Penn State Scandal: How the Internet Has Influenced Public Perception

The Jerry Sandusky child rape scandal that's rocked Penn State and forced Joe Paterno into retirement has become a study in many things, not the least of which is how information is divulged, digested and discussed via the Internet.

In essence, the Internet, particularly the extensively socially-networked version that we use today, brings facts and rumors alike to the fore quicker than ever and puts everyone, from casual observers to insiders to pundits, squarely in the firing line of public perception.

With the advent of social media like Facebook and Twitter, people now have the freedom to react to news and information as quickly as they find it, for better or worse. On the one hand, there are those like Michael Weinreb, Jane Leavy, Kelly Scaletta and Thomas L. Day who provide pertinent, poignant and intensely personal commentary on a scandal that brings to the fore one of the most stomach-turning scourges that still lingers within our troubled society. Their thoughtful work has added meaningful commentary to a rather difficult and unseemly conversation.

Then, there are those like (admittedly) myself and Ashton Kutcher, who have reacted too quickly to the story in one way or another before the facts came out or, rather, before we found those facts or processed them more thoroughly.

Ultimately, though, the Internet has allowed us, as a nation, to ask important questions and at least attempt to come up with satisfactory answers (even if there are none to be had) in relation to Sandusky's raping of children. It has engaged everyone—not just the university administrators, the students and the residents of the small-town slice of Americana that is Happy Valley—to think about how our institutions operate, what we as a society value, how and why we idolize people and how to reconcile the bleeding of faint dividing lines between entertainment and meaningful reality.

These are not conversations that could or would have happened without the Internet. In fact, forget about communicating with one another—if not for the democratization of media entities, of people on the ground willing and able to report, we still might not know about any of this. The university itself may well have been unjustly afforded the privilege of keeping the entire scandal under wraps, for a while longer at least. In this case, then, the Internet has helped to hold the people in charge accountable for their actions while bringing outrage from sea to shining sea right to their doorstep.

The real point to consider, then, is not whether the Internet itself molds public perception, but rather how it serves and has served as an ever-quickening conduit of information and opinion. Of course, the fact that there is so much out there to read, listen to and see about the Sandusky scandal, along with any other big news item of the day, and that there isn't always a clear distinction between fact and opinion can and does make it more difficult for the average person to understand what is transpiring.

Most important of all, though, the blogosphere, the Twittersphere and everything in between have given each and every one of us the knowledge and the power to consider the horror of Jerry Sandusky's transgressions and what they represent in our own lives. The Internet as a whole has served as a medium on which to propagate a national dialogue about the issues at hand rather than simply allowing the darkness of it all to fade into the recesses of our ever-shortening attention span.

Because what's important from this point on, at least at a national level, is that we never forget these abuses and that we, as a society, do everything in our power to support the victims and ensure that something like this never happens again.