Updated at 3:02 PM, August 18, 2009
To remove some ambiguity in how people are interpreting this commentary, I have made some changes/adjustments below. To be clear, I am not saying that the illegal videos from earlier this year should be condoned in any way, shape, or form. I am saying that the environment that developed that allowed someone to shoot and distribute those videos was the result of many factors, and the selling of sexuality in print and media is just as much a factor as the web sites.blogs the publish the material.
I feel used and manipulated. I feel like someone who took the bait and stood up and defended a person whose privacy was defiled. I criticized sites such as Deadspin for objectifying and sexualizing a female public figure, and contributing to an environment which led to problems.
Yes, I jumped on the bandwagon for the poor, helpless Erin Andrews who was suffering because of the illegally taken and posted videos from her hotel room. But I was not the only one. I wonder if they feel the same as I do right now?
Why am I waxing ruefully over my criticisms of the person who posted the video, and the web sites that took great glee and web hits over the years by posting provocative pictures of Andrews and others?
Because Erin Andrews has blown it. She has thrown out any credibility as the "victim" of sexual personification and obsession. She has lost credibility in my eyes. But will she lose it in the eyes of others?
No, I am not saying she was not wronged. She clearly was, and hopefully the person who posted the video(s) is found and prosecuted.
However, if Andrews really felt wronged, she should never have allowed GQ to go forward with this month's sexually provocative photo and video shoot that she WILLINGLY participated. Yes the shoot occurred last April. The contracts were signed before then, and once the pictures/video was in the can, she had no control over when GQ would publish them.
Then why should she have agreed to do the shoot at all? Is it because using sexuality might help boost a career (and this applies to anyone who appears to be doing so)?
But just read this quote from the GQ article:
“I’ve always looked out for my career first."
She sure does and is. It is just appears hypocritical on its face.
Ma, and just maybe, ESPN should consider how much more egregious this appears than anything someone might say on Facebook or Twitter, and modify that policy accordingly.
And no, I will not link to the GQ article, photos, or video. I will not be an enabler.
I...I...I just feel so violated.
Thanks to Ed Berliner of Stone Cold Sports for posting information about this GQ piece on Facebook.