They Are Who We Thought They Were: Sex Sells in Erin Andrews Case
On Oct. 3, Michael David Barrett from the Chicago area appeared in court after the FBI arrested him for a series of illegal videos of ESPN reporter Erin Andrews that Barrett allegedly posted on the Internet and attempted to sell to TMZ.com.
The videos were filmed through a peephole in several hotels that Andrews stayed at, while on assignment for ESPN.
The videos, posted in February 2009, were made in July of 2008 and went unidentified until ESPN outed the video on DonChavez.com when ESPN counsel David Pahl sent a demand to remove the, "pictures of a young, blond woman".
The Internet is filled with sexual content, so ESPN's direct demand to an obscure site begs the question: Why would ESPN take interest in the privacy of a woman, on an obscure site, which ESPN refused to identify officially?
ESPN managed to recognize an unidentified woman on an obscure site as one of their own. Sounds more like finding a needle in a haystack, unless they knew where to look, that is.
Subsequent to the demand by Mr. Pahl, the identity of Ms. Andrews was ultimately discovered. Of course, the finger was then pointed at Internet trolls, cranks, and their lack of ethics.
Other Questions have not Been Answered by the Recent News
The biggest question is this: Why would Mr. Barrett allegedly decide to stalk Andrews? The assumption has been that—because Andrews has the reputation of being, "America's Sexiest Broadcaster," as labeled by Playboy Magazine—that Barrett must be a stalker.
FBI spokesman Ross Rice said he did not know how Mr. Barrett had allegedly became interested in Ms. Andrews.
Moreover, Mr. Barrett has no criminal history, and reportedly owned a home with an unidentified woman and that both people traveled extensively. That Westmont home however, went up for sale at $299,000 in August of 2009.
Being the incorrigible freethinker that I am, I must wonder if the sale of Mr. Barrett's home is connected with the economic crisis that started in the real-estate market, and if Mr. Barrett, an insurance salesman of all jobs, could no longer afford the mortgage.
Today's Secret Word is...Stalker
"Stalker" is the word that has been thrown around by the many reports, including Ms. Andrews on The Oprah Winfrey Show in mid-September.
Keep in mind, that ESPN is the network that refused to report the civil charges of rape by a Nevada woman against Steelers quarterback Ben Roethlisberger.
ESPN also temporarily banned reporters of The New York Daily News in July, because of their decision to cover the Andrews story.
In a memo to ESPN journalists (I prefer to think of them as propagandists), ESPN’s senior vice president and director of news, Vince Doria, confirmed that he issued a memo that ordered ESPN employees not to report the charges made by the Nevada woman on the grounds that it would damage the reputation of Roethlisberger.
Said Doria, "Those are the things that I think are damaging to reputations, and I think you need to know more about them before you report them. As it stands right now, today, we don’t think it meets our standard of reporting."
What are ESPN's, "standards of reporting"?
ESPN had allowed their reporter, Erin Andrews, to appear on one of the most influential shows in America, The Oprah Winfrey Show, and generically brand a person as being a "stalker".
No arrest had been made at that time, but the seed had been preemptively planted on that show, which has now branded Mr. Barrett as a "stalker".
Andrews had appeared on The Oprah Winfrey Show to deny that the whole thing was a media stunt. Yet, Andrews has also claimed that she just wanted the whole thing to go away.
This clear double standard should tell you that ESPN has no integrity.
It took years and a wasteful Congressional investigation in 2005, and an independent report in 2007 by former US Senator George Mitchell before ESPN cared about Steroids in Baseball.
ESPN did not investigate Spygate with any modicum of intelligence in 2007 and instead relied on stories by the Boston Herald that were ultimately discovered to be fabricated.
ESPN jumped all over Pacman Jones for accusations of assault by strippers and for involvement in a melee in Las Vegas until NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell felt forced to do something.
Yet, ESPN were unwilling to report that a Nevada woman filed civil charges of rape against Roethlisberger because it would damage his reputation?
Bull***.
Now, It's Time to Say Goodbye to All Integrity
ESPN is also the network that allowed three College GameDay reporters to ridicule a distraught Clemson Tigers fans while on-air.
ESPN is also the network that has allowed one of its panelists, Jay Mariotti, to angrily spew gossip about the teams he hates, under the guise of objectivity.
Mariotti, a former writer for the Chicago Sun-Times is also the reporter who dropped the ball on the chance to expose the problem of Steroids in baseball, whilst covering the Home-run Race in 1998 between Mark McGwire of the St. Louis Cardinals and Sammy Sosa of the hometown team, Chicago Cubs.
I, however, happen to believe in the virtuous idea that one reporter can be the difference in exposing the truth.
All that ESPN does is babble about, "Who ya got," and propagate lines that only perpetuate racist paradigms.
I do believe that ESPN has been involved directly with the creation of the videos and that their efforts to protect Ms. Andrews have merely been the art of misdirection and misinformation.
If there are employees of ESPN that sincerely believe that they report news and are not just Mouse-kateers, I must quote Homer Simpson in regards to that mentality: "You're living in a world of make believe! With flowers, and bells, and leprechauns...and magic frogs with funny little hats!"
With that said, I do think there are genuinely honest reporters at ESPN. Unfortunately, in a world where the only truth is supposedly that, "the truth is relative," honesty is just a willful act of ignorance and martyrdom in exchange for a paycheck and face-time.
Thus, as Jay Mariotti would say, "Prove to me," who you are. I would like to know.
The Art of Misdirection
In an abstract defense of a hypothetical offense, I am not the suggestible type and do not believe the line from ESPN. I know that I am not the suggestible type, because I once tried to be hypnotized and did not work. Hypnosis does work however, but only on suggestible minds.
You know the type of people that would jump off a cliff if you insisted that they could fly.
The facts as of now don't support the "stalker" conclusion, and it's not like ESPN had their agents call Roethlisberger a "rapist" simply because a Nevada woman made the charge, yet ESPN has allowed Andrews to indirectly call Mr. Barrett "stalker". I do believe that more information is needed.
How does a "stalker" have access to such detailed information about Ms. Andrew's travel plans?
Mr. Barrett allegedly filmed Ms. Andrews while she was on assignment for ESPN in several cities, and even requested rooms adjacent to the room of Ms. Andrews.
The attorney for Ms. Andrews, Marshall Grossman, has tried to point the finger at the hotels in which Ms. Andrews stayed for allegedly divulging information about Mr. Andrews' rooms. Yet, the bigger question is, who divulged the information about where she would be?
It is, however, more logical (at least, to me) to believe that Mr. Barrett was not infatuated with Ms. Andrews, but likely desperate for money, and that Mr. Barrett had been offered money for the videos.
If I was Part of the FBI Investigation
Keep in mind that the videos did not name Ms. Andrews until ESPN made their disingenuous demand to DonChavez.com to remove the illegally obtained content. If Mr. Barrett truly intended to profit from the video by selling it to TMZ, why did Mr. Barrett wait an entire year to make that attempt, and after the memo by ESPN counsel Mr. Pahl?
It seems that if Mr. Barrett acted alone to "stalk" Ms. Andrews that he would have immediately attempted to sell the video. Yet, he waited for a year?
If I were an FBI investigator, I would start to wonder if the videos resulted from the actions of a small group within ESPN to create news. That perhaps, the videos were made without the knowledge of Ms. Andrews, and that the statements by Ms. Andrews were just the predictably angry reactions of a woman whom had her privacy violated and career jeopardized.
I would investigate those questions, if I were part of the FBI investigation.
They Are Who We Thought They Were: Sex Sells in Erin Andrews Case
8 Comments
Loading more comments...
This comment and all replies have been deleted This comment has been deleted Undo delete