Bob Costas' Sandusky Interview: Awkward Responses Dig Jerry Sandusky Deeper Hole
Jerry Sandusky should have remained in silence. His interview with Bob Costas was littered with awkward, seemingly disingenuous responses that only added to his tarnished image.
Sandusky said, "In retrospect, I shouldn't have showered with those kids."
Riveting stuff. At the moment he didn't see anything wrong with it? This is a revelation of sorts he had after the fact?
Let's say (for all intents and purposes) that he's not a pedophile and that all the victims are exaggerating and the witnesses are lying. The situation didn't strike him as odd at the time?
Him admitting that he showered with the victims provides no consolation to those affected. Essentially, he's denying guilt and playing it off as some sort of innocent action that in retrospect was unintentionally crossing boundaries.
That's not the part of the interview that was so mind blowing though.
This portion of the interview begins at 7:15 in the video in this article. Upon being asked "Are you sexually attracted to young boys?", Sandusky said, "Am I sexually attracted to under-aged boys? Sexually attracted? You know, I enjoy young people. I...I love to be around them. I...but no, I'm not sexually attracted to young boys."
Did Jerry Sandusky help or hurt himself with this interview?
This response is baffling. Why dance around the question. All he had to say was "I'm not sexually attracted to young boys."
Upon being asked that question, it's hard to imagine most people answering in the wishy washy manner that he did.
Sandusky spoke out and ultimately did more harm than good in doing so. It's safe to say most people listened to this interview with the impression that Sandusky was guilty. The fact that he didn't seem outraged by the allegations and that he wasn't convincing in his stance made this interview counterproductive.
The awkward interview fanned the flame and inevitably dug him a deeper hole.
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?