I promised myself I'd never do an Erin Andrews post. Promise broken.
She should be steamed. Completely, totally, absolutely and insanely angry.
As ESPN said: "Erin has been grievously wronged here."
The story: Some nut job posted a video online that purports to be taken through a peephole in a hotel room door that shows Andrews sans clothing.
Andrews is an ESPN reporter, and an enormously attractive young woman who has handled much of the infatuation about her appearance with aplomb. She plays it up — as she did at the ESPYs — but she's also been professional when doing her job and gracious with web sites and interviewers in laughing about it. I admire beauty as much as the next guy — as Adriana Lima might attest — but much of the fascination with Andrews has been testosterone-driven and adolescent.
When things get to the point that she can't get dressed in the privacy of a hotel room without some nut case sticking a video camera in the peephole of her door … well it's pretty outrageous.
The internet is a marvelous thing, but the fascination with knowing everything about everybody at every minute and their every thought and action takes things too far.
Its' nice to blame the infatuation with Andrews on blogs and their tendency to take things too far (except this one of course), but that excuses the dope who shot the video and the other dopes who posted it. They are responsible for their actions.
Be interesting to see if any of them actually go to jail.
Her attorney released this statement:
"While alone in the privacy of her hotel room, Erin Andrews was surreptitiously videotaped without her knowledge or consent. She was the victim of a crime and is taking action to protect herself and help ensure that others are not similary violated in the future. Although the perpetrator or perpetrators of this criminal act have not yet been identified, when they are identified she intends to bring both civil and criminal charges against them and against anyone who has published the material. We request respect of Erin's privacy at this time, while she and her representatives are working with the authorities."
always thought she was a bimbo and that her sideline "insights" were a joke—hollow and packaged—but she clearly didn't deserve this. also, ironic that there is a "trojan" virus on the link to the video.
Thank God it wasn't a naked video of Dana Jacobson. That gal has a caboose on her the size of an RTA bus.
touche, alan.
nothing wrong with a little junk in the trunk.
(cue joyce's obsession with me)
terje, there's a considerable difference between a little junk in the trunk and the storage of the Elephant Man and his brothers and sisters inside that trunk.
I couldn't contain my curiosity, I just had to find out what the fuss is about.
Bottom line, I really don't know why lawyers got involved and admitted it was her, they could have just as easily denied it was her. It is really difficult to tell, the director certainly was not Martin Scorsese. Although, the really creepy voyeurism thing sure does have a Hitchcockian feel to it. But it is definitely not going to win an Academy Award for cinematography. The best way I can describe it, the grainy quality of the video is such that if John Kennedy had long hair and boobs and was missing his package, it might as well be the Zapruder film. (Make your own grassy knoll and magic bullet jokes.)