11/05/24
May 28, 2010
Columnist: 'Stars' Damages Erin Andrews' Credibility: New York Daily News columnist Joanna Malloy believes that Erin Andrews has damaged her credibility as a reporter with her skimpy attire and performances on Dancing With the Stars. "[A] journalist uncovers the facts, not her navel," Malloy writes. "Andrews is going to have to decide whether she wants to be a proper journalist or continue to be a journalistic lightweight who's light on her feet."
Yes I agree to the extent that there are two types of reporters.
One is a journalist who is on camera as a reporter.
The other is a talking face who reads the news and is supposed to look good doing it. More of an entertainer. Any time one crosses over as an entertainer then their credibility is at risk. She is should decide which category she want to be in. You can can be a weather lady and you can be a topless or skimply clad weather lady or you can be a meteorologist who delivers a weather report but seldom can you be a naked meteorologist and still retain credibility.
posted by Atheist at 02:27 PM on May 28, 2010
When I'm looking for assessments of journalistic credibilty, the columnists of a NYC tabloid aren't exactly my first port of call.
posted by etagloh at 02:30 PM on May 28, 2010
First comment: MEOW
Second comment:
though we're sure Couric's got just as cute a belly button
How does she know?
posted by graymatters at 02:37 PM on May 28, 2010
I'll take the other stance on this.
I think Andrews was totally within her rights to have gone on DWTS, and I don't see a credibility issue at all. Given that ESPN obviously had to sign off on this tells me that they feel the same way. Any mention of the illegal activities of the stalker in a way that tries to relate them to Andrew's appearance on DWTS is where shoddy journalism occurs in this story. Andrew's was the victim of a crime, and that should in no way be held against her journalist integrity.
Given the long list of current, and former, sports figures that have appeared on the show, I don't see any reason to change my opinion of her as a sports reporter.
posted by dviking at 02:41 PM on May 28, 2010
Somebody's jealous !
posted by tommybiden at 02:56 PM on May 28, 2010
This column is a cheap shot, but I think it is true that Erin Andrews has sacrificed a bit of her journalistic credibility with all of the publicity seeking she's done lately. At the time of the stalker incident, Andrews had done almost no look-at-me stuff like posing for magazine pictorials. Now, she's chasing fame pretty hard.
There's nothing wrong with that if she wants to be a celebrity, but she has been a solid sports reporter who wasn't just a pretty face on the sideline.
posted by rcade at 03:12 PM on May 28, 2010
"Can't spend what you ain't got/
Can't lose what you never had."
posted by yerfatma at 03:16 PM on May 28, 2010
The other is a talking face who reads the news and is supposed to look good doing it. More of an entertainer. Any time one crosses over as an entertainer then their credibility is at risk.
Men have been doing this on television for decades without that degree of umbrage being taken over it. They may get dismissed as lightweights, but there isn't this pathological urge to discredit their whole lives.
posted by lil_brown_bat at 03:17 PM on May 28, 2010
Given that ESPN obviously had to sign off on this tells me that they feel the same way.
When the big sister network comes calling, you sign off on it.
posted by etagloh at 03:49 PM on May 28, 2010
Its also possible that Andrews is a competitive person (as many of us who are interested in sports are) and that she jumped at the chance to participate in a competition that relies on a certain level of physical ability.
I'm a fairly dignified, respectable person with a position of authority when I'm not filling up the Interweb with snark and I'm also the first one in line for the three-legged race (or what embarrassing psuedo-athletic competition you might imagine) at the company picnic.
Did Howard Cosell destroy his journalistic credibility by trying to have his own variety show or by participating as the host of "Battle of the Network Stars?" Does any female reporter destroy her credibility by showing up on the beach in a bikini? If not, STFU NYDN.
posted by Joey Michaels at 03:56 PM on May 28, 2010
Fairly or unfairly, a woman that puts her sexuality on display is unlikely to be taken seriously as a sports reporter. She isn't just a female reporter, but a female reporter in an almost all-male business. I'm quite sure she recognized the difficulty that this would pose in her career. However, it is quite possible that she hopes her career will take her in that direction. Maybe she doesn't want to be a serious reporter, but would rather be a television personality or something.
As an aside, it reaks of sexism to accuse the author of being jealous based merely on her criticism.
posted by bperk at 04:40 PM on May 28, 2010
Let's face it: Andrews is a sports sidelines reporter. While she undoubtedly knows the games she covers, she's still there as eye candy.
So, very little journalistic credibility is required and we'll spend the entire article showing you that she has very little journalistic credibility? Where's the story? Craig Sager (say Queensbridge) dresses like a clown for the actual sideline interviews and no one minds so I don't see how someone's chasing fame would make much of a difference. Just ask an interesting question once in awhile and I'm happy.
posted by tron7 at 04:41 PM on May 28, 2010
I see two sides here - the right side, and the reality side.
The right side says what she does on DWTS is publicity and increasing her profile in a fashion no different that the pseudo-journalism that Stephen A Smith, Sager, Kornheiser and Wilbon do on a regular basis (not to mention some truly shoddy reporting, which we can't say of Andrews). Not to mention that male TV journalists also trade on sex appeal - Matt Lauer anyone? (when they have any at all).
The reality side is that she has now entered that realm - celebrity reporter and there are consequences to that, that may not always be fair.
I think Andrews is a pretty smart person and knows this. There is a double standard with women and sports. That's not right, but the consequences are hers.
posted by WeedyMcSmokey at 05:17 PM on May 28, 2010
Erin Andrews was known as being not just a pretty face but a solid sideline reporter well before she fell victim to an embarrassing crime. Publicity works in mysterious ways; her career has shifted and now she both reports from the sideline and dances with stars.
Good for her. I think she is a role model.
posted by Hugh Janus at 05:28 PM on May 28, 2010
I don't have much concern about the journalism integrity part of this.
But it's painful to think back to the carefully crafted role she played in the trial of her peeping tom, dressed and groomed like a plain, modest schoolgirl at times, and giving a victim's statement about how the violation had forever changed her world and made her fearful in untold numbers of ways, etc...
...and then to fast forward to the vision of Andrews playing the blazing choreographed exhibitionist on DWTS.
Maybe it's someone's idea of proper therapy to confront one's fears head-on by flaunting one's self under the bright lights. But it undercuts the sincerity of the image she presented of herself in the court case. And the case she made for being a victim.
"I'm shattered...but...what the hell, let's get it on!"
And, it's just plain not sensible. You're a well-known public figure. Nude footage of you is splashed across the internet. You become a very public victim. You enter your private thoughts and fears into the public record. Then you do DWTS - and not months or years down the road, but right away. Not smart. Too many freaks in the world.
Some nut in a semi-darkened room is gleefully ruminating over the unfolding metamorphosis of his dreams - pretty working woman, innocent naked woman, sad damaged woman, happy dancing woman - and poring intently over 2010-11 TV sports broadcast schedules.
You wish it weren't so, but the world is like that.
We already have deviants acting out their fantasies fueled by films like "Taxi Driver" and "Natural Born Killers". Some sick wannabees may find real life footage even more inspiring. She has to go back and live in her version of the real world again and cover late games, go to her car and hotel room, etc.
Life is unfair. She ought to be able to go on DWTS if she wants to do so. But to do so when and how she did given her circumstances was not a wise choice.
posted by beaverboard at 06:16 PM on May 28, 2010
Really? Some creep takes unsolicited peephole footage and she has to become a nun to save credibility?
I really don't see why. But I have a feeling that's what flies for debate in Saudi Arabia.
posted by WeedyMcSmokey at 06:31 PM on May 28, 2010
I think she dressed appropriately for court and also dressed appropriately for DWTS.
posted by bperk at 06:43 PM on May 28, 2010
Then you do DWTS - and not months or years down the road, but right away. Not smart. Too many freaks in the world.
The peeping case shows that Andrews was already the target of freaks -- and needed to be mindful of security -- before she decided to do Dancing. I don't see how the show made a difference, except to increase her fame. But she could have become more famous in the normal progression of her ESPN career anyway.
posted by rcade at 07:13 PM on May 28, 2010
Men have been doing this on television for decades without that degree of umbrage being taken over it. They may get dismissed as lightweights, but there isn't this pathological urge to discredit their whole lives.
Time to rent that DVD of Broadcast News, sit back and laugh with Holly Hunter and Albert Brooks at William Hurt's fluff ball character.
posted by owlhouse at 07:23 PM on May 28, 2010
I'm sure that ESPN knows that, solid reporter or not, Andrews is good sideline eye candy. ESPN, like any TV outlet, wants to boost ratings. Get more folks to get a look at your eye candy in a different venue (read DWTS) and folks might want to tune in to see that girl who was on Dancing With The Stars.
posted by roberts at 07:28 PM on May 28, 2010
The unfortunate double standard is still there. By that I mean that a good looking woman has a harder time being taken seriously in most male dominated professions than does a woman of plainer appearance. I worked with a couple of very good looking young female engineers who were also very good at their jobs. Many of the older and more senior male personnel had a hard time using them to their fullest abilities. The prejudice was that just because they were attractive, they couldn't be smart.
To a point, I think Erin Andrews might be a victim of this sort of thinking. She's good looking, therefore she could not be holding her job just because she is capable. This attitude was reinforced somewhat by the stalking, and now MS Andrews is compounding the problem by appearing on DWTS. She hasn't helped herself at all.
posted by Howard_T at 08:23 PM on May 28, 2010
I think she dressed appropriately for court and also dressed appropriately for DWTS.
Ding!
posted by grum@work at 08:44 PM on May 28, 2010
Howard_T, I'm with you on that double standard. I see it at work all the time, though in my case it's the older, more senior females that won't take a younger good looking female seriously. It always smacks of jealousy, which some have claimed plays a part in this article.
Beaverboard, how long should she have waited to do DWTS? I just don't think it's fair (I know, life isn't fair) to hold her accountable to some vague timeline just because a creep drills a hole in a hotel wall.
posted by dviking at 11:15 PM on May 28, 2010
I've never watched DWTS, but I can only assume from this story and some of the comments posted here, that it involves a pole and a stage lined with lecherous filth with dollar bills in their hands. That must explain how dancing is so dirty. With all due respect to the recently deceased Mr. Swayze
posted by tahoemoj at 10:34 AM on May 29, 2010
I don't understand why this is a story. The girl was always more eye candy than journalist. In fact, I think it insults real journalists to even mention her name in the same sentence.
posted by irunfromclones at 03:02 AM on May 30, 2010
The girl was always more eye candy than journalist.
I don't know what you're basing that on, but it's not what I've seen from the games she's worked. She's been a capable and professional sideline reporter for years. It's not the hardest job on the planet, but Andrews has distinguished herself and would be a credible choice for promotion to a bigger job at ESPN.
posted by rcade at 10:18 AM on May 30, 2010
A female sports reporter in Kansas City who is not hard on the eyes herself ripped Andrews on Twitter in several messages. "She has pimped herself out," Kristin Tallent wrote. "I would pass on DWTS bc I think it is a dumb show. Now, if some show called about training me to be in the WNBA, or the LPGA, then I would definitely be in. Of course, they don't wear stripper clothes in the WNBA/LPGA."
posted by rcade at 10:22 AM on May 30, 2010
they don't wear stripper clothes in the WNBA/LPGA
Yeh, but what about women's tennis.
posted by graymatters at 11:58 AM on May 30, 2010
Wow, going so far as to imply that Andrews' peeping tom was her own fault? Someone's turning green so fast, she should change her name to Jordy Verrill...