Interesting article on Erin Andrews

Grievious Sins of Unprofessionalism would be a great band name.

 

Maybe that's what we'll dub ourselves in Baltimore.

 

Even better, if Erin shows up at the outing, it could be Erin Andrews and The Grievious Sins of Unprofessionalism. Think she knows any Pantera? (insert five minutes alone joke here)

 

We could just tell her to provide the gutteral backup vocals.

 

What none of you seem to be able to grasp here is that Erin is part of the show. ESPN is a rightsholder with a significant stake in the industry. Why is it so hard to make distinctions like this instead of trying to fit everyone into a one-size-fits-all media? From what I've seen, she does a great job -- the job ESPN hired her to do. The TV audience is apparently OK with it, too.

 

What the audience wants to see and what or who is on the air don't always go hand in hand at ESPN....

 

Doesn't the blatant sexism start when these women are hired? I'm sure the word "strawman" will be thrown out soon, but would Andrews, or any of these female reporters, be hired if they looked like Janet Reno? They may be great at what they do, all of them. But nearly every one is ultimately hired because they look good. If over time they establish themselves, as Kolber, Kremer and a few others somewhat have, they can stick around.

 

Because she's a reporter. At least, that's how she presents herself.

http://www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp

 

And that brings us back to the original premise of this thread -- after all the ogling and defense of an argument that was never presented.

She shouldn't have done it.

 

The "Let's Go, Rays" thing is regrettable, but it hardly makes Erin Andrews unique among the ESPN crowd. Stu Scott cheers for his Tar Heels. In response, Scott Van Pelt speaks of his Maryland Terrapins on occasion. The examples are plentiful.