Erin Andrews violated

[Oz]

Erin Andrews getting rich off her looks is opportunistic. ESPN getting rich off her looks is opportunistic and exploitative. Deadspin getting rich off her looks is opportunistic, exploitative and sophomoric.

Videotaping her in her hotel room against her will is rape.

Why we keep drawing the line between ESPN and Deadspin and not Deadspin and rape is beyond me.

Because on ESPN, she always acts and dresses professionally -- turtlenecks, not showing cleavage, business slacks and the like. There might be a time or two when what she wears is an issue (the summer dress at a Brewers or Cubs game comes to mind), but overall, she's covered up. Not that it stops fans from zooming in on to take pictures or her chest and ass, which are sent in to Deadspin and posted ASAP.

 

[This is my username]

Thank you for changing that. I'm still not sure if sexual assault is exactly the right wording, either, though I understand the point you are trying to make.

To elaborate, I had rape originally then changed it to sexual assault (which I stand by). Rape is a powerful word -- too powerful (and inaccurate) for the point.

 

[Peytons place]

I don't know that actual rape victims would call what happened to Andrews rape, but it certainly was a violation of her privacy and, perhaps, sexual assault on some level.

But the bigger factor is that is seems, as far as the culprit was concerned, that he was violating some woman and didn't know it was Andrews, which is the real issue. It's not just men's obsession with Andrews that allowed this to happen, it's the fact that men apparently want to look at innocent women being violated this way, and that's where the problem lies.

The fact that it was Andrews is really just a side note, except that the public apparently cares more about it happening to her than some random woman.

Off the subject, I still can't believe some people are still being so intellectually dishonest to imply that Andrews is just some talented sportscaster who happens to be attractive, and that she'd still have that gig if she looked like Rosie O'Donnell. Of course it's worth it to her, and she's not the first woman to benefit in her career because of her looks, but they play a role, and I'm sure she knows it.

 

[This is my username]

I don't know that actual rape victims would call what happened to Andrews rape ...

That's exactly why I backed off it.

 

[Peytons place]

Gotcha, I made my previous post before I saw your change.

 

[21]

Off the subject, I still can't believe some people are still being so intellectually dishonest to imply that Andrews is just some talented sportscaster who happens to be attractive, and that she'd still have that gig if she looked like Rosie O'Donnell. Of course it's worth it to her, and she's not the first woman to benefit in her career because of her looks, but they play a role, and I'm sure she knows it.

Is anyone actually arguing this? She's an attractive woman, she has a job held largely by attractive people, male and female. So what?

One thing I know for sure about women in the sports business: When you're hired because you're attractive or hot or even merely cute, you will work your great ass off to prove you deserve the job, or you will not be in the job very long. Hot isn't enough. Eventually, it just makes you a joke.

Not sure where that figures into this, just wanted to say it.

 

[Alma]

21 is the voice of reason and fairness here. Anybody defending Deadspin is just trying to be difficult or quibble over semantics.

This isn't a <i>legal</i> discussion over Deadspin's culpability. I'll let lawyers debate that. Rather, this is a moral discussion. Yes, moral. And Deadspin, and its ilk, are <i>morally</i> culpable. I don't sense Deadspin appreciates a moral attack, but, frankly, they, and their ilk, can eat shirt. They deserve it, they know it, and even if they won't admit it, they know it.

This is a site that does boffo traffic anytime it mentions Erin Andrews, so it often mentions Erin Andrews, and now it's faced with "gee, we didn't mean for <i>that</i> to happen."

Of course they didn't mean for it to happen. They meant (and hoped for) the status quo for another 5 years or so, until Andrews moved into "cougar" territory. They wanted mild, "approved" exploitation.

But this is what happens, shirt for brains, in the modern age. You don't just get to be on "other side" because of a legal line you think you didn't cross.

Now, you can bet you'll never anything like it again on Deadspin - or anywhere else.

I at least hope there is a conversation in the media about this. Erin has been treated poorly, rhetorically and actually, by so many men (and a few women) I suppose. I'm not sure ESPN has always presented her in the best light, either. As awful as this is, and as much and you'd never want to see it, hopefully people do step and at least reflect on their behavior and treatment of pretty, public women.

As for Andrews...I'd ask her if it were really worth it, covering two-bit college football games and midseason baseball for all this shirt. There are other jobs in the broadcasting industry that she could do...and not have to deal with nonsense.

The problem is that everyone assumes that the filming was done because it was Erin Andrews. Yet the original video was posted on a site that routinely does these kind of peephole shows and it seems the evidence is just as strong that it could happened to any female who checked into this hotel/room. So this might have absolutely nothing to do with "pretty, public women" and everything to do with a discussion of how the internet allows you to go from fantasizing about your fetish to seeing it acted out and how that encourages going farther down the continuum. And that is a topic that doesn't seem to involve Deadspin.

Oh gawd...

21 is the voice of reason and fairness here. Anybody defending Deadspin is just trying to be difficult or quibble over semantics.

This isn't a <i>legal</i> discussion over Deadspin's culpability. I'll let lawyers debate that. Rather, this is a moral discussion. Yes, moral. And Deadspin, and its ilk, are <i>morally</i> culpable. I don't sense Deadspin appreciates a moral attack, but, frankly, they, and their ilk, can eat shirt. They deserve it, they know it, and even if they won't admit it, they know it.

This is a site that does boffo traffic anytime it mentions Erin Andrews, so it often mentions Erin Andrews, and now it's faced with "gee, we didn't mean for <i>that</i> to happen."

Of course they didn't mean for it to happen. They meant (and hoped for) the status quo for another 5 years or so, until Andrews moved into "cougar" territory. They wanted mild, "approved" exploitation.

But this is what happens, shirt for brains, in the modern age. You don't just get to be on "other side" because of a legal line you think you didn't cross.

Now, you can bet you'll never anything like it again on Deadspin - or anywhere else.

I at least hope there is a conversation in the media about this. Erin has been treated poorly, rhetorically and actually, by so many men (and a few women) I suppose. I'm not sure ESPN has always presented her in the best light, either. As awful as this is, and as much and you'd never want to see it, hopefully people do step and at least reflect on their behavior and treatment of pretty, public women.

As for Andrews...I'd ask her if it were really worth it, covering two-bit college football games and midseason baseball for all this shirt. There are other jobs in the broadcasting industry that she could do...and not have to deal with nonsense.

If your point is that people defending Deadspin are "quibble[ing] over semantics," the people holding Deadspin responsible are doing so emotionally and not rationally.

So? I didn't know hypocrisy had suddenly become a morally and emotionally neutral discussion.

Even if we presume Erin Andrews was a random target - and I don't - does anyone here actually think Deadspin would be so brazen as to go back to running exploitative shots of Andrews?

So of course the issue are places on the Web like Deadspin plastering this woman's body all over its site for profit. Even if Andrews is just a random victim, and the real issue here is generalized victimization, it doesn't change this reality: It is <i>wrong</i> to do what Deadspin did for five years. It is <i>not</i> right. And a moment like this underlines that reality in neon. And the right thing for Deadspin to do today is say, simply "We're not going to do it any more" and slink away.

I await your, uh, rationalization. I'm sure it'll be positively Socratic.

 

[Inky_Wretch]

Am I the only one shocked at how this whole thing has gotten little to no coverage (aside from blogs)?

 

[Alma]

Off the subject, I still can't believe some people are still being so intellectually dishonest to imply that Andrews is just some talented sportscaster who happens to be attractive, and that she'd still have that gig if she looked like Rosie O'Donnell. Of course it's worth it to her, and she's not the first woman to benefit in her career because of her looks, but they play a role, and I'm sure she knows it.

Is anyone actually arguing this? She's an attractive woman, she has a job held largely by attractive people, male and female. So what?

One thing I know for sure about women in the sports business: When you're hired because you're attractive or hot or even merely cute, you will work your great ass off to prove you deserve the job, or you will not be in the job very long. Hot isn't enough. Eventually, it just makes you a joke.

Yep. Mid-and-small market local TV is full of folks hired...then quietly not renewed a year later.

 

[Peytons place]

Off the subject, I still can't believe some people are still being so intellectually dishonest to imply that Andrews is just some talented sportscaster who happens to be attractive, and that she'd still have that gig if she looked like Rosie O'Donnell. Of course it's worth it to her, and she's not the first woman to benefit in her career because of her looks, but they play a role, and I'm sure she knows it.

Is anyone actually arguing this? She's an attractive woman, she has a job held largely by attractive people, male and female. So what?

One thing I know for sure about women in the sports business: When you're hired because you're attractive or hot or even merely cute, you will work your great ass off to prove you deserve the job, or you will not be in the job very long. Hot isn't enough. Eventually, it just makes you a joke.

Yep. Mid-and-small market local TV is full of folks hired...then quietly not renewed a year later.

Yeah, but Andrews is a very popular sportscaster, and not because she's the best. The offense that happened to her shouldn't happen to anyone, regardless of who they are, but it does, which is the bigger issue I think.

Andrews is someone who, even though I'm sure she works hard like most people who have jobs they've been at for awhile, did benefit from her looks and the fact that fans and Web sites paid attention to her because of it. (Unless you think her popularity is solely based on her talent and ability and she'd be just as popular on radio and in print where no one knows what she looks like, in which case, I would question your rationality).

That said, I hope she does prosecute fully, and not just for herself, but for hundreds of victims who fall prey to this types of invasion all the time.

 

[dooley_womack1]

In other words, we only cover Erin Andrews when she looks sexy?

 

[TheSportsPredictor]

This whole episode has proven one thing -- women really do just hang around in the nude playing with their hair.