Erin Andrews and the Cubs locker room: Discuss

Why?

And to whom?

 

What if Reilly wrote that? For sake's argument, don't say "He never would." Let's say he did. He's generally beloved. Would a word like "creepy" be thrown out here, or would it be, "Oh, that silly Reilly's riffing again"?

Edit: Sportschick, for gits and shiggles, let's just say you took Mike's column at face-value and what he wrote was 100 percent correct in that she fondled or grabbed or whatever the guy's biceps. Is she in the wrong or are women allowed to do that because men's big muscles so sexy?

 

Xan, I'm not going to take his column at face value, not even for gits and shiggles.

And if Reilly wrote that, I'd find it creepy. Course it's a moot point, cause Reilly would NEVER write something like that.

 

He came on here and stated unequivocally that he wasn't "staring." Have you ever been in a major league clubhouse? You observe what's going on. It's part of being a reporter.

This isn't to say that I agreed with the column or thought it should have been written. Personally, college writers see Erin in action all the time and never think twice about here. She's part of the scenery. I think baseball is a little bit more of an old boys' club, the access is more open as well, so Mike is there to record 25 arrested adolescents' reactions, and I can see where her presence would create more of a stir.

That being said, you are making some incredible leaps here from the content of this column to assumptions about Mike's actions and his character.

 

The touch was 'suggestive.' I've been wondering what Mr. Nadel thought the touch was suggesting.

Was it 'you, me, showers, later?'

Was it 'hey, big strong man, show me yours and I'll you mine?'

Was it 'so sorry to hear your dog died, my condolences.'

Unless he'd heard the conversation, we can't really be sure what the touch was suggesting.

Somebody get Erin Andrews on the damn phone and ask her. Although I did read ESPN's statement that they would not lower themselves to respond in detail to the column ...

 

I like this point. Simply said. Speaks volumes.

 

I just think you're giving Erin too much of the benefit of the doubt because of the gender thing. You might think I'm giving Mike the benefit of the doubt cause of the gender thing.

It's a great argument, though.

She touched his sexy man arm in front of men galore. She didn't think it would cause a stir?

 

Not saying you're wrong, but it's hard to imagine seeing Ms. Andrews at an event and not taking notice. At the LL World Series, she seemed to have a force field around her. [/okcreepy]

 

Funny ... I was accredited for the NHL All-star Game in 1998 in Vancouver. I wore a skirt and a blouse to the game. The hem ended just above the knee.

Mine was not the shortest skirt among the female reporters that day. Not by a country friggin' mile.

 

I'm not sure I've ever read a thread on this site that has provided so many good points on both sides of the argument.

 

I think Erin's made a lot of mistakes in her career, including dating at least one player on a team she covered.

I've said as much before.

You seem to be obessed with sexy man arms and them getting touched.

 

The column read to me like, "Columnist observes ESPN reporter being friendly with Cubs players. And the players buzzed about it, because yeah, she looked pretty."

I guess for me, if a reporter is treating players liike they are his or her "friends" in the clubhouse (and yes, the "reporter and player share a joke, then a playful shove" anecdote fits this), that's creepier than seeing it and writing about it. Journalists observe and record the scene, no matter how displeasing decriptions of that scene might be to some readers.

That said, there is better fodder for a column about a series like this one than "ESPN reporter gets friendly with players, who express their enjoyment because she's cute."