Erin Andrews and the Cubs locker room: Discuss

Again, grabbing? Do we know she grabbed him? No, we don't. We don't know anything other than she touched him "suggestively." And none of us except Nadel knows WTF that means.

It's quite possible that she did touch him in an inappropriate manner, but that doesn't make Nadel's column less creepy. Two wrongs don't make a right and such.

 

Well, if she has that sort of past history (taking your word for it), Nadel gets a lot more cred.

 

God, you're so dense. Have you ever even met Mike Nadel?? To come on here and continue to character assassinate the guy, even after he had the decency to come on here and explain himself ... you really are something else.

And, I'm sorry if that comes off as "starting a pissing match," but as far as I know, Mike is a good guy and a pro. And you keep calling him "creepy," and that is absolutely uncalled for. I don't even necessarily think the column was very good or fair. But you can't just stop there. You have to ratchet up the rhetoric and decide he's a creepy, dirty old man. Well, some of us think it's more than a little creepy when you brag about your "boy toys" and various conquests on these boards.

 

Especially with that Andrews bombshell sc dropped.

 

I didn't drop it, Mr. Cowbell, Luggie dropped it a few pages before me, and I'm not going to assume that Erin's behavior is the same today that it was 10 years ago. Mine certainly isn't.

Regardless, the column creeps me out. It's nice that Mr. Jennings wishes to defend his friend, but that doesn't change the way the column reads to me. I'm not one of those who changes course just because somebody shows up and posts under his/her own name.

 

I've met the guy like twice.

I just can't believe you'd make that big of a snap judgment on somebody. Because he wrote about her he's a creepy dirty old man who was "leering" at her? That is a Grand Canyon-sized leap. You can't view anything other than through your runaway-feminist lenses, and in this case, it is causing you to jump to wild, defamatory conclusions about someone you have never met and never read.

 

This is exactly the point I tried to make earlier in the thread. I would have had less of a problem with the column if Nadel had made some attempt to talk to Andrews. No, it's not always necessary to speak to the subject of a column, and if Nadel had been criticizing Andrews for being a bad interviewer, or for something silly or incorrect she had said on the air, that would have been one thing. But the nature of his criticism was so personal and so subjective that out of fairness, he should have given Andrews a chance to defend herself, if she chose to. And if you don't decide to make a column out of it until later on, when she's long gone and you can't reach her, then maybe you don't have a column. I have no reason to think Nadel is a bad guy, but this was not a good column.

 

ESPN executive Norby Williamson: "Erin is a tremendous reporter. She's a prepared and a hard-working journalist, who is well respected and asks excellent questions. We're proud to have her as an important part of our coverage team. Beyond that, we feel it's unnecessary to even respond to any of the specifics outlined."

 

Seriosuly, waylon, because SC said she found the column creepy doesn't mean she said Nadel is a creep.
And because you met him twice doesn't mean he's a great guy, either.

 

That's what I was trying to say.

Sorry, she just gets under my skin. I'll exit now.

 

Astute observation, your highness.