Two
stories are strikingly similar but more than 30 years apart. Before Jerry
Sandusky and the Penn State scandal, there was Donald Fitzgerald. Fitzgerald
was a Red Sox clubhouse manager, who like Sandusky, was involved in a series of
child sexual assault cases that were ignored for years. Unlike Sandusky, even
when the assaults came to surface, Fitzgerald did not generate nearly as much
media coverage as the Penn State scandal has today.
Why?
While
the Boston Red Sox are most definitely a notable team, Donald Fitzgerald was
not. Because of this, even as the scandal broke it did not garnish much
attention. There was no one that rallied against the team’s inaction or even
against Fitzgerald. There was no one that really even knew the name.
The
two stories are the same, but the big key difference has become the media
coverage surrounding the scandals. This goes to show how big of an impact the
media can have on an exploding controversy.
Fitzgerald’s
story, in some cases, is worse than Sandusky’s. There were several victims,
some as young as the age of four. In this case, one of the victims even stepped
forward, informing Vince Orlando, the home clubhouse manager, of the abuse. The
result was that it was the boy, not Fitzgerald, who was fired. Two sources came
forward afterward, admitting that they’d seen Fitzgerald with boys in the
shower, and like with the Penn State scandal, it was reported to the team
instead of the police.
So
what is it exactly that makes this story any less newsworthy? Being that it was
a scandal in the 70s and was less heard of at the time, I would think the
scandal and news coverage would have been bigger. But as stated above, it was
pretty much non-existent. And because of that, so was the scandal.
Jerry
Sandusky was a house hold name because of his work alongside Penn State legend,
Joe Paterno. Donald Fitzgerald had the loyalty of his co-workers and the team’s
executives, but was nowhere near the “celebrity” status of Sandusky. And there
lies why the Penn State scandal became much more talked about.
The
media is looking for a story that will turn heads. As if child abuse is not bad
enough, the story becomes “juicer” when the abuse story involves a notable
figure. And even in the 70s, when these types of stories were almost unheard
of, Donald Fitzgerald just wasn’t notable enough.
The
media, in cases like these, have become a double-edged sword of sorts. For the
right scandal, the media can raise enough awareness and public interest to
ultimately cause officials, who have ignored the accusations in the past, to
finally take action. However, if the scandal is not big enough, the lack of
media interest can cause the abuse to continue much longer than it needs to.
Finally, Fitzgerald was fired for the accusations, but was 72 years old before
charges were even brought against him and ultimately never even served a jail
sentence. The repercussions could have been much more appropriate a lot sooner
had the media sought after the Fitzgerald story like they did with the Penn
State scandal.
All
in all, in the case of these two stories, the media can sometimes make or break
the justice that is served.
Source Links:
0 Responses to "Déjà Vu: A Story of History Repeating"
Post a Comment