JOURNALISM OR EXPLOITATION?

It was professional - according to media standards.

But when does journalism end - and exploitation begin?

It's a line that more and more has become hazy.

My wife commented to me today," Why does it seem that the alleged acts of a former defensive coordinator now take second place to the faulty logic and apparently horrible decison making of Joe Paterno?"

Good journalism has been replaced with misleading sound bites and questionable interviews that make the reporting source, an overly invasive reporter, or a network often under fire, more marketable.

It has also been replaced by lousy judgment and a spin cycle response that says everything that is thought to be reportable is OK.

I seem to remember the same defense being offered by the owners of Confidential Magazine - way back in the 50's.

Time and time again we see the parent of a child questioned on camera as to his/her actions in raising their child - as though they have not yet sustained enough grief or soul searching.

Other times the child is a victim of a horrible act and the parents are questioned on camera as to how they feel about the loss of their child.

Today, at the end of the Penn State/Nebraska game, we saw "The Return of The Body Snatchers" acted out in high definition for an audience of millions.

I'm speaking about the ESPN journalist and his interviews, at the completion of the game. And, let nobody argue; his approach had the desired effect -to the extent that the interview later received repeated national exposure.

The questioning of Tom Bradley,the interim head coach of Penn State, was somewhat less invasive - as it should have been. Here's a guy who was going on limited sleep in the past four days due to all that has taken place - and had taken on a huge responsibility - temporarily replacing a legend.

Yet, despite that, including his new responsibilites and sudden media exposure, his reaction to the final outcome of the game - included referencing an incredible response by his first place Big Ten team during the second half, was not made a subject of interest.

Unfortunately, both the questioning and his response were merely a prelude to what was to follow.

The coaches' team had almost turned the game around after a first half that clearly reflected their response to the pressure placed upon them due to the well known publicised circumstances involving "Happy Valley."

You had to wonder as a viewer of the game what was the cause of the teams failure to execute in the first half, as they have done in a mixed fashion leading up to their success as exemplified by a 6 and 1 record? What was the cause - ineptitude - jitters - or just a great opponent from Nebraska?

But no, that apparently wasn't the subject you might have expected to have been explored in depth,and pursued by ESPN of any college coach as a logical attempt to accurately determine his assessment of what went right and what went wrong. It was even more incomprehensible as Penn State had fallen from the ranks of the unbeaten in their conference.

Folks, the coach's response to a loss does not make ratings when you have a much more accessible agenda for your questions - particularly those that are deemed to be ones that will ostensibly increase your ratings.

ESPN eschewed the normal after the game in depth questions - at least in a follow-up format - while tangibly framing all questions involving the game with a focus that instead was their repeated reference to the devastating accusations and revelations involving Penn State.

We were subjected to a performance by the reporter that more closely resembled those of Deputy Chief Brenda Johnson in the popular show "The Closer", particularly as she sucks in the suspects with apparently benign inquiries before going for the jugular vein.

Penn State's interim head coach responded well - with little "coach speak" other than his expressed admiration for the spirit of the team and their group effort in the second half.

But, what the coach didn't know was that he was only the opening act - a setup for the individual whom the network apparently determined was the main event.

ESPN decided that focus would be Jay Paterno - the deposed coaches son - who served in a much less responsible role for the outcome of this game - at least more insignicant than the replacement coach - although admittedly both were exploring new territory as coaches.

Again, no questions as to strategy were posed.

The ESPN interviewer was slick - recognizing that his approach in his opening question had to disguise his intent in the interview.

Had Brenda been watching - she would have been proud.

The ESPN "reporter" first tried to put his "interview" subject - who probably had not done more than a few interviews - if any - on national television - at ease. So far - so good- one might respond.

His lead-in to the obviously distraught former coaches son was to assure him that his initial question was the same that he had asked of the interim head coach.

Good move. Jay Paterno appeared to relax and his response seemed to echo that of his new boss.

And then came the follow-up questions during the highly seminally regarded TV ratings period.

The ESPN reporter made reference to having an advanced knowledge of a letter that the son had sent to his parents following the recent events.

I don't know about you - but I had no knowledge of this letter.

Again, Jay Paterno appeared to relax and a small smile came across his face - probably in anticipation there was recognition that he was a good kid who truly loved his parents.

When questioned further as to the content of the letter, young Paterno summarized the content by relating that the theme of his communication was to assure his Mom & Dad that he was proud of them.

Recognizing the nature of the sentimental response, the reporter opted not to close the interview - but to dig further - until Jay Paterno started to cry on national TV.

The son and coach then- mercifully for all of us watching - ended the interview by saying, "That's all" as he turned from the interviewer. He then - walked away, hunched over, his shoulders turned forward and inward- with tears continuing to stream down his recently snookered countenance.

The interviewer made no attempt to comfort him - nor conclude the interview when the tears were slowly commencing.

The witch hunt had ended.

Chief Brenda Johnsons adroit questioning is the crux of the success of the popular highly rated TV show. It is fictional. She is attempting to solve a crime.

My wife and I were left during and after the interview to try to determine what crime this poor guy had committed - other than being the cooperative son of a disgraced father.

My question: Is that journalism - or exploitation?