Erin Andrews, shoes, and a conflict of interest?

http://blog.oregonlive.com/playbooksandprofits/2011/01/espn_reporter_erin_andrews_end.html

During the Rose Bowl, Erin Andrews noted players were having difficulty with their footing and mentioned that they were wearing Nike's latest and greatest shoe. I remember thinking at the time that Nike couldn't be happy about that, true or not.

Two week later, Andrews is unveiled as a Reebok endorser.

I'm sure the ombudsman will get to the bottom of this.

 

Vince Doria scoffed and laced up his Keds...

 

Earlier today I took a better look at Erin Andrew's new Twitter profile picture and noticed it was her showing off a Reebok shoe and I briefly wondered about the ethical issues involved in that before I just shrugged and thought, "It's TV."

 

Better to have just shrugged and thought "It's Erin Andrews." No need to insult all of TV b/c of one caricature.

 

I will say that the TCU players were having footing problems and it was a new Nike shoe. So I have no problem with her saying that.

Now I do have a problem with her - or anyone - endorsing a product, boinking an athlete, etc. Total conflict of interest, but ESPN has never put the hammer down on this before (and I'm guessing it probably encourages product endorsement to help give their brand more notice).

 

ESPN stopped being about journalism a long time ago. It's all entertainment with sports as the canvas....

 

Did you forget your blue font?

I think it's absolutely unbelievable that a sideline reporter -- How often do we hear them talking about equipment? Seems like a few times per game. -- would be allowed to endorse Reebok or any other apparel company.

With that said, that Oregonian article really came across quite biased (and clumsily written and argued) itself.

I saw Andrews' Twitter photo and was immediately curious as to why she would change it to that, but I never even considered she was actually intentionally endorsing a shoe company. At this point, she no longer can even argue that she's a journalist. She IS the story. She's often bigger than the story. Considering she covers primarily college sports, she's got to be the most famous, or at least most recognizable, person on the field at least half the time.

 

Hell, people were slipping on the field at the Rose Bowl and the BCS game. I didn't imagine that.

 

Another reason I watch SportsCenter as little as possible. Berman and his diet plan, Kenny Mayne, Dan Patrick when he was there, and now Andrews. Add NFL Network's Rich Eisen, Jim Nantz (with Peyton Manning, even!) Joe Buck with Budweiser ... and they call themselves reporters? Can we trust Nantz to tell it like it is, to borrow one from Howard Cosell, when they're joined at the hip commercially?

Quick, what do Brian Williams, Katie Couric and Diane Sawyer endorse?

This goes well beyond picking up some bowl swag. It's a matter of credibility. Not that there's much of that in broadcast sports anymore. Even in the Beijing Olympics, we had Bella Karyoloi as an analyst on Olympics gymnastics, even the U.S. women's team that was coached by his wife. I doubt NBC News would have hire Michelle Obama or Cindy McCain as commentators on the election, would they?

Maybe this rant should go into the "why I drink" thread (siiigh).

 

Exactly. If players indeed have trouble (and I don't recall this being an issue), there's no need for her to mention any brand whatsoever because that fact is immaterial to the listener, or perhaps it's limited to listeners who might be a shareholder of one of the companies involved. But it's not as though anyone hearing that report says to himself, "Ah, I'm glad I know this. I was going to go out and buy new football cleats tomorrow and now I'll have to rethink which ones I'm going to get."

Just file this as reason number 84,710,339 why ESPN too often looks like it's run by a group of high school freshmen.

 

To paraphrase Richard Nixon (slightly): "It's not whoring, if we do it."

 

What about the countless number of kids watching the game who play sports?