In the past few weeks since the controversial video of Erin Andrews that was obtained through illegal means, there has been plenty of rancor from both sides of the issue.
On one side, the pervs that have been conditioned into thinking that it is okay to invade someone's privacy if enough people would agree.
It is a reminder to me that privacy cannot be subjected to a vote.
Similar to that old abstract question on the dangers of mob-rule, "If a group of people voted to rape someone, would that make it okay?"
On the other side, we have the colleagues and journalists of Andrews that have used this issue to attack the ethics of bloggers.
That, because Internet trolls have gone looking for the video, it must have come from them: right?
The answer: I don't know.
The nature of the video has suggested that it could have been an inside job by ESPN or another news outlet in pursuit of greed, not some amateur with no ways and means.
After all, bloggers have been putting the sports media out of business
This story about Erin Andrews though seems strangely similar to the one about Jerod Morris—the guy who libeled Raul Ibanez with suggestions of juicing.
Why is that?
Both stories have been about the ethics of the, "blogosphere."
I realize that these type of stories, this one about Erin Andrews, are not uncommon, but I'm considering the context. It seems like this is part of a series in which the sports media has looked for reasons to denigrate bloggers. Before Jerod Morris, the sports media had never bothered with someone like him.
Yet, now they have?
I can only wonder if there is an inverse correlation between the rise of these hit-pieces aimed at bloggers, and the rapid decline of the print newspaper.
I distrust "coincidences" where there is money to be made.
Many sports writers are losing their jobs at dying newspapers and media outlets. And well, their fat heads cannot quite fit through the door.
They have gone from a cushy job of cherrypicking, "hate mail;" regurgitating stats; hacking over highlights; BS-ing their "analysis" year after year, often insisting that no one could have been right when that was false; and of course, travelling and dining on someone else's dime.
Just ask Jay Mariotti of ESPN's Around The Horn.
He travelled to the Beijing Olympics in 2008 on the dime of the Chicago Sun-Times, then returned only to leave for AOL Sports. That should tell you what sports journalism is all about: a free ride, which the bloggers have been putting an end too.
The greater truth is that sports analysis doesn't sell, sex does. As well as the paradox of pretending to be a moralist on the issue, because that just presents a chance to show more images of the same thing that you are decrying.
The sports media for years has sold sex by objectifiying every woman possible, even if she was unqualified for the job, such as, Lisa Guererro as the sideline reporter for Monday Night Football.
Yet, Internet trolls and cranks have belittled women?
What came first the chicken or egg, the peddler or the pervert, the seller or the buyer? Do people only buy because someone is selling; or do people only sell when someone is buying?
Does the Sports Illustrated swim-suit edition ring a bell?
I don't see how the buyers are to blame for objectifying women, when it was the mass media that conditioned people into thinking that sex is all a woman is good for.
The fact is that, nowadays, even a ten year old will inadvertently be exposed to sexual content on the Internet. So whose fault is that, the buyers, or those with the means to saturate the Internet with sexual content until it is unavoidable?
It has reminded me of tobacco companies that market to children in order to hook them at an early age, so that the choice to buy is not really a matter of free-will.
As I wrote in 2004:
I'm starting to compare ADD to that of computer multitasking and the Internet. Sometimes thinking and Internet research is a very focused activity of contemplation and knowledge, scouring the inner corners of the mind for life's questions.
Then suddenly, you need to do a calculation so you open-up a calculator. And then suddenly ... what's this? Nudity! Oh, no, no, no, no, no ... I was just trying to think and learn and get somewhere ... click to close that image: Click; click; click ... click; click; click.
But three more appear for every one closed! How do I get rid of this? How!
The other truth is that... chicks dig the long-ball?
Many sports writers weaseled their way into their jobs, and are now scared witless about having to compete with the bloggers that they pissed on for years. Mainly because, they know that their sports analysis didn't sell anything, sex did.
In some areas of media, the bloggers have been putting the sex-peddlers out of business.
Now, people can get sports analysis for free and write it, without training in sports journalism. The only question was and is the quality, thus the sports media has attempted to do a hatchet-job on the credibility of the, "blogosphere."
I can only wonder if this whole Erin Andrews story was an attempt to sabotage the "blogosphere" as the media had long labeled it in order to marginalize it. All the while, pretending to be the paternal protectors (Who's your daddy?) of Erin Andrews and that everyone else is just a pervert.
That's why, "They are, who we thought they were!"
By that I mean, that SOME in the sports media are just sex-peddlers and nihilistic hatchet-men that pose as journalists.
There might be pervs out there in the, "blogosphere" but like a mad scientist is to his monster, the mass media cannot blame the perverts that they created -- for the buyer's lack of ethics.
It should also remind everyone that those who live in glass houses should not throw stones.