I’ve wanted to write about Erin Andrews for a long time but just never had the desire to until now.
For those of you unfamiliar with Andrews, she is a reporter for ESPN. She covers events as a sideline reporter and interviewer. Her profile has risen the past few years and has become a household name within the sports television world.
She’s considered attractive, talented and actually does a decent job in my opinion. From a strictly looks prospective, she’s cute but not to the level that some guys are talking about. If I saw her on the street in Nashville, I would say, “OK, she’s cute.”
I really don’t have usage for sideline reporters, which I’ll get into later. So, for what she’s told to do, she’s competent.
She also has a good prospective on what she does, her role in sports, is blog-friendly (which is a positive in my book obviously) and a lot of other positives.
However, since Andrews has such a high profile position on ESPN, the backlash is starting to happen.
She recently covered a Cubs/Brewers game on ESPN and her wardrobe and general professionalism was called into question by Mike Nadel, a Chicago news service columnist. Here’s his post, which I suggest at least glancing at before reading my opinion of it: http://www.norwichbulletin.com/sports/columnists/x1370764220/Mike-Nadel-Blonde-bombshell-cant-distract-red-hot-Cubs
Of course this got some responses. First, here’s a relatively objective male prospective from Deadspin: http://deadspin.com/5031564/the-erin-andrews-backlash-has-officially-begun
I mostly agreed with the Deadspin article, however, I wanted to get a woman’s prospective. I usually look at things from a male prospective first because I'm a dude and I can't avoid it. Then as a minority such as an Eskimo (who never get the respect they deserve), someone from Panama or a black person, whichever one I feel like first. And then maybe from a woman's prospective. I have the male and minority thing down but sometimes find it difficult with women. So I came across this article: http://onmilwaukee.com/sports/articles/andrewsreact.html
Finally, I then talked with another woman who’s a sports follower, my good friend Joan for her view on the situation.
She told me that first, she finds sideline reporters useless, which I disagree with somewhat. The only times that the reporters are useful are in two situations. First, if someone blows out a knee or something and they aren’t coming back in the game, that’s kinda important. Second, if they’re crappy like Emmitt Smith, OJ Simpson or Eric Dickerson. That unintentional comedy is very joyful to see.
BTW, what is up with Black Hall of Fame running backs being bad in this position? If we see Barry Sanders or Tony Dorsett on the sidelines, I’ll be scared.
Joan then told me that she agreed with the Milwaukee reported I linked to earlier. She said that good looking women tend to be ignorant to the fact that their looks helped them get into that position. She was also fair to point out that there’s nothing wrong with that, which I agree with. People get positions because of looks, race, age and a lot of other things like that. Society, especially employment, isn’t fair.
Joan then said that women in the sporting industry have to be great at their job to earn respect. I do agree with that. I can also say the same for minorities and people of certain ages and looks. However, that’s really a commentary of television in general.
People use the joke that you have a face for radio, but that’s true. You can’t move away from the fact that Andrews’ attractiveness helps her career.
Joan then proceeded to tell me this, and I’ll quote her:
“I also think that if you're just good at your job, you shouldn't have to flirt or wear inappropriate clothes (and yes, she {Andrews} does wear inappropriate clothes). The other part of being a woman in the sports industry means that you have to carefully walk a thin line: you can't be a bitch, but you also can't be a smiling, weak, yes-(wo)man, or you'll get walked over. You have to know how to stand up for yourself and how to voice opinions and disagree with people, but you have to be able to do it tactfully, diplomatically and respectfully or you'll never get people to work with you, or respect you.”
Joan then talked about the dress being inappropriate for the workplace, which in this case is a baseball field. Interesting insight into the issue indeed.
OK, so I’ve heard every opinion possible (accept from an Eskimo. If one of you knows an Eskimo, I would ask him or her as well).
Here’s my prospective of it, in bullet-point style:
• Andrews can’t help that she’s attractive. That’s my first thought. Along with that, if she wears a dress and looks well, is that her fault? It’s not like she’s wearing lingerie out there.
It’s the middle of the frickin summer and its baseball. Her dress wasn’t inappropriate at all. “Playing the sexpot?” I don’t get that at all.
But, once again, I’m a guy on this issue.
• If she’s taking advantage of her looks, good for her. People act like only women do this. Why do you think you don’t see ugly men on things such as early morning shows like Good Morning America and Today, soap operas and other “female-focused” shows?
The majority of men who watch ESPN like attractive women and the network knows this.
• She’s does interviews/sideline reporting. Personally, I can do without it because I really don’t find it interesting. If Andrews and other sideline reporters left TV, I wouldn’t really care. However, for what she does, Andrews does a good job. Why do some people really care about this? She’s there to provide some fun stuff. If she’s friendly with the players before the game, that’s probably a good thing. The players will be more open with her and we can learn more about their hobbies or how many cars they own, you know, tangible information like that.
• These are men. There have been hundreds of times when I’ve been hanging out with my friends and a cute girl walks by and we say that she’s cute or give an extra look. It is what it is. So what if the Cubs players were giving each other the general nod of approval guys give to each other. It happens. As long as they weren’t disrespectful towards her, let it be.
To be fair, here’s an interview that Nadal did with Deadspin defending his side of the story: http://deadspin.com/5031910/mike-nadel-got-your-e+mail-and-is-actually-quite-a-reasonable-fellow
Furthermore, here’s Andrews’ response to all of this stuff. http://ww3.startribune.com/blogs/randball/2008/08/02/erin-andrews-my-overall-reaction-is-that-its-really-sad/
I think in the end that Nadal and others are feeling some form of envy towards Andrews. She has become a major commodity. If she sucked at her job and was just getting by on her looks, then I can understand the dislike towards her.
However, she and many other female journalists like Suzy Kolber, Andrea Kramer, Pam Oliver, Bonnie Bernstein, Michelle Tafoya, Hannah Storm, Leslie Visser and a whole bunch of others do a good job at what they do. I really don’t care how they look. I’m watching the game more than anything.
If anything the crappiness of overall sports broadcasting announcers currently should be a bigger issue.
If Nadal thinks that there are some unattractive women out there who aren’t getting sports broadcasting positions because of Andrews, that’s probably true, but tough luck. While sports are a business, it’s also entertainment. The entertainment world works like this.
Finally, its frickin sports! Just relax.
This isn’t like Anderson Cooper interviewing President Bush on the Iraq War or something like that. Its sports.
I would love to hear your opinions on this topic. If you agree with me, cool. If you don’t agree with me, I would love to hear that side as well. And if you’re that minority that I’ve mentioned throughout this post, you will get premium coverage in my post in response to this post, because you know that’s coming.
For now, here’s Michael Scott’s prospective of women in the workplace. If you follow his lead, I guarantee a firing from your job and possibly a sexual harassment suit. Good times! Because you deserved it.
For those of you unfamiliar with Andrews, she is a reporter for ESPN. She covers events as a sideline reporter and interviewer. Her profile has risen the past few years and has become a household name within the sports television world.
She’s considered attractive, talented and actually does a decent job in my opinion. From a strictly looks prospective, she’s cute but not to the level that some guys are talking about. If I saw her on the street in Nashville, I would say, “OK, she’s cute.”
I really don’t have usage for sideline reporters, which I’ll get into later. So, for what she’s told to do, she’s competent.
She also has a good prospective on what she does, her role in sports, is blog-friendly (which is a positive in my book obviously) and a lot of other positives.
However, since Andrews has such a high profile position on ESPN, the backlash is starting to happen.
She recently covered a Cubs/Brewers game on ESPN and her wardrobe and general professionalism was called into question by Mike Nadel, a Chicago news service columnist. Here’s his post, which I suggest at least glancing at before reading my opinion of it: http://www.norwichbulletin.com/sports/columnists/x1370764220/Mike-Nadel-Blonde-bombshell-cant-distract-red-hot-Cubs
Of course this got some responses. First, here’s a relatively objective male prospective from Deadspin: http://deadspin.com/5031564/the-erin-andrews-backlash-has-officially-begun
I mostly agreed with the Deadspin article, however, I wanted to get a woman’s prospective. I usually look at things from a male prospective first because I'm a dude and I can't avoid it. Then as a minority such as an Eskimo (who never get the respect they deserve), someone from Panama or a black person, whichever one I feel like first. And then maybe from a woman's prospective. I have the male and minority thing down but sometimes find it difficult with women. So I came across this article: http://onmilwaukee.com/sports/articles/andrewsreact.html
Finally, I then talked with another woman who’s a sports follower, my good friend Joan for her view on the situation.
She told me that first, she finds sideline reporters useless, which I disagree with somewhat. The only times that the reporters are useful are in two situations. First, if someone blows out a knee or something and they aren’t coming back in the game, that’s kinda important. Second, if they’re crappy like Emmitt Smith, OJ Simpson or Eric Dickerson. That unintentional comedy is very joyful to see.
BTW, what is up with Black Hall of Fame running backs being bad in this position? If we see Barry Sanders or Tony Dorsett on the sidelines, I’ll be scared.
Joan then told me that she agreed with the Milwaukee reported I linked to earlier. She said that good looking women tend to be ignorant to the fact that their looks helped them get into that position. She was also fair to point out that there’s nothing wrong with that, which I agree with. People get positions because of looks, race, age and a lot of other things like that. Society, especially employment, isn’t fair.
Joan then said that women in the sporting industry have to be great at their job to earn respect. I do agree with that. I can also say the same for minorities and people of certain ages and looks. However, that’s really a commentary of television in general.
People use the joke that you have a face for radio, but that’s true. You can’t move away from the fact that Andrews’ attractiveness helps her career.
Joan then proceeded to tell me this, and I’ll quote her:
“I also think that if you're just good at your job, you shouldn't have to flirt or wear inappropriate clothes (and yes, she {Andrews} does wear inappropriate clothes). The other part of being a woman in the sports industry means that you have to carefully walk a thin line: you can't be a bitch, but you also can't be a smiling, weak, yes-(wo)man, or you'll get walked over. You have to know how to stand up for yourself and how to voice opinions and disagree with people, but you have to be able to do it tactfully, diplomatically and respectfully or you'll never get people to work with you, or respect you.”
Joan then talked about the dress being inappropriate for the workplace, which in this case is a baseball field. Interesting insight into the issue indeed.
OK, so I’ve heard every opinion possible (accept from an Eskimo. If one of you knows an Eskimo, I would ask him or her as well).
Here’s my prospective of it, in bullet-point style:
• Andrews can’t help that she’s attractive. That’s my first thought. Along with that, if she wears a dress and looks well, is that her fault? It’s not like she’s wearing lingerie out there.
It’s the middle of the frickin summer and its baseball. Her dress wasn’t inappropriate at all. “Playing the sexpot?” I don’t get that at all.
But, once again, I’m a guy on this issue.
• If she’s taking advantage of her looks, good for her. People act like only women do this. Why do you think you don’t see ugly men on things such as early morning shows like Good Morning America and Today, soap operas and other “female-focused” shows?
The majority of men who watch ESPN like attractive women and the network knows this.
• She’s does interviews/sideline reporting. Personally, I can do without it because I really don’t find it interesting. If Andrews and other sideline reporters left TV, I wouldn’t really care. However, for what she does, Andrews does a good job. Why do some people really care about this? She’s there to provide some fun stuff. If she’s friendly with the players before the game, that’s probably a good thing. The players will be more open with her and we can learn more about their hobbies or how many cars they own, you know, tangible information like that.
• These are men. There have been hundreds of times when I’ve been hanging out with my friends and a cute girl walks by and we say that she’s cute or give an extra look. It is what it is. So what if the Cubs players were giving each other the general nod of approval guys give to each other. It happens. As long as they weren’t disrespectful towards her, let it be.
To be fair, here’s an interview that Nadal did with Deadspin defending his side of the story: http://deadspin.com/5031910/mike-nadel-got-your-e+mail-and-is-actually-quite-a-reasonable-fellow
Furthermore, here’s Andrews’ response to all of this stuff. http://ww3.startribune.com/blogs/randball/2008/08/02/erin-andrews-my-overall-reaction-is-that-its-really-sad/
I think in the end that Nadal and others are feeling some form of envy towards Andrews. She has become a major commodity. If she sucked at her job and was just getting by on her looks, then I can understand the dislike towards her.
However, she and many other female journalists like Suzy Kolber, Andrea Kramer, Pam Oliver, Bonnie Bernstein, Michelle Tafoya, Hannah Storm, Leslie Visser and a whole bunch of others do a good job at what they do. I really don’t care how they look. I’m watching the game more than anything.
If anything the crappiness of overall sports broadcasting announcers currently should be a bigger issue.
If Nadal thinks that there are some unattractive women out there who aren’t getting sports broadcasting positions because of Andrews, that’s probably true, but tough luck. While sports are a business, it’s also entertainment. The entertainment world works like this.
Finally, its frickin sports! Just relax.
This isn’t like Anderson Cooper interviewing President Bush on the Iraq War or something like that. Its sports.
I would love to hear your opinions on this topic. If you agree with me, cool. If you don’t agree with me, I would love to hear that side as well. And if you’re that minority that I’ve mentioned throughout this post, you will get premium coverage in my post in response to this post, because you know that’s coming.
For now, here’s Michael Scott’s prospective of women in the workplace. If you follow his lead, I guarantee a firing from your job and possibly a sexual harassment suit. Good times! Because you deserved it.
No comments:
Post a Comment