Erin Andrews and the Cubs locker room: Discuss

Buck, I didn't say it was OK for the same gender. I meant it was worse for the opposite gender because a touch can be misinterpreted.

 

OK, if you're using overboard comparisons like Erin Andrews is "10x" more of a professional than the columnist, there's a good chance you may not be one of those hard-working writers.

That is the kind of over-the-top, throwaway line that cheapens a debate like this. You've got no basis to say it unless you are familiar with the bodies of work for both.

 

And yet if that was a male reporter doing the touching, zero chance a columnist would have written about it. It's a double standard and it's bullshit. The point of locker room access isn't so you can gawk at another media members, it's so you can have access to the players and coaches.

As a man I wouldn't have first-hand knowledge of this, but being a female reporter must be difficult enough without worrying about having every movement you make watched. That's Creepy Old Man Syndrome.

 

You're right, I apologize. That doesn't make it any less bush league not to get her side before publicly calling her out.

 

I don't disagree, and stated as much earlier. My only point was the one I made.

 

As a general rule, yes, don't get too familiar. But certain types of casual contact are fine. If it happened the way Andrews says it did, with her touching Soriano's hand and asking which bone he broke, I see no problem with that. The question, though, is what really happened. Either Andrews is lying (and I would consider that to include telling less than the complete truth), or Nadel is flat wrong.

 

Sorry, but that's bullshit.
For starters, "celebrity" journalists also reap what they sow. Think Peter King or Berman aren't under a microscope on assignment? (Please, concede I'm not talking about sexuality). Think Stuart Scott shouldn't catch shit for being close to athletes? ("Fuck 'em dawg" ring a bell?)
They don't discourage the attention when they work a room, but can't hide when it isn't a positive picture.
As for Andrews, she flaunts her sexuality. Period. She makes no bones about being an attractive woman on TV and has no problems with touching athletes -- or more unprofessional acts (Pat White, courtesy phone please). So when she's called on it, she shouldn't be surprised.

 

C'mon, don't go all Guy Incognito and pull the obtuse card. Anyone with common sense knows hand shakes are kosher. It's a socially-accepted, mutual initiation of contact, the key word being "mutual".

And Buck is right, I'm not sure what there was to be gained journalistically by feeling for his injured bone. What insight could she possibly glean from that?

On the other hand, Andrews doesn't deserve a scarlet letter either. But if I were her SE, I'd tell her to put the kibosh on the touching, get what info she was trying to get from a trainer or something. There's no need to put herself or her employer in what could be a bad position, even if it's just perception over reality. And her gender has nothing to do with it, I wouldn't want my male reporters doing it either.

At some point, you have to measure whether the good outweighs the bad in every situation you have as a reporter or editor, and I don't see a lot of good that came from this. This 17-page-and-growing thread is just one example of that.

 

I disagree. Female journalists have enough to deal with than to have the responsibility of "misinterpretation" placed on them, too. If someone misinterprets a gesture* that wouldn't get a second look if a man did it, well, that's their problem. The onus is not on a woman to change her normal, friendly behavior out of fear that a (heterosexual) man will misinterpret -- no way.

* And I mean simple, innocuous, casual stuff like the back-patting, handshakes, etc., that Susan Slusser, IJAG and others have mentioned on this thread. Because those often get "misinterpreted," too, even though we all do it. Sometimes it's smarter just to let the source be friendly with you than to make him/her feel awkward and ruin the interview. ... So, no, it's not "worse" -- if it's inappropriate for one, it's inappropriate for all. And vice versa.

 

OK, now I'm confused. And I'm strong enough to admit that.

buckweaver, could you clarify your last post? A woman shouldn't change her normal behavior, but it's inappropriate for anyone to touch anyone else? I realize I'm oversimplifying it, but could you clarify?

 

How's this: Double standards are OK.

 

I'm pretty sure his last line in his post tells me that's not his point, slappy.