11/21/24
July 21, 2009
Stalker Tapes Erin Andrews, Releases Video on Web: The attorney for ESPN sportscaster Erin Andrews has issued a statement confirming that she was "surreptitiously videotaped without her knowledge or consent" while alone in a hotel room and intends to pursue civil and criminal charges against the perpetrator and any entity that publishes the video.
Guys like that should have their nuts cut off. Is that a bite too strong?
posted by dbt302 at 12:24 PM on July 21, 2009
Not in my estimation, dbt.
Eww, Creeptacular, Creeptastic even.
posted by tommybiden at 12:27 PM on July 21, 2009
read a bit on another site and this thing has supposedly been out for awhile. It was even originally titled something like "video of girl that looks like the ESPN sportscaster".
Even a cursory glance into the seedy underworld of the internet will reveal a lot of such videos. My personal guess is the guy who did this had no idea it was Erin Andrews...he just had a hole in a wall in some hotel room that she then happened to check into. So I don't think this was "stalking", of course I have no proof of that. My only "proof" would be, had he known who it was he probably would have publicized it as such, right? I mean I would guess this would earn him some sort of "hero" tag among his fellow sleaze? Not to mention, seems it would be pretty hard to follow her, book a room next to her, drill a hole in the wall, etc. Seems more likely to me that he already had this in place for any such visitors.
posted by bdaddy at 01:36 PM on July 21, 2009
Actually, the whole obsession with Erin Andrews, of which Deadspin is chief instigator number one, is creepy and invasive.
posted by holden at 04:58 PM on July 21, 2009
posted by rcade at 05:21 PM on July 21, 2009
Deadspin claim that they are only 'covering the coverage' with respect to Ms Andrews.
However, just because you put a few ironic jokes in a lads' mag, doesn't mean it isn't a lads' mag. Stalking is creepy and invasive in whatever form it takes.
posted by owlhouse at 06:23 PM on July 21, 2009
Yeah, they obsess on Andrews. The leering is a bit much, but I genuinely like that site and I don't think you can really tie their coverage to this incident. They're clothes-on creepy. That's the line, I guess.
Did you see CBS cover this and show the damn video? Then claim that this was ''a woman's worst nightmare''? That's so much worse.
posted by WeedyMcSmokey at 06:51 PM on July 21, 2009
"Yes, Weedy - it was indeed a woman's worst nightmare. Pictures at Eleven."
posted by owlhouse at 07:10 PM on July 21, 2009
Guys like that should have their nuts cut off. Is that a bite too strong?
If you're in possession of nuts by birth then yeah, a bit strong.
"Yes, Weedy - it was indeed a woman's worst nightmare. Pictures at Eleven."
Or you could've Tivo'd it and watched it as many times as you like. Umm, not saying I would do anything like that but you catch my drift.
posted by BornIcon at 08:40 AM on July 22, 2009
The leering is a bit much, but I genuinely like that site and I don't think you can really tie their coverage to this incident.
You definitely can't tie their coverage to this incident. As deadspin mentions the video of Andrews is one of many that the user uploaded of different girls (several months ago). He didn't even identify it originally as her, just as someone who LOOKS like the ESPN blogger. In other words, this guy filming everyone and happened to hit her, and likely didn't even realize it when he did.
So no extra exposure by deadspin (how many people have even heard of the site), or ESPN (whose telecasters make comments about her dress during the telecast), or EA Sports (who certainly could have put someone else "In the game") CAUSED this guy to stalk her. As deadspin pointed out, he was carpetbombing everyone and happened to hit Ben Laden.
posted by bdaddy at 09:57 AM on July 22, 2009
Deadspin was completely irresponsible in linking to the site. They gave it widespread coverage. As a result, a lot more people saw this video than would have without their involvement. It may not have ever blown up if they were more responsible and notified ESPN and Andrews instead of driving traffic to the site.
posted by bperk at 10:03 AM on July 22, 2009
Deadspin gets around 10 million hits a month from 500,000 unique visitors, by my guess. It's the best-known sports blog.
posted by rcade at 10:30 AM on July 22, 2009
To be clear, I wasn't meaning the VIDEO didn't get extra exposure because of deadspin, just that the exposure the site gives to Erin Andrews wasn't the reason the video was taken.
As for the site itself, before this whole thing I'm not sure I'd ever even been to the site, and I consider myself pretty internet savvy. Now I'm not everyone obviously, but my point was "joe sixpack" isn't reading that site daily to even be aware that they're talking about her so much.
posted by bdaddy at 10:54 AM on July 22, 2009
First off, and most importantly-to Erin Andrews (though I doubt you read SportsFilter), I am sorry that you happen to be female and attractive, and 95% of the sports world stops caring about you beyond that. I am sorry that men are sometimes evil, evil people. In general, I am sorry.
Secondly, this was somewhat inevitable. It's only really bad now because an unstated line was crossed (and as Hunter S. Thompson said, the only people who know where the edge is are those who have crossed over it)-someone broke into Erin's bubble. As the blog Sports Media Watch discusses in a post, we had been approaching the line before, and everyone was in on the joke: 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.
Except the joke isn't funny anymore.
Everyone feels horrible right now, but no one was willing to say before hand, "Hey, maybe we should appreciate EA for being a decent sideline reporter, or for working real hard at her job and taking all the ogling and leering on an even-keel, rather than wearing a burqa while doing football games, which is what most of our first instincts would be while placed in the same position." No, we had to wait until it became obviously wrong before we said something.
And again, Erin, I'm sorry you have to go through this. On behalf of sports fans and decent human beings everywhere, I promise that if we catch the guy who did this, we will flay him and set him on fire, or something else equally deserving.
posted by Bonkers at 11:33 AM on July 22, 2009
Great post, Bonkers.
"But it's not so wakka-wakka all-in-fun anymore, isn't it? ... I have never met Erin Andrews. If I ran into her on the street today ... I'm not sure I could look her in the eye. I'm not sure anybody could." -- Will Leitch, Deadspin
I can appreciate Leitch's contrition, but it's a little weasely for him to suggest that everybody else in sports engaged in the same wink-wink stuff about Andrews that Deadspin wallowed in.
SportsFilter didn't engage in that stuff, and in the Wild West of blogging that gonzo style is appreciated. A lot of people in the sports media never made cracks about her. Everybody out there isn't as lowbrow as Deadspin.
One of the big reasons Deadspin is popular is because they engaged in that stuff. (On the converse, not doing it is a reason SportsFilter is smaller.)
posted by rcade at 12:14 PM on July 22, 2009
In defense of Deadspin, ABCNews also noted the name of the website in their story. They didn't link to the site, but there's hardly a difference.
There is some noteworthy stuff in the story that contradicts bdaddy's theory (which was what I thought at first, too). Apparently, there are clips from multiple locations, and the camera wasn't stationary; it followed her movement. This suggests that someone was operating the camera, and the multiple locations suggest that it was actually someone following her, not just a random occurrence. The current theory is that it may have been an ESPN employee (someone who would know her schedule and whereabouts), but there isn't much beyond that.
I would suspect that whoever posted these videos may have simply said it was someone who looked like Erin Andrews to provide a bit of a smokescreen.
posted by TheQatarian at 01:13 PM on July 22, 2009
One of the big reasons Deadspin is popular is because they engaged in that stuff. (On the converse, not doing it is a reason SportsFilter is smaller.)
But respected.
posted by BornIcon at 02:06 PM on July 22, 2009
I can understand how upset Erin and all women should be about this sort of outrage.
I myself have been trying for months to get a voyeuristic video of myself that was taken while I was showering posted to the internet. But Youtube keeps taking it down.
posted by THX-1138 at 02:18 PM on July 22, 2009
That's only so that no one get's blinded.
posted by BornIcon at 02:29 PM on July 22, 2009
True in that you could poke your eye out.
posted by THX-1138 at 03:00 PM on July 22, 2009
Ms. Andrews sure seems to be getting maximum exposure - with minimal investment here. I did a picture search of Ms. Andrews (who's not exactly a household name - but is certainly getting a lot of press now)... and it appears that she - with her pants as tight as she can possibly get them - isn't exactly shy about using her sexuality to get in the spotlight. I wouldn't be surprised if the entire thing is merely a well-orchestrated attempt to further her career, and find it hard to believe that she would (considering the choice of attire in 90% of her photos) be distraught in the slightest. My opinion - Erin Andrews is revelling in the attention and probably discussing details of her promotion, whilst everyone else is so sympathetic about the heinous exposure which she herself provides everytime a camera is pointed at her.
posted by Glenn at 03:03 PM on July 22, 2009
There is some noteworthy stuff in the story that contradicts bdaddy's theory (which was what I thought at first, too). Apparently, there are clips from multiple locations, and the camera wasn't stationary;
That's actually not accurate. It's shot from 1 location...the video does move (as someone is controlling it), but it's supposedly from the type of spy camera the guy was using. I think deadspin (or some similar site) reported they sent the video to a "spy company" that told them it was likely filmed with what he describes (or it sounded like to me) as one of those "snake" cameras that the cops use to slide under doors for hostage takers? The guy said the suspect likely had a hole drilled and he just snaked in the "snake" camera...then he has a dvr on the other side showing/recording what he's seeing...that way he can move the camera around as he sees fit. The guy said the hole thing costs about $600. It was really kindof scary/creepy reading that. I had no idea this stuff was out there for any guy with a credit card.
posted by bdaddy at 03:10 PM on July 22, 2009
Glenn, that sounds a lot like the "she was asking for it" excuse.
posted by bdaddy at 03:12 PM on July 22, 2009
True in that you could poke your eye out.
Could ? or Would ?
posted by tommybiden at 03:13 PM on July 22, 2009
BTW - Deadspin isn't alone in this. NY Post posted actual still shots from the video (with blurred pieces) and links in the article to several glamor shots of her. CBS (or NBC) actually showed the video this morning (blurred obviously). To me, they are contributing just as bad to this whole thing.
posted by bdaddy at 03:14 PM on July 22, 2009
... it appears that she - with her pants as tight as she can possibly get them - isn't exactly shy about using her sexuality to get in the spotlight. I wouldn't be surprised if the entire thing is merely a well-orchestrated attempt to further her career, and find it hard to believe that she would (considering the choice of attire in 90% of her photos) be distraught in the slightest.
That's a ridiculous and sexist take. Because she's attractive and doesn't go outside in a burlap sack, that means she uses her sexuality and wouldn't be "distraught in the slightest" to be filmed in the nude by a stalker who put the video on the web?
Erin Andrews has been a sideline reporter for ESPN for five years. During that time, she's gotten an enormous amount of attention based on her looks, but she's never capitalized on it in the slightest by posing for photo shoots or magazine covers. She's by most accounts a reporter who is good at her job and keeps her focus on that work.
posted by rcade at 03:21 PM on July 22, 2009
Bdaddy and rcade- While you're reading every article you can locate, and offering detailed analysis of what kind of camera, tactics, etc... I'm merely pointing out that Ms. Andrews - in practically every photo I've seen - is clearly not shy about using her sexuality to gain the title of "America's Sexiest Sports-reporter." ONE person will benefit from this video, which has already given her more press than all of her reporting efforts combined. To think that her career isn't being furthered by all of this attention is a little naive.
posted by Glenn at 03:32 PM on July 22, 2009
While you're reading every article you can locate, and offering detailed analysis of what kind of camera, tactics, etc... I'm merely pointing out that Ms. Andrews - in practically every photo I've seen - is clearly not shy about using her sexuality to gain the title of "America's Sexiest Sports-reporter." ONE person will benefit from this video, which has already given her more press than all of her reporting efforts combined. To think that her career isn't being furthered by all of this attention is a little naive.
Yeah, I'm pretty sure Erin Andrews would trade whatever opportunities this has provided her in exchange for the world not seeing her knobs or how she shaves. Get it together, Glenn; using one's sexuality is not grounds for someone else using it for you.
posted by dfleming at 04:04 PM on July 22, 2009
Glenn: You sound like men in the Middle East who think it's a woman's fault for giving them impure impulses by revealing an ankle. Here's four sample images that are generally how she's dressed in telecasts I've seen: 1 2 3 4. What a slut putting it all out there on display!
You seem to be an expert on what women are thinking when they choose their clothing. What do you think Erin Andrews should wear to prove that she isn't trying to use her sexuality?
posted by rcade at 04:07 PM on July 22, 2009
Could ? or Would ?
Really, in the end, does it matter?
Gawddam sluts! Bein' female and all! How dare they entice me with their womanly charms.
For the record, I can get turned on by a woman in a parka and mukluks. or a bikini. It's how I am wired. I just don't let my "impulses" rule my day.
posted by THX-1138 at 04:35 PM on July 22, 2009
dfleming and rcade - You both sound like you think you know Ms. Andrews personally. Perhaps you spend a little less time defending a complete stranger (albeit - someone you've seen on the 3000 games you've watched on ESPN this year) and a little more time considering the straight fact that YES she is capitalizing on the incident. To somehow equate me to a mideastern male for stating that she has a propensity for using her sexuality to benefit her career is pretty ignorant. And how you conclude that she'd "trade any opportunity" whatsoever to prevent people from seeing her cans is purely childish. Do you know her? NO. And rcade - unless you've been living in a cave, you don't have to be "an expert on what women are thinking" to see that this kind of thing happens fairly frequently on the internet, and the result rakes in big bucks for "victim." I suggest you both go pop a beer, surf some celebrity porn, and stop acting like YOU know anything more than anyone else about a supposed video which has actually yet to be seen. This "poor poor Erin Andrews" bit has grown tiresome. Ultimately, she'll get a big increase in pay, more exposure than she could have ever dreamed of, and continue to hold the spot of "sexiest sports-reporter." In fact - she should probably find who made the vid and offer them a commision for propelling her into the limelight. F.O.
posted by Glenn at 05:39 PM on July 22, 2009
Glenn
Any way you try to frame it, drilling a hole in a wall and using police-grade spy gear to videotape someone in the privacy of their own hotel room while they get dressed or take a shower or whatever and then post it to the internet is fundamentally fucked-up.
I don't see how blame can be assigned to her in this instance. I mean, I use sexuality in a different way when I play gigs. It is a show. Flirting with audience members is common in music. It doesn't mean that I am going to try to bed any of the women who come to my performances. And any woman that has taken it too seriously is quickly rebuffed in a polite manner. But I am in a better position to defend myself from such ladies, and being a male, I'm not physically threatened by the women I encounter. Erin, however, is far more popular and in the public eye and less likely to be able to defend herself from some over-charged goon. There should be zero tolerance for this kind of invasion of privacy and I would imagine that most of the people here find your position a bit odd.
Sorry, I'm rambling. To sum up: I'm right, you're wrong-I know what I'm talking about, and you maybe not so much-I have a cogent thought, and you were all over the map.
Now let's all hug, get a beer and surf some mukluk porn.
posted by THX-1138 at 06:15 PM on July 22, 2009
Perhaps you spend a little less time defending a complete stranger ...
Assuming that she is a complete stranger to you too, that's a weird comment for you to make. You're allowed to discuss this, but people who disagree with you are exhibiting an unhealthy interest in the subject? Neat trick.
... someone you've seen on the 3000 games you've watched on ESPN this year ...
You seem to like making factual statements about people you know nothing about. This comment about me is as inaccurate as what you're saying about Erin Andrews.
Your use of quotes around the word "victim" leaves little doubt about the perspective you're coming from. She was the victim of a repulsive crime. This did not happen to her because she was asking for it by the way she dresses.
posted by rcade at 06:36 PM on July 22, 2009
dfleming and rcade - You both sound like you think you know Ms. Andrews personally. Perhaps you spend a little less time defending a complete stranger (albeit - someone you've seen on the 3000 games you've watched on ESPN this year) and a little more time considering the straight fact that YES she is capitalizing on the incident.
Capitalizing how? What exactly has she gotten out of it? Don't just say "publicity", that can be good or bad. Since you're so sure of it, give specific and concrete information on how she has "capitalized" on this series of incidents. As I see it, she has one hypocritical and lukewarm apology, and that's about it.
posted by lil_brown_bat at 06:56 PM on July 22, 2009
THX-1138, this one's for you.
Please don't use the banhammer on me for posting risque material. Please, please, please!
posted by Howard_T at 07:46 PM on July 22, 2009
Mmmmmm, mukluks !
posted by tommybiden at 08:06 PM on July 22, 2009
ESPN has banned New York Post reporters from its programming in response to the paper reprinting still images from the video.
posted by rcade at 10:01 AM on July 23, 2009
Wow, it gets worse from the New York Post.
check out the July 22nd cartoon from Sean Delonas in which he alludes that ESPN staged the whole thing?
edit: you'll have to change the dates at the dropdown at the bottom, as the link defaults to today's image.
posted by bdaddy at 11:14 AM on July 23, 2009
Howard, I am absolutely shaking with delight. Those two sultry babes are just beggin' for it, I tell ya'!
(I wonder if all that high tech police spy camera stuff will work on an igloo?)
posted by THX-1138 at 01:42 PM on July 23, 2009
(I wonder if all that high tech police spy camera stuff will work on an igloo?)
Absolutely! Just make sure that you purchase the water proof version.
posted by BornIcon at 01:52 PM on July 23, 2009
ESPN has banned New York Post reporters from its programming in response to the paper reprinting still images from the video.
Awesome.
posted by lil_brown_bat at 03:53 PM on July 23, 2009
Wow, that Post cartoon is absurd. But then isn't the Post owned by Murdoch/NewsCorp/Fox, which is coming to be (or wants to be seen as) ESPN's biggest global rival?
posted by billsaysthis at 01:34 PM on July 24, 2009
I sought out a news story that didn't name or link to the publisher of the video. Deadspin is catching some flak for sending lots of traffic to the site in its initial coverage.
This story is creepy. Assuming that Andrews is on her own as she travels around the country covering stories, this has to be an exceptionally disturbing event for her to deal with.