paul Campos isn't just "a law professor". For years, I've strongly suspected he's a BBTF lurker, and possibly an active poster.

Care to explain why you've felt this way?

Accusing Posnanski of straight making up quotes and conversations, which has happened on this thread, is utterly beyond the pale without some evidence to back it up beyond, "We know without a shadow of a doubt based on his performance that Poz is a bad guy, and therefore it's OK to accuse him of making up quotes."

If Posnanski's work here is as loathsome as many seem to think it is, it should be easy to dismantle without unsupportedly accusing Posnanski of the greatest journalistic crime imaginable.

If Posnanski's work here is as loathsome as many seem to think it is, it should be easy to dismantle without unsupportedly accusing Posnanski of the greatest journalistic crime imaginable.

you've never been in the politics thread, have you?

Robinred, I fail to see how the actual book that Posnanski wrote, whatever it was, should not have covered as much of the Sandusky stuff as possible.

Exactly. That is one of Poz's problems. As Barra IIRC said, a huge number of people will turn the chapter titled "Sandusky" first. Nobody other than Black Shoe Diaries hardcores gives a damn about the '69 Orange Bowl or JoePa as a tyke in Brooklyn right now; people want to know What Paterno Knew and When He Knew it. Publishing Paterno right now is sort of like publishing a sympathetic bio of Richard Nixon in February of 1975,* and to the extent that people do care about Paterno's life, it would be in relation to his inaction WRT Sandusky.

And the food story...that is anecdotal. Anecdotes play a role in biography, but there is a lot more to biographical research than that. And, one could argue that deeper research would have lead Poz towards something being off with Sandusky even before the whistle blew (I am not arguing that, but one could IMO).

As to Poz being "incapable" of asking the tough questions, I have given my opinions about this already. Poz is a family friend and is by all accounts a very nice, mostly low-key guy; he was sitting at the man's table in his house while the man was dying. I expect that what we read is as tough as Poz wanted to get with Paterno, and Poz's purpose by his own account was neither to grill Paterno nor to judge him. So "incapable" is not exactly the right word. I would go with "ill-suited" for the task that he suddenly found at his hand.

* And just in case, yes, I get that what Nixon's guys did is nothing like serial child molestation. Hence the "sort of."

Accusing Posnanski of straight making up quotes and conversations, which has happened on this thread, is utterly beyond the pale without some evidence to back it up beyond,

Wouldn't shock me. Posnanski already wrote lies about what Paterno knew back in November, which I've heard you're kind of not supposed to be doing as a journalist either.

If Posnanski's work here is as loathsome as many seem to think it is, it should be easy to dismantle

Uh, it has been.

Care to explain why you've felt this way?

He's written in the past on sabermetrics, and there have been times in the past where I've seen ideas discussed in BBTF curiously pop up in Campos's stuff. He's also famously active in online discussion. He's very much a contrarian ####, I mean that as praise. He fits right in to the BBTF zeitgeist.

I will add re Posnanski that his approach to writing this book has been disgraceful -- he told lies initially and then went underground for months, and appears to have vomited out exactly the disgraceful product that was feared of him -- and if that kind of conduct doesn't basically forfeit one's right to be given the benefit of the doubt as to journalistic ethics, then something is very wrong.

He relinquished his claim to ethical high ground as a journalist with this work product. If he hasn't - if someone can carry on in such a disgusting fashion for the better part of a year as he has and spit out this book and suffer no consequences - then I don't know what we're all doing.

He relinquished his claim to ethical high ground as a journalist with this work product. If he hasn't - if someone can carry on in such a disgusting fashion for the better part of a year as he has and spit out this book and suffer no consequences - then I don't know what we're all doing.

killing time on the internet instead of doing work?

...and suffer no consequences - then I don't know what we're all doing.

What consequences are you looking for?

And before you get me involved in a debate, I agree Poz screwed the pooch, and very badly, on this one. I just found that turn of phrase you used to be very interesting. Are these the consequences, the lost of respect of former fans (not that you were that), the loss of reputation? Or were you looking for something more punative?

What consequences are you looking for?

I thought I made that clear. "[F]orfeit one's right to be given the benefit of the doubt as to journalistic ethics."

That is, after all, what CFBF complained about in post 58. He seemed aghast that people could possibly accuse Posnanski of lying - despite the fact that Posnanski already lied in November.

Ah, ok, gotcha. Not unreasonable, to me. Might not be reasonable, either, but that's a debate I'm not really interested in, either.

He seemed aghast that people could possibly accuse Posnanski of lying - despite the fact that Posnanski already lied in November.

You believe he lied. As others have pointed out in other threads, there are explanations for his initial statements that, while not flattering, do not conclude that he lied.

You believe he lied. As others have pointed out in other threads, there are explanations for his initial statements that, while not flattering, do not conclude that he lied.

Fair enough.

He's very much a contrarian ####, I mean that as praise. He fits right in to the BBTF zeitgeist.


Oh, so it's Harvey. :)

(scribbles in notebook, 'ed insolent 8/24/12, 10 demerits')

If Posnanski ... is as loathsome as many seem to think ...

Did he go to Johnny Pesky's funeral?

He's written in the past on sabermetrics, and there have been times in the past where I've seen ideas discussed in BBTF curiously pop up in Campos's stuff. He's also famously active in online discussion. He's very much a contrarian ####, I mean that as praise. He fits right in to the BBTF zeitgeist.

Also, he tends to sprinkle his writings with phrases like "& Mike Crudale" & "he should have his children taken away."

He's a law professor. Of course he hangs out at BBTF.