The folder on ANGEL includes all of Michael Weinreb’s Grantland articles about Penn State over the last three years (more about Weinreb at his website here). You only need to read the first four articles for class, but I have posted the rest in case anyone is curious to track his entire commentary on the Sandusky scandal.
After reading those four articles (two from just after the scandal broke in 2011, one from July 2012 when the NCAA announced the sanctions, and one from less than a month ago when the sanctions were lifted) write one full page that addresses at least one, but potentially several, of the questions below. This response is not asking you to agree or disagree with Weinreb about any of his arguments–do not let your own opinions distract you from paying careful attention to his writing.
How does Weinreb describe his relationship to State College and Penn State?
How does he establish his ethos when it comes to writing about these events?
Does/how does Weinreb acknowledge and/or reflect on any potential bias of his own?
Has/how has Weinreb’s attitude toward State College and Penn State changed over time? How do those changes register in his writing?
Journal #3 is due in class on 10/3, one full page minimum, typed (Times New Roman, 12 pt.), and printed. Your name and “Journal #3″ will suffice as a header.