The Lions' Pride

He needs to get Cory Giger on as a guest. But it's unbelievable that he can get anyone to come on his show.

Giger reads these message boards. He knows better.

These guys have no idea they are not going to get away with generic statements of blame without any actual facts. Wetzel assumed he would be seen as the expert and was not ready to be criticized.

I'm using Firefox and can't get it to play, so does it work for others or should I try another browser?

I got addicted listening to the replay of him ripping apart the woman running for Lt. Gov in Illinois. He made her stutter and ramble. He has done nothing less with Vinnie from the Fan in Pittsburgh and with Ralph Cidrich. He made Wetzel look foolish as well. He is well prepared and if you go on his show you had better be as well.
It is refreshing to listen to a member of the media that does the research and can formulate an opinion of his own. Aside from the team and BOB he is our greatest mouthpiece.

Those guys are starting to realize that their saber rattling almost got PSU the death penalty for 4 years.

Giger doesn't get paid to cover the Curve. Covering PSU hoops is Dave Jones side job. Giger and co almost trolled themselves out of a job and they know it now.

I really like Dave Jones actually. He is really good IMO. I shouldn't have lumped him Jon with Giger.

Musselman and Giger are small people with small minds and small predictable opinions.

Cindrich does make some good points in that interview, to be fair.

I really appreciate Slaten taking up the figurative cross and arguing Joe's case, but he is definitely a shock jock. During the first part of the interview he sat back, didn't say much, and waited for Cindrich to misquote the Freeh Report and bring up his personal history with Joe.

Cindrich definitely has some bad blood between him and Joe, but Joe was the driving force behind joining the Big Ten, and he definitely had more power over the administration than the typical coach, possibly more than anybody in the country. And he also had a good point about being potentially recognized as an expert in a court of law, because a judge would actually consider his opinion more than Slaten did.

One more nit pick, is that Nixon technically wasn't impeached. He resigned before they could impeach him. For somebody who destroys his opponents for not being on point with their factual evidence, he shouldn't make factually incorrect statements.

He seems to have some sort of inferiority complex, which maybe stems from him having an evening talk show but still calls himself a lawyer? I'm making that statement without any research into his name or business practices, but he seems to be on the air too much to run a successful law practice. Could be wrong.

That being said, it is kind of fun to watch him rip people to shreds though. The stuttering of most of these dimwits is pretty funny.

Wait wait wait, you think SLATEN is the unethical party here!?
Whoa! If they're unprepared, that's their problem. Everyone on his show has either spent hours spreading their views on the radio, or in numerous columns for months.
By now, if they're not prepared, then they deserve to be torn to shreds for their ignorance.

? The state legislator wrote an editorial condemning PSU/Paterno/et. al then admits on air that she only read the breif? So she gets a pass for flaming PSU without reading the report but the guy who calls her out is unethical? You have some twisted logic, just wow.

Just because one party is unethical doesn't mean the other isn't.

Also, didn't Slaten also misquote the Freeh Report? I thought the e-mail said "after speaking to Joe," and he said "almost as if there were two scenarios and both were being considered." I found/find it strange a guy who's a stickler for facts is lax on himself with quotations.

You should take a step back and read what I posted.

I wasn't saying the politician was correct, nor any other guest listed. I said one made a good point, because he was the only one who actually made decent points of the guests I've heard so far.

I'm not saying the writers aren't unethical, I was asking if people thought it was unethical to invite people on to a show with the intention of humiliating them without prior notification as to what he will talk about?

I agree that they should, and I'm not saying that they do or that they were right.

To ask questions about a problem-filled investigative report without letting the opposing party know is a bit unethical IMO. I think he waits for them to slip up in facts, then raises his voice and shouts them down when trying to explain themselves. He didn't even fully listen to the last Pitt guy, he thought he played for Joe and Joe yanked a RS. Not even close to the situation he describe. I think he asks leading questions, and once the guest slips he hits them with some corrections and asks if they've read the Freeh Report or where they got their opinions. Fair questions, but something that typically takes a longer explanation and some specifics that are difficult to bring up when not notified to review your stuff before.

And for people taking opinion pieces as the cold-hard truth, that's the fault of the audience. You can't blame a writer of opinion articles for people taking his opinions as gospel, that's the fault of a stupid reader. They must have missed the four or five spaces on the article that lead a logical person to see its an OPINION.

EDIT: about people knowing about his show, that's also unfair. They do these kinds of interviews all the time, these shows are a dime a dozen typically. What Slaten is doing is refreshing to a point, but he's not exactly attacking an opponent who knows what he/she is in for. It's their duty to research, but to expect them to know a shows reputation when they're not from the area, and seemingly never have lived there, is unrealistic.