Erin Andrews and the Cubs locker room: Discuss

Yes ... has she broken any new records?

 

Was this her first annual trip to the Cubs' clubhouse?

 

I heard it was her first-ever visit to the Cubs clubhouse.

 

that's not how judges instruct jurors to view history if past actions establish a tendency.

just sayin'.

 

Erin has responded, and she challenges Nadel's accuracy and fairness.

http://ww3.startribune.com/blogs/randball/2008/08/02/erin-andrews-my-overall-reaction-is-that-its-really-sad/

“I think my overall reaction is that it’s really sad that in 2008 … I have people watching every single move I make,” Andrews said. “When there’s a big game between the Cubs and Brewers going on, it’s sad that that’s what their focus is on. … And the last thing I had heard is that when you want to do a story on someone, you contact them.”

*On Ramirez, Andrews said she walked over to the players-only area where Ramirez was sitting because pitcher Ryan Dempster called her over to show her pictures of his son from the All-Star game. She said she was not aware his nickname was “Rammie” and said she did not call him that.

*On Soriano, Andrews said she touched his hand, not his bicep, and was trying to gauge where the bone was that he broke earlier this year.

 

oops.

 

Wow. I guess it would've been helpful to ask Erin for clarification on a few observations.

On not getting an interview with a subject for a column, there are different standards. If there's a coach and you are opining on a recent game, that's one thing. She's not a public figure in the same way, and needed to be given a chance to respond to Nadel's assumptions.

 

This is the money quote. The excuse that "I didn't decide to write about her until I got up to the pressbox" is a joke. Maybe if he bothered to ask her a few questions, the issues he raised would have been answered and there would be no need to write an inuendo-filled column.

It's basic Journalism 101, and his explanation on this thread prove it was a result of simple laziness, rather than any malicious intent.

Of course the irony in all of this is the column implies she's a "celebrity journalist" and not a real one, yet the subsequent interview proves she's 10x more of a professional than the columnist. Next time spend less time doing your best Jay Mariotti impression and write about something substantial.

Awesome that hard-working writers are getting laid off left and right and this guy gets a paycheck for writing about the attractive sideline reporter in the locker room.

 

One that has crossed my mind as I've scanned this thread is that when an attractive woman reporter is being friendly with an athlete she's covering, it sometimes is construed as flirting when in reality, it's nothing more than the same friendly banter we all do with athletes we cover and get to know.

I'm not say this has anything to do with what Andrews did or didn't do. It's just an observation.

 

<i>*On Soriano, Andrews said she touched his hand, not his bicep, and was trying to gauge where the bone was that he broke earlier this year."</i>


I didn't realize she was a doctor. The column certainly should have noted that.

 

Oh, for the love of God. :

 

Is an MD from an accredited university now a prerequisite for discerning the difference between the human arm and the human hand as well?