The Erin Andrews saga has reached a new level. Hidden camera video of the ESPN sideline reporter nude has surfaced on the Internet.
Andrews is understandably pursuing legal action. In a statement, her attorney noted that she “was the victim of a crime and is taking action to protect herself and help ensure that others are not [similarly] violated in the future.” ESPN has also pursued legal action against websites that posted the videos.
Some in the blogosphere have reacted with scorn. The Big Lead notes that “the Erin Andrews fanaticism just veered from fawning and sad to downright disturbing.” Erin Andrews Tracker calls it a “a very twisted end to EA?s big week in the spotlight.” Fang’s Bites says that the “person who took these videos definitely went over the line in a big way.”
All of which is true. But for some reason, the reaction rings slightly hollow. For several years, Andrews has been the object of leering from mainstream writers and bloggers alike. She may be one of the most prominent sports broadcasters working today — and that has nothing to do with her sideline reporting. While this is a brand new low in what has basically been a national stalking of Andrews, comments about how unconscionable it is seem somewhat disingenuous.
Certainly, there are very few — one would hope none — in the sports media who support the blatant infringement of Andrews’ right to privacy. But when someone is valued solely for their looks — and becomes a prominent figure solely for their looks — is it really surprising when members of the fringe of society go over the line?
Consider recent headlines about Andrews. Last week, she was struck in the face by a fly ball. Cue the unsurprising, sophmoric headlines: “Erin Andrews has balls flying at her face,” “Erin Andrews Takes It In The Face,” “Erin Andrews can take balls to her chin,” and “Sportscaster Erin Andrews gets a facial.” The last headline comes not from a blog, but from the Dayton Daily News.
There are the countless pictures of Andrews that have been littering the Internet for years. Pictures of her backside, pictures of her ‘suggestively’ eating a hot dog. Sports Illustrated even recently had an online photo album devoted to Andrews.
There are the other — though far more benign — videos, like the accidental “derri?re shot” that aired during an ESPN broadcast, or the video of former USC football player Rey Maualuga‘s less-than-flattering dance behind Andrews at a game — which prompted an apology.
Then, there are the little things, like a Gilette promotion describing Andrews as “hardest-working, sexiest sideline reporter in Major League Baseball,” or the scrutiny she underwent for wearing a short dress at a game last year. Or incidences while on the job — Rick Sutcliffe talking about her dress possibly blowing up during a broadcast or Bruce Pearl ‘hugging’ her during a sideline interview.
And there’s the fact that Andrews is one of the most visible personalities at ESPN. Andrews has covered college football, college basketball, Major League Baseball, college baseball, the NFL Draft, Little League Baseball and the Spelling Bee, all while displaying virtually the same skills as other, far less prominent sideline reporters, like Heather Cox or Lisa Salters.
All of this seems generally harmless, especially by comparison to the hidden camera video. But it creates a climate where Andrews is prominent more because of her looks than because of her talent. A climate where its okay to make lewd jokes about her and turn her into what amounts to a sexual object.
And while most of the people out there understand that there are still limits — even in such a climate — there will always be that fringe part of society for which there are no limits. To such people, Andrews is not a person. Instead, she is merely a body that exists for the sole purpose of leering at.
Fang’s Bites notes that “Many sports bloggers myself included liked posting pictures of Erin. And it was nice that Erin played along with us.” While Andrews should not be blamed for the actions of others — after all, she isn’t the one who took those pictures or videos — perhaps the lesson here is to not play along. Maybe the next step is to not accept this objectification as normal, the nature of the beast, or a case of boys being boys. Ignore it if one must, but don’t give what ends up being perceived as tacit approval.
Bloggers and mainstream writers will no doubt come out in the next several days to blast the video, and justifiably. And as sincere as those sentiments may be, they will still come off as somewhat hypocritical. While nobody would approve of the crime against Andrews, there are countless who are culpable in creating the atmosphere in which it occurred.
Perhaps the last word is best left to the Rumors and Rants blog, which notes that the video is “creepy beyond belief,” but then says that Andrews “looks incredible. She looks better than any of us could have ever hoped. She has absolutely zero flaws. So while I hope they catch this creep, Erin Andrews has nothing to be ashamed of.”
That’s right. Despite the flagrant violation of her rights, Erin Andrews should not be upset. At least she looked good.
