All News & Blogs
Visit the Photo Place
I would bet my house that Dahlberg, like 99 percent of the media, did not read the full reports (either Freeh's or the Paternos') but rather read the summaries and based his conclusions on those. It's obvious from his first statement, "Go ahead and read all 238 pages if you're so inclined," that he had his mind made up and no evidence to the contrary will change that.
Dalhberg never mentions the facts in question, which would involve objective journalism and reading the full reports. That the police, DA's office, and the Department of Public Welfare all investigated the initial accusations and failed to find evidence of Sandusky's crimes mean nothing and is ignored.
He states on one hand that the Freeh report "wasn't perfect and took some liberties that would not hold up in court," but continues, "the bottom line of the Freeh report was accurate." How does one come to that conclusion? Many, if not most, of the media today have become lazy and do not feel the need to investigate a story. If the story is a sensational one that will get viewers or readers, that suffices.
Re: Dahlberg's statement that Paterno's statue "is not coming back": I'd like to put a wager on that, too.