The Rock Report

« Paying For Your Own Party?? See: "Noodle Art" Makes It's Way To »

Erin Andrews Inc. Proves She Is A Fraud.....

user-pic
Rock Mamola

Producer/Host on WSCR 670AM The Score.

Fraud - a person who is not what he or she pretends to be. (per Merriam-Webster.com)

erin-andrews-country-music-awards1.jpg
One thing that always has pissed me off is how some people are so soulless that they benefit of a personal tragedy or a hardship put on people.  When something truly tragic or hurtful happens to a person, the idea that they should capitalize off it is simply sickening to me. The latest example of this truly disgusting way of making a living is none other than ESPN sideline reporter Erin Andrews who was secretly video taped naked in a hotel rooms in Nashville, Tennessee and Milwaukee, Wisconsin.  I could not imagine what Erin Andrews was feeling when she found out about this video posted online for several months.
 
However in the aftermath of the video being released, I am starting to think that she never considered herself a victim...but more of an opportunist.


Who would have thought on the same day that NBA superstars LeBron James, Dwayne Wade, and Chris Bosh will become free agents, that they would not be the only superstars looking for work.  Erin Andrews contract with ESPN ends on July 1st as well and of course she is looking for a BIG payday.  The same woman who cried for sympathy on Oprah Winfrey saying she understands the media has to cover a story...but:
 

"It's almost like you're glorifying it.  Hey check out this video, check out these pictures.  There was no need to show those.  I'm a crime victim.  I didn't want to share those pictures or those videos with anyone at all."
 
So Erin Andrews feels insulted because media outlets choose to show the video (or stills of it) to bring a little extra to their stories, yet she accepts an invitation to ABC's Dancing With The Stars wearing this:

erin1.jpg


and how about this racy bedroom freestyle...




The same woman who worked college sport sidelines for ESPN for numerous years and continually ripped in the sports blog-o-sphere is now all a sudden:
 
"She is one of the top sports personalities in the country," says Michael Norton of Gillette"
 
Really???
 
Why do you believe that is?  
 
The same woman who said to her convicted cameraman:
 
"Let's talk about public humiliation, Mr. Barrett. I'm living public humiliation."
 
and....
 
"Because of him I fear for my life," she continued. "Every time I check into a hotel room, I fear he's in the closet. Every time I come home alone, I'm waiting for him to jump out from behind a door."
 
Public humiliation?  Fear for your life?  Be honest Erin...this guy was the best thing that happened for you and your career.  As much as you want to scream "woe is me", I bet Sony was begging you to do a spot with Justin Timberlake and Peyton Manning before the masses saw you naked.


 
I bet that ABC's Dancing With The Stars was calling you daily to come join the new season of the highly rated show way before you were a victim of a "sexual deviant."  I am sure the outstanding job you did covering the college world series (which very few people watch) and college football on ESPN (more people watch that comparatively) made your "star" bigger than any other sideline reporters "star" in the pros or college.   
 
Face it Erin, you are benefiting from a personal hardship and it makes you look like a fraud.  The idea that you think all these things you have been asked to participate in is because of the interviews with SEC coaches you have done at half time is a joke.  You are a bigger star because of the same man who you said made you a "victim."  You should have a sizeable portion of all the money you made (including the 200,000 you made off DWTS) off your post-nude video career and set it aside for Mr. Michael Barrett who followed you and truly made you a star.   
 
"It's actually been surprising. I will be honest: I did this show (Dancing With The Stars) to get happy. I never thought of what it would do for me in my career. It's crazy."
 
People do not go on Dancing With The Stars for fun, it is an opportunity to make their own personal star brighter and PROFIT off it.  You have done no different and when you get paid millions of dollars wherever you may sign next either at ESPN or somewhere else, just remember the guy sitting in the cell who made you the star you have become.
 
People like Erin Andrews just make me ill.
 
-RoCk
 
Rock Mamola is the Associate Producer of The Mully And Hanley Morning Show and co-host of The Joe O And Rock Show on WSCR 670AM The Score
 
You can follow The Mully And Hanley Morning Show at twitter.com/mullyhanley
 
You can follow The Joe O And Rock Show at twitter.com/joeoandrockshow



Recommended

[?]

Recent Posts

Subscribe

Leave a comment

129 Comments

David Wallach said:

user-pic

What about making the most out of a horrible situation? Throwing your shoulders back and saying "this isn't going to stop me." Very much in the same vein that Walter Payton shot up after every hit. never stayed down and continued to fight.
I think what she is doing is great. Should she profit from it, why not, she is also showing women not to be scared and not to let some pervert control them.
If it wasn't for the story line of a celeb, hitting a hard time, falling to rock bottom, to only fight back and rise to a new level, there wouldn't be shows like E! True Hollywood stories and half the music industry.
You missed the boat on this one.

Rock Mamola said:

user-pic

The point is she complained that she was a "crime victim" and she has done nothing but use that term and made a ton of money off it.

She didn't fall to rock bottom, hit a hard time or fight back.....those would all be caused by something she did herself.

She took advantage of a situation where her words don't match her actions. She is sending the wrong message to women by doing that. When you are "embarrassed" publicly cause someone wanted a video of you naked, the next thing you should do is sex up DWTS....and make a ton of money doing it.

-RoCk

cincyredwing said:

default userpic local-auth auth-type-mt

You argument is weak. Sorry she didn't wallow in self pity long enough for you and hold onto the victim card. She pushed forward with her life! You don't get voted Sexiest Sideline Reporter by Playboy in multiple years BEFORE the hotel video episode if she didn't have a large following to begin with. DWTS would have still pursued her whether it was this season, next season or.......Doesn't matter. Nevertheless even if you don't believe that, ther are plenty of people (John Walsh of America's Most Wanted immediately comes to mind) who faced tragedy or crime and then went onto live life and pursue opportunities that resulted from those same tragedies. She deserves whatever success she gets. DEAL WITH IT.

Rational101 said:

default userpic local-auth auth-type-mt

You have absolutely no point. None. Zero. Zilch. You seem to be seething at the thought of this woman capitalizing on a bad situation. She's hot and smart AND A VICTIM.

None of your "arguments" deserve to be refuted. You, on the other hand, should be questioned regarding your apparent hatred of strong women. You clearly want her to play the shrinking violet role. If you're insecure about your manhood, don't take it out on her. She's done nothing but get on with her life — whatever it throws at her.

*dan bradley said:

user-pic

So your argument is that she's supposed to stop working, lie down and go away?

Wearing revealing clothing when she WANTS to is a woman's goddamn choice, whether she's been a victim or not. Making money however she wants to is also up to her, not you. Just because she's a sex symbol doesn't give whoever the right to peep in her door whenever they want. Even porn stars deserve privacy in their own home.

The fact that she's been a victim does not define the rest of her life. She still has free will.

Your lack of empathy and misogynistic disregard for a woman's right to her own body is fucking sickening, dude.

Rock Mamola said:

user-pic

I'm not saying lie down and go away....but she cries victim then cashes in the checks. That's what's wrong.

Screams "don't glorify the video"...but watch me dance half naked on national television.

The more and more I read about her and her business of making money off her victimization, the more it makes me ill. She should write a book, get a talk show, her own line of clothing at Wal-Mart.

You and I both know it's coming....and never would have happened if she wasn't taped.

-RoCk

krossil said:

default userpic local-auth auth-type-mt

Right ON Dan Bradley!!!!

Jason Chin said:

user-pic

You are agreeing with Elizabeth Hasselbeck. Enough said.

Rock Mamola said:

user-pic

What's wrong with Elizabeth Hasselbeck?

I'm as blue a democrat as anyone, but I've had this opinion of her for a while now.

The checks keep on rolling in for the "victim"...

-RoCk

David Wallach said:

user-pic

Elizabeth Hasselbeck claim to fame was that she was on a reality show. Nothing more. Now she is an expert that we are all supposed to trust. That is more disgusting that anything I can think of.
Dude. If you don't have kids and especially a daughter, then you are talking out of your ass. I am sorry. I am a big fan, but not here. You spend your entire life telling them that they can do anything, taking care of them nurturing them. Something like this is like poison.
She is showing people "yes you can." Is she a little over the top, yep. No more so than the people on Oprah, 20/20, or US magazine. You want to blame someone, yell at her agent.

Andy-Kid said:

default userpic local-auth auth-type-mt

This is a rough road to go down.

While I agree that there's something disingenuous about her attitude, the fact remains that her privacy was violated. She is a victim. I'm not against her trying to make the best out of this bad situation, in fact, that's the right thing to do. But what I don't like is all the lamenting and the "woe is me" attitude. She's a sex symbol, so to be appalled of the fact that men drool over her is what's disingenuous. She's hot, she's on tv...what did she think was gonna happen?

Rock Mamola said:

user-pic

I just love how clueless she sounds when she says:

""It's actually been surprising. I will be honest: I did this show (Dancing With The Stars) to get happy. I never thought of what it would do for me in my career. It's crazy."

That's BS....just another great move by Erin Andrews INC.

-RoCK

Dmband said:

user-pic

Rock-

Way off base. Comparing someone being upset because they were unknowingly videotaped naked while in a hotel room and CHOOSING to wear a revealing outfit on a dancing show are two completely different things. I mean, about as different as two things could possibly be.

Thats like comparing rape to consensual sex.

Rock Mamola said:

user-pic

She is a sex symbol...

She has used that video for every penny it's worth.....stuck at ESPN doing college games and now:

"She is one of the top sports personalities in the country," says Michael Norton of Gillette"

Come on....all a great strategy by Erin Andrews Inc.

-RoCk

Killian70 said:

user-pic

More like rape to prostitution. . .

AverageJo said:

default userpic local-auth auth-type-mt

You, sir, are a jack@$$. What she wore on DWTS was perfectly acceptable (note: This costume, Erin's favorite, btw, is actually almost completely a nude FABRIC, not her actual skin - and it doesn't matter anyway if it was or not) as were ALL her costumes (and her partner, Maks, did a FANTASTIC job at designing them). Just because she was a victim and her pictures were plastered across every news media outlet and the internet without her consent does not mean she can no longer dress like a woman. She has a great body and SHOULD show it off in whatever she feels comfortable in. Whenever I have seen her, her clothes were always appropriate, just as her costumes were and just as her dance was. After all, it was, the last time I checked, a dancing competition. Can she not go to the beach this summer and wear a bikini?!?! Would that be inappropriate? Let me guess, you think women should walk two steps behind their man, right? Yes, she is making money off of her "celebrity" status because of these tapes, not really her fault. She became more visible because of these tapes but she was hardly unrecognizable before. She is a role model for women victims across the world. She does not deserve to crawl under a rock and disappear because some perv videotaped her, just as rape victims or assault victims should not because what happened to them and her was not their fault. That's her point. Obviously you don't get it.

Rock Mamola said:

user-pic

How many women you know dress like that when they go ballroom dancing?

There is a difference between wearing a bikini on a beach and wearing that in front of 18 million people every week.

How is she a role model by severely capitalizing off her "victimization"? Is that a good lesson for women?

Not her fault she's making money....she's the one agreeing to do these ventures.

I think I get exactly what she's doing....making money. She's doing nothing more than what the "perv" would have done selling the video....making money off it.

-RoCk

AverageJo said:

default userpic local-auth auth-type-mt

All the women in a ballroom competition dress like that, thank you.
If she wears that bikini and is photographed and it's plastered all over In Touch, People, Radaronline, etc. she is somehow now flaunting it, right?!?
So because she is more known now because of the tapes, she is supposed to turn down every job opportunity that comes her way? Come on....
Yes, the "perv" would have made money but it was NOT WITH HER CONSENT. That makes it a huge difference, my friend.
Here's a situation for you: You are walking down the street and a gang jumps you and beats you to a pulp. The news media gets a hold of it. Suddenly people are like, "RoCk who?!" and want to get your story. So you tell the story, etc. Now people want you to host _____(fill in your ideal media event) because they hear your show and say "heh, he's not that bad"...you're supposed to turn down every opportunity that comes your way????

Rock Mamola said:

user-pic

The job opportunities wouldn't have come her way without the tape.

Dancing with the stars (200K) wouldn't be calling without the tape.

SONY wouldn't be calling without the tape.

I can almost guarantee you that she got these gigs based off her work with ESPN.

As for the situation you posed to me: they would have listened to me before asking me.....you think ABC exec's watch the college world series?

be real

-RoCk

Rock Mamola said:

user-pic

CORRECTION:

I can almost guarantee you that she DIDN'T get these gigs based off her work with ESPN.

That is all...

AverageJo said:

default userpic local-auth auth-type-mt

Actually I don't know the whole "corporate structure" on this so you might want to look it up, but I believe ABC and ESPN are affiliates, so there's a pretty good chance execs knew of her before all this. You may not have known who she was before, but others did. Some people follow college sports very closely. DWTS has plenty of people that no one knows of if you don

AverageJo said:

default userpic local-auth auth-type-mt

Don't follow their line of work. For all you know they have a list of would be candidates and she was on it. Or she may have thrown her name to them before because she was a fan of the show. And she was a big hit on it --- not because of her tape but because of her personality and the chemistry between she and Maks. And she is good behind a microphone. There is no rule that says you must be ugly to be on tv. Usually ugly is what gets you OFF tv.

Rock Mamola said:

user-pic

That's why they only drag me onto TV once a month...

Rational101 said:

default userpic local-auth auth-type-mt

Excuse me Rock, but how many women do you know who go ballroom dancing? That's your comeback? Rock, you are the fraud because there's no way you believe your own BS. "How many women you know dress like that when they go ballroom dancing?" Really? Your attempt at humor (at least I hope that's what this whole post is about) is completely distasteful. By writing this "article" you have made it clear you condone the violation of women. The suggestion that Erin should be grateful that she was violated reveals everything about you, Rock. You have a serious problem. Get some help.

Rock Mamola said:

user-pic

You comment is IR-Rational

Sorry dude, you got it all wrong.

-RoCk

Dmband said:

user-pic

Also, the 911 tape released and played on your very radio station proved just how genuinely scared she was during that time.

Rock Mamola said:

user-pic

So genuine that she said:

"Dispatcher: And what's your name?

Andrews: My name is Erin. My last name is Andrews. I'm all over the news right now.

Dispatcher: I'm not familiar.

Andrews: I'm the girl that was videotaped without her knowing, without her clothes on in the hotel.

Dispatcher: Really?

Andrews: And I've got two assholes sitting outside my house.

Dispatcher: I'm so sorry.

(via deadspin)

Who tells a dispatcher
1. "You don't know who I am"
2. "I've been in the news"
3. "I'm this girl....."

Listen to that part again and tell me it's genuine.....or scripted.

-RoCk

Dmband said:

user-pic

Im not saying she's a role model or anything like that, I just dont think you can call her a fraud for trying to raise her market value in her profession, directly or indirectly because of that tape. She SHOULD captialize off it.She should get some kind of repayment for the humiliation.

Rock Mamola said:

user-pic

So she SHOULD capitalize directly because of this tape?

Then don't put yourself up there like a victim then....you're making money by using the tape as a base of your stardom.

-RoCk

Dmband said:

user-pic

So she wasnt a victim?

Victim:
1)an unfortunate person who suffers from some adverse circumstance
2) a person who is tricked or swindled

Rock Mamola said:

user-pic

If you make money and advancing your career off your "victimization" which is what u and I stated:

Then are you really a victim?

Dmband said:

user-pic

Yes, because no amount of money or material possession can replace your dignity.

Again, Im not saying she's a role model or a great woman or anything like that.

Awesome Barb said:

user-pic

Well said.

lulubelle212 said:

default userpic local-auth auth-type-mt

First of all, if you want to blame anyone, you should blame the moron who decided it was ok to videotape her through a hotel keyhole. I certainly hope you don't think that was ok. NONE of these opportunities would have come her way if he did not do this to her. Had DWTS approached her BEFORE this happened, I am willing to bet you that she would have taken the gig to advance her career - many in Hollywood are dying to get on that stupid show because to jump start their careers, but now, because she has had a misfortune in her life, she is suppose to turn down opportunities? Her career before this incident was in the media, and it will most likely continue to be, until she's not appealing enough for the fickle american audience. I can understand your point if she was never in that business like that fool Kate Gosslin, but Erin was already in "show business". One of the first DWTS had a television anchor as a contestant (Ms. Fernandez) and no one complained about that???

Rock Mamola said:

user-pic

I agree with you on the first part of your comment. I'm not OK with what happened to her at all. I agree if DWTS approached her before the incident or if it never happened....fine.

However, I think both you and I know that is not the case. There is no way she would have been offered the show without the tape.

I'm not saying she should stop living her life because of some idiot with a camera. What I'm saying is her words set a standard before SONY and DWTS. Now, she's gone back on those same words and glorified the situation.

As far as Ms. Fernandez....She's won Emmy's....a little different from ESPY's.

-RoCk

Eric From The Dugs said:

user-pic

"However, I think both you and I know that is not the case. There is no way she would have been offered the show without the tape."

At least 50% of your gripe is with the American public as well then. This sort of thing sells, and it shouldn't.

Rock Mamola said:

user-pic

If it's with the American public....then I agree.

FrankS said:

user-pic

I'm not a big Erin Andrews fan. I don't think she has much talent besides her attractiveness. But I think that Rock should be more offended that there are ads popping up on his site for purveyors of Wrigley Rooftop seats than whether or not Erin is taking unfair advantage of the publicity she gained from being stalked.

Rock Mamola said:

user-pic

I know not of what you speak.....I have a pop up ad blocker.

-RoCk

michaelb14 said:

default userpic local-auth auth-type-mt

truly bizzarre perspective. Another hater who catn stand it when someone else does well for themselves.

Rock Mamola said:

user-pic

Yeah, you're right. I hate the fact people are more successful than I.

Please....

-RoCk

Dmband said:

user-pic

Rock-

There are several instances where "victims" of police brutality, for examply, recieve large lump sum settlements for "pain and suffering".

Surely, you are not saying they are not victims, because they "profited" from that experience are you?

Rock Mamola said:

user-pic

Now you want to compare physical harm of a human being by police to this..??

That's a bigger stretch than anything I've ever written.

-RoCk

JulieDiCaro said:

user-pic

Well, this is a nice little firestorm you've managed to stir up here, Rock.

Let's talk about this tomorrow on the podcast!

Rock Mamola said:

user-pic

I'm down....DM me what time and the #

-RoCk

David Wallach said:

user-pic

And now you're cashing in on Erin Andrews, which makes you a parasite.

Rock Mamola said:

user-pic

Cashing in? So what can't I write about David? I get paid for this....that's no lie.

I have an opinion and this is my forum....you never had to read.

-RoCk

David Wallach said:

user-pic

You are planning on podcasting about it, which will drive people to your blog, which will make you more money.
If CN Radio calls, will you go on there as well? Which will drive people to your site, which will make you even more money.
Judging from the amount of comments already, this is one of your most successful stories, which is making you money.
You should actually thank Erin.

moustache said:

default userpic local-auth auth-type-mt

*ChaChing* another coin in the coffers of cRoCk INC.

Rock Mamola said:

user-pic

Oh boy!! You got me now!!

zeedee said:

default userpic local-auth auth-type-mt

Wow. This is quite possibly the worst logic I've ever heard. If you're the victim of a crime, you apparently can't be successful afterward, because someone like you will say that they were really just an opportunist all along.

Erin Andrews was a sex symbol before she was stalked by a clearly disturbed dude. For as many sports blogs that might have questioned her talent as a sports journalists, there were 10 guys hoping she'd be on the sideline covering college basketball or football so that they could see her at halftime.

She's not cashing in on the fact that she was the victim of a stalker, she's cashing in on the fact that she's a very attractive, and obviously intelligent woman.

It's not as if she made a pornographic movie that involved stalking as part of the plotline, if she ever does anything like that, I'll totally agree with you.

Until then, she's an entertainer (which she's always been) making the very best of a bad situation. Have many of these opportunities come her way because of the notoriety she received related to the stalking case? Yes. Does she have every right to take advantage of those opportunities? Yes. Appearing on "Dancing With The Stars" in what amounts to a pretty average dance costume does not constitute an ethical or moral dilemma.

Rock Mamola said:

user-pic

I have to disagree with this statement:
"She's not cashing in on the fact that she was the victim of a stalker, she's cashing in on the fact that she's a very attractive, and obviously intelligent woman"

Although she is attractive and very intelligent...without that video, she's not on DWTS or a SONY commercial.

It's about hitting the iron when it's hot, and that's why SONY and DWTS came calling.

Her job as a sideline reporter is not to entertain....that's why you have a color commentator and/or lively PBP man. Reporter = reporting.

Thanks for reading, but I have to disagree with you.

-RoCk

moustache said:

default userpic local-auth auth-type-mt

The only fraud here is you Rock; Trying to insert controversy where none exist and disingenuously acting outraged to gain an audience. Erin Andrews was stalked by a pervert. Her attire and routine on dancing with the stars would be perfectly appropriate being evaluated by Olympic judges had there been skates strapped to the bottom of her feet. It's FAMILY programming and has absolutely no relevance as to the crime committed against her, much like you and you opinion. I hope you find satisfaction despite your irrelevance, invented indignation and your pathetic attempt to alleviate such by writing this article. I'm sure Erin is enjoying her's and her success as well.

Rock Mamola said:

user-pic

yeah...the bedroom dance would have been perfect for the Olympics. :|

Thanks for reading! :)

-RoCk

Dmband said:

user-pic

Rock-

If Andrews stated that she could no longer sleep at night, felt like a prisoner in her own home, was depressed and experienced extreme anxiety would that not constitute pain and suffering?

That was my point, I was not comparing physical abuse to this case, I was stating that time and time again large lump sums of money are awarded to VICTIMS who experience pain and suffering, however that is defined by the law.

You are flat out saying that they cannot be considered victims because they are profiting from that experience.

Im sorry, you're wrong.

Rock Mamola said:

user-pic

Being beaten to a pulp and being videotaped nude are two extremely different things.

Being a victim of the law is being harmed by those who are out to protect. It's completely different.

paulyballgame said:

default userpic local-auth auth-type-mt

Erin Andrews was using her looks to advance her career well before she was illegally video taped. Many people use their looks to get ahead in their careers and that's their choice. Why does Rock have a problem with her continuing this approach to her career after she was illegally video taped? Could she not have been both deeply disturbed by the peeping tom video and shrewd enough to use it to her benefit? I don't get Rock's point.

Rock Mamola said:

user-pic

The point is don't say one thing....then go against your own words. Don't act like a victim of an act, then act like an entrepreneur using the act as a platform for your career.

That's the point...and it's earning her millions.

-RoCk

ShmuelBreban said:

default userpic local-auth auth-type-mt

This article is very disappointing. I haven't heard of Erin Andrews prior to seeing the link to this article on my feed, but it seems like she was the victim of a crime. Should she then say "no" to anything good that might come her way? That's about as absurd as the writer's comparison between a nude film published and circulated against one's will to appearing clothed on TV show. This was just a smear job.

Rock Mamola said:

user-pic

This is no smear job.....

I simply don't like the fact that she plays the "woe is me" card, then turns it around going against everything she says and make millions off it.

-RoCk

Don't act like a victim, then use the act itself to make millions of dollars off it.

moustache said:

default userpic local-auth auth-type-mt

Explain to me how accepting legit jobs in her line of work is "going against everything she says". You clearly are the fraud here. You're manufacturing a controversy to gain an audience from the crime committed against her. Should she not accept the positions with ABC or Sony? Your argument as baseless as it is hypocritical.

Rock Mamola said:

user-pic

Dancing with the stars and commercials are not legit jobs in her line of work.

Name one other sideline reporter on Sony ad's or dancing with the stars?

She thought the media was "glorifying" the video and that was wrong. Yet without the video....she doesn't get a SONY commerical and a spot of DWTS.

Tell me she would get those without the video? You'd be lying.

My point is simple....don't say one thing and act all "woe is me" and then turn around and benefit from it. Just admit you're using the same thing that humiliated you and made you fear for your life and your source of stardom.

It's very simple 'stache

-RoCk

moustache said:

default userpic local-auth auth-type-mt

Not in her line of work? She's in the television business! All sorts of television personalities do commercials and appear on reality TV. She was a member of the basketball dance team at Florida and was twice voted "Americas sexiest sportscaster" by Playboy before she was the victim of a sex crime which you so happily berate her for. Is that not qualification enough to appear in a commercial and a dance related realty TV program? I'd be surprised if Playboy didn't invent the award just to put Andrews in their magazine. And if the incident raised her profile, so what? That does not make her a fraud like yourself, but a matter of circumstance. Stop hating the player and turn your attention to the game, because you're unwittingly becoming a part of it.

Rock Mamola said:

user-pic

I asked for one other sideline reporter that's on reality TV or commercials....

Is she a trendsetter? It's all revolves back to the video that he did not enjoy people (media) glorifying.

-RoCk

Dmband said:

user-pic

People sue for pain and suffering from private entities all the time. And win. For various reasons, not just physical harm.

I guess they are not victims.

Rock Mamola said:

user-pic

I guess we will have to agree to disagree my friend

-RoCk

lash said:

default userpic local-auth auth-type-mt

Rock your opinions and conclusions make me ill.

Erin Andrews was popular long before she ever had an unsanctioned nude video or did DWTS. At the same time she never did anything considered sexually revealing and was a professional in her job.
Coming to the conclusion that all the hoopla around her has solely been the result of a pixelated video is pretty weak.

Let's be blunt to the cause of her popularity. She's hot and she's into sports. That's enough for any red blooded male, and is what furthered her career more than any video ever did. The fact that a professional baseball player has been leaving her tickets at will-call for the past 3 years, speaks more than any nude video.

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/baseball/2010/06/14/2010-06-14_red_sox_rookie_daniel_nava_has_crush_on_espn_reporter_erin_andrews_leaves_her_ti.html

The fact that anytime she covered College Basketball, the students would chant her name in unison speaks more to her popularity. Just ask any sports blogger who would put pictures up of her just to generate hits on their page can attest to her popularity. It also is very similar to the exact thing you are doing right now, writing a sub-par article on a subject you know is going to grab attention and page views.

The fact is she was popular long before that nude video, and the video is the result of that popularity, not the other way around in your flawed reasoning.

Rock Mamola said:

user-pic

Tell me that she would have had invites to Oprah/DWTS/SONY without the video?? tell me that....

You'd be lying......making money off her victimization.

You bring up College basketball.....a sport no one watches during the season...and she is not on the Final Four broadcasts. That's not a good example.

You think that bloggers just write for page views?? come on son...it's about conversation with me. If it was about page views, I would post pictures and videos of athletes out getting crunk and blasted like some blogs I know of.

She was not as popular as you may perceive. The video made her what she is.....a soon to be multi millionaire.

-RoCk

Alex Quigley said:

user-pic

Oprah: no, because the topic was her stalking/videotaping.

But DWTS: very plausible, especially because she's in the Mouse family. You know how that works over there.

And she has always, always used her looks to get ahead in her field. So do a lot of men and women in broadcasting/show business.

(Guess I should say "TV", and not "broadcasting"...because, well, look at us two.)

I am all about people finding ways to take a negative and turn it into something positive. If she gets to make some extra cash because nude videos of her were spread around the world against her will, then I'm happy for her.

That being said...there is a point where Erin can't complain about using her sexuality to further her career. And we are definitely there after some of those DWTS dances.

But has she publicly "played the victim card" since DWTS? If not, I think you have to let her be. If and when she does again, hammer her hard.

NOT LIKE THAT, ROCK.

Rock Mamola said:

user-pic

Since DWTS?? Nope...

but she's using her new found fame as a stepping stone to riches.....the same stepping stone she thought the media should not glorify.

That's sorta ass-backwards. Talk to you tomorrow?

-RoCk

Alex Quigley said:

user-pic

Yep. Tonight to prepare for the podcast I'm going to be getting undressed in Room 122 at the Holiday Inn in Gurnee, just off the Grand Avenue exit on the Tri-State. The pinhole camera will already be in place, I just need someone to press "record".

Hey, a guy's gotta kick-start his career somehow!

Rock Mamola said:

user-pic

Let me post this because some of you have brought this up.

This forum I've been given is for opinion. I don't plan on writing a blog to "get hits." For me it's all about conversation, and she is a topic of conversation.

If a blogger is simply out to get hits....he won't get them. To be honest, I only average around 300-400 hits a day...and that's fine with me. As long as there is a forum, there will be my opinion, and I'm not afraid to converse with my readers.

Believe me, the pay was not the driving force behind writing for ChicagoNow, it's all about the conversation and have everyone participate.

-ROCK

Rock Mamola said:

user-pic

shameless....just shameless

lol

CN71 said:

default userpic local-auth auth-type-mt

Wow, another moron missing the point. 1.) Erin Andrews was already somewhat known as a sex symbol due to her ESPN career AND being a good looking girl. Big deal if whe is using her looks to get ahead in that way. Last I checked men still make more money when doing the same work...so good for her. 2.) If you had written 20+ articles about how you hate everyone that does Dancing with The Stars then maybe I could stomach this a bit better. But no, you choose to attack a woman that was a victim of a crime. Do you also think a girl that dresses sexy deserves to be raped. You are an absolute an complete moron. How do I get my 5 minutes back from reading this rubbish. How you can be paid for your opinion on anything is ridiculous. Complete MOE - RON.

Rock Mamola said:

user-pic

First off..

This is not a "men should rule the world and women should make less" entry.

And your reasoning is beyond rediculous....

I guess it's ok for someone to criticize a video for being glorifed in the media (i.e. media making money off victimization)....then turn around and make money off the video's publicity.

I guess that's fine....more hypocritical to me...hence fraud.

-RoCk

CN71 said:

default userpic local-auth auth-type-mt

She was a sex symbol before this happened so your argument makes no sense. You don’t know if she would have gotten these offers or not. She certainly could have. There have been less famous people on DWTS than her (even prior to her being victimized). What is ridiculous is that you can't spell ridiculous. You're pathetic. However, I don't think I've read a blog where not one person agrees with the writer though so there's an accomplishment for you. Hard to believe anyone could honestly believe what you wrote…but you are not an opportunistic fraud so we know you didn’t just write this to stir the pot right? Your Mom must be proud. Look at what my little (dumb as a box of) RoCks wrote today. *sigh*

Rock Mamola said:

user-pic

Name one more sideline reporter doing reality TV and commercials.

That is all....

This video has made her career.....plain and simple.

-RoCk

Wonton12 said:

default userpic local-auth auth-type-mt

Tell me Rock - do you work at being a dick, or is just a gift?

Is she supposed to just curl up in ball and die? She is beautiful and has the right to wear whatever the hell she wants to wear. She was on a dancing show idiot - what should she have worn, a pantsuit?


She did not invite this creep to do what he did, she had no choice in the matter. How would you feel about this if it was your wife, sister, mother or daughter? A little differently I'm sure.

You are a misogynistic prick and totally sickening.

Rock Mamola said:

user-pic

I bet you think I'm the only one in the world that thought the outfit she wore was a little much.

I'm sure....

I know this for a fact, if my wife was in her situation....she would never consider capitalizing on it after criticizing people for capitalizing on it.

That's a little redundant.

-RoCk

Killian70 said:

user-pic

Dude. . .do you have a job? You've spent an awful lot of time on this page.

Get over it. . .Rock has the right to his own opinion.

I'm with Rock on this one. Sure she should not crawl under a rock and cry after what happened to her. But if you watched DWTS, they did a little feature segment on her "suffering" and her perseverence through this "trial," the humiliation of what this guy did to her, etc. Then they cut to her dry humping the partner in see thru barely there gowns???? Seemed weird and hypocritical to me, sorry.

Go on the show, fine. Wear tight costumes, sure. Do a feature segment on your victimization??? Hypocritical.

Rock Mamola said:

user-pic

Thanks for the love Killian.....it's rare the last 2 days.

-RoCk

adeezy said:

user-pic

This white on white crime must stop!

Rock Mamola said:

user-pic

How do you know I'm white?? my pic is in black and white.

Wonton12 said:

default userpic local-auth auth-type-mt

Oh, so when life deals you lemons, you shouldn't try

Wonton12 said:

default userpic local-auth auth-type-mt

Oh, so when life deals you lemons, you shouldn't try to

Wonton12 said:

default userpic local-auth auth-type-mt

Oh, so when life deals you lemons, you shouldn't try to make

Wonton12 said:

default userpic local-auth auth-type-mt

Oh so when life deals you lemons, you shouldn't try to make lemonade? Also, I'm pretty confident DWTS won't be calling your wife.

I'm sure Maks Chmerkovskiy would be more than willing to explain the functions of costumes in ballroom dancing to you. He is the one who designed her costumes. He's easy to find on Twitter - MaksimC - I'm sure he would just love to chew you up and spit you out.

Rock Mamola said:

user-pic

Why the previous 3 posts?? Can't you delete your posts if you want?? ChicagoNow??

You're right, DWTS won't be calling my wife. Thanks for the reminder.

-RoCk

Think1002 said:

default userpic local-auth auth-type-mt

When I first read your opinion RoCk, I thought you were a misogynistic creep. I read through the comments, your responses, and kept thinking why I was so incensed by your commentary. Well, I think I finally figured out the issue. You're welcome to your opinion and I do have a choice to read it. You write to instigate, as you're fully aware, and I think you could use some coaching on how to be a bit sharper and subtle with that rapier wit of yours. You can home in on things very effectively, just need a bit more practice at arguing your point. (There, that's my issue.)

That said, I agree 100% with you on the following: DWTS and the commercial would not have come Ms Andrews' way if not for the tapes. (I think ABC and DTWS have a bit of 'splainin' to do thinking that kind of melodrama would bring in viewers.) I also agree you can't play the victim card then use it (allow it to be used??) to forward your ambitions with faux innocence (and yes, I think she's doing that). I'd say this to Ms Andrews: own your ambitiousness. Own. It. Don't play innocent and coy. Men don't care and smart, sexy, self-confident, successful women think you're an embarrassment. That's what I think you are.

Killian70 said:

user-pic

Now this makes sense. As I said above, I had no problem with her being on the show, wearing the costumes, etc., until I saw the segment where they highlighted her victimization. They interviewed her dad for crying out loud. . .that's just sick. I found myself thinking "fine. . .move on with your life. Go on the dancing show. . .that's great. But don't can your tragedy and sell it to me." That's where I was confused/angry.

thefoolinyourhead said:

default userpic local-auth auth-type-mt

Rock, you've heard the phrase "Dumb as a "Rock"? You're giving rocks a bad name. Turn off the lights and go home. And don't come back.

Rock Mamola said:

user-pic

Thanks for reading FOOL..come back anytime!

-RoCk

Wonton12 said:

default userpic local-auth auth-type-mt

Killian 70 - Just for the record, this is the first (and last!)time I have been to this site, and yes, I do have a job, a very successful one I might add.

Your and Rock are both wrong, and I sincerely hope this never happens to someone you love.

I'm done here. Have a nice day.

Killian70 said:

user-pic

I have a daughter, and I hope to god this never happens to her. But I also hope that she would have the sense not to sell her tragedy to further career. People today seem willing to do anything for success, and there should be a line. Again, if she wants to dance, fine. Canning and selling the tragedy to create sympathy and further her career just makes her another fame hag, which is a shame because she is talented and beautiful.

wendyv said:

default userpic local-auth auth-type-mt

I am partly stunned and partly not surprised at your utter stupidity. The fact that you point out her ballroom costumes as if it's a reflection of her chastity or lack thereof is beyond comprehension in the year 2010. Who are you--the freaking Taliban?? She was stalked and violated, and you actually mock her fear and being a victim of a convicted stalker who released nude videos of her to the world???! Are you completely high? How dare you imply that what she went through was no big deal--You clearly have no ability to comprehend such a violation because who the hell would want to take nude pictures of you? I think what this boils down to is that you are pissed she's a female succeeding in a job that you so desperately want, but are 1. not smart enough to handle, 2. are not attractive enough to be eye candy for TV, and 3. know for a fact that a woman like that would never, ever look your way. Your beef is with the networks, not with her--you see her as an easy target because she's a woman in a male-dominated line of work, and you think you have friendly audience to spout your misogynist opinions..thankfully, I see that your male listeners/readers are more highly evolved than you.

Alex Quigley said:

user-pic

Back that truck up, Wendy. The personal attacks on Rock's looks 1) don't back up your point at all, and 2) made it sound like you ran out of ideas.

Rock, to chip away at another point you made: Erin Andrews has been in the SONY commercials long before the video scandal erupted. I can't believe I didn't say that in my earlier posts.

And finally, out of curiousity: how many of you have actually seen the video? I haven't and really don't want to due to the nature of the vid's obtainment, but I don't even know anybody who has, either. Maybe people are too ashamed to admit they looked at it, I don't know.

Rock Mamola said:

user-pic

Dude...I've googled and bing'd (is that a word) Erin Andrews Sony Commercial..

All the results are after the video story hit....

Any help?

-RoCk

Alex Quigley said:

user-pic

I found a photographer talking about doing a photo shoot for Sony, mentioning a bunch of big celebs including Manning, JT, and other celebs involved in the SONY campaign. Not Erin by name, but it was posted July 7, 2009...a few days before the scandal broke.

And your recollection is correct in that the campaign did not launch until mid-August 2009, timed with the start of the new football season. But the scandal hit in mid-July...I can bet that Andrews was already cast and those commercials were probably already shot by then.

link to photographer's blog

serenitynow said:

default userpic local-auth auth-type-mt

Rock,

There's a fatal flaw in your argument. One of your main points is that she would not have had any of these opportunities without being taped first. I agree that her career is on the uptick due to the crime committed against her and that she is indeed cashing in. However, it's equally true that she would not have had these opportunities without first being famous/notorious beforehand. Would Plain Jane office worker from Schaumburg have been offered these plums if she had been the victim? Of course not. I think it's debatable whether she is being hypocritical, but I think the argument that she is only getting DWTS and ad spots because of the crime needs to be shelved.

And BTW, as soon as I registered with Chicago Now, I got an email for Latino Singles. What's up with that CN?!

Rock Mamola said:

user-pic

I don't know about the Latino Singles ads, but I'll look into it (do I have that access?)

-RoCK

alf1980 said:

default userpic local-auth auth-type-mt

Rock, you have it wrong.
It was a crime. There are worse crimes. But for someone like her who travels and stays in hotels along the thought of being stalked and what he may have done next if the videos were not enough had to be traumatic. She is a vicitm.

She is attractive and smart enough to stay in great shape so she can use her looks as an asset.

She could have reaceted by letting the crimnal force her into hiding and only comming out in the public in big baggy clothes.

She instead decided to make the situation work at least some to her advanatage, advance her carreer, and make the producers of DWTS some money as well.

Your assertion that she would not have been on DWTS if she had not been violated is baseless. Non of the DWTS participants are A list stars anymore and some never were. She fits the mold of who they would pick even if she had not been in the news recently.

Is she an entertainer and a perfomer (that's what most TV sports reporters are) who took advantage of recent news to make a profit? yes.

Is that bad, No,

Is she a fraud, no.

Are you wrong, yes.

Charlie said:

user-pic

I agree that she is a fraud, but not for the reason you have listed. She is a fraud for how the situation started. The website which hosted her "movie" never named her. It was posted for several months, and no one knew it was her...until she came out and said it was her. She created the entire controversy herself.

But how she has reacted to the celebrity that came from it is not wrong. In fact, it's the reason why she created the controversy in the first place. There's nothing wrong with parlaying this press into more time in the spotlight. I respect that you find it "disgusting", as that's your opinion, but she wasn't the first to do it, nor will she be the last.

Rock Mamola said:

user-pic

Charlie,

Your comment is probably the best comment on the page. You are absolutely correct when it comes to her creating the controversy herself and benefiting from it.

She will not be the last, and that is disgusting.

-RoCk

Think1002 said:

default userpic local-auth auth-type-mt

Charlie, you're right about her reaction to celebrity. As I commented earlier, she's got to own it. That's the differentiator RoCk cites. She's playing it off as if it isn't deliberate and that she's "aw shucks, golly!" about it. That's a bull-you-know-what.

bigjim said:

default userpic local-auth auth-type-mt

Rock, I severely disagree with you about her being able to get these gigs solely because of the video. She was one of the most googled people before the incident. She was a huge internet sensation to begin with. DWTS was asking her to be on that show for years beforehand. And did you see what the other girls on that show were wearing? That purple dress is flesh-toned so what, it doesnt actually show anything. What the incident did give her was public sympathy around the sports/non-sports world. People who don't pay attention to sports(i.e. the Oprah crowd) now knew who she was. The reason her brand might be more marketable now, is because she didnt sit inside and let the video ruin her life. She actually moved on with her life. Her brand around the college/pro sports arena was huge and she would be moving on to a largely successful career regardless. I frankly don't know what motivated you to be angry because she isn't sitting in a dimly lit room and suffering from manic depression. I normally like listening to you on the score, but this article is completely baseless and way off point.

SarahSpain said:

user-pic

You have two choices when you're a victim: Let the perpetrator ruin your life and send you into hiding....or fight, earn your life back and try to use your experience to help others. Countless victims of many, many differnt tragedies have responded with strength and used their new-found (or increased) fame to not only their own benefit but to send a message to other victims. Erin said that she did DWTS to get her smile back (and yes, people do it for fun, not just for the money--to many people , including me, it looks like a total blast to do) and she also said she wanted to prove to herself and other victims that her stalker didn't win. To prove that you shouldn't have to stop being a woman, or beautiful, or successful, or pursue your dreams, just because someone has turned your sexuality, fame or beauty into something disgusting. If she were to deny any opportunity that might involve sexy clothing or implied sensuality, she would be letting what happened to her take away not only from her enjoyment of life and her ability to make money.

There are MANY former sideline reporters or sports anchors who go on to become tv hosts or entertainment reporters--men and women. People in the entertainment industry cross over all the time--there are opportunities for athletes, writers, broadcasters, singers, etc. from all arenas to be on TV or in commercials--and not just women. Saying that commericals or shows like DWTS aren't in her field is just idiotic and I know you're smarter than that--you're just reaching for straws to back up an argument that is so clearly flawed.

You say the real reason you're mad is that you think she's claiming to be a victim but then capitalizing on the very event that made her a victim. Turning down job offers won't get her her privacy back. Saying no to career advancement won't make her any less nervous, scared or tentative when traveling, meeting strangers, or even just sitting in her own house. There is literally NO reason for her to turn down offers for commercials, tv shows or any other job. It doesn't make her a fraud that the public, the media and the world now know her name and, after DWTS, find her to be funny, likeable and talented. If you can't fix the life events that led to today, there's no sense in letting them affect the events of tomorrow. What do you suggest: a specified moritarium on accepting job offers? What's the appropriate amount of time in your eyes for her to "be a victim" before she can move on with her career and life?

You can be a victim and still turn your experiences into something positive. Take the girl who got her arm bitten off by a shark and went on to do some TV shows and get sponsorships for surfing. Is she no longer a victim of a shark bite just because she's now receiving endorsements and tv offers? Take the Crocodile Hunter's daughter, who has her own show purely because of her father's untimely and tragic death. Is her life without a father not made better because she can follow in his footsteps and keep his memory alive by continuing his work? As someone else said, John Walsh was motivated by the murder of his son to host America's Most Wanted. Would it be better for him to keep his rage to himself or to turn it into a positive? Whether or not he's rich and successful, he's still a victim.

When something horrible happens to you or is done to you, you are just as deserving--if not more so--of happiness and success. I have a feeling this wouldn't even be talked about if Erin wasn't a beautiful woman in a male-dominated industry. The norm in society is to judge women first by their appearance (Michelle Obama's arms and outfits vs. her incredible intelligence/career) and in Erin's case, all the hard work in the world will never be enough to convince small-minded, misogynists everywhere that a woman can be both beautiful and smart, talented, hard working, etc. Yes, her looks have to do with her career, but that's life. That's the way our society works--for better or for worse (and yes, there are times when it's for the worse). She was violated and she has fought back to prove that victims of crimes like rape, abuse, or stalking can't let the perversion of some men turn them into lifelong hermits or make them feel guilty for their success.

If you had made one compelling argument I would have believed that you wrote this out of a desire for "discussion" but you wrote it so you could post video and pictures of Erin and degrade someone who's hard work and experience made it possible for her to be successful in spite of tragedy.

Rock Mamola said:

user-pic

Sarah,

Thanks for posting.

First of all, I do not condone what the bastard did by taping her. It's very simple...she sat with Oprah and took offense to the media (us) posting the video and still of the video on sites/newspapers to sell product. She considered it "glorifying" the event which is her opinion and she is absolutely allowed to have it.

However, when a victim of a crime (in this case) complains on a NATIONAL stage that for third parties to make money off what happened to her is wrong.....she has to abide by the rules of her own statements.

You know this business as well as anyone.....and you know execs with whomever she signs with are going after Erin Andrews "The girl in the video" rather than Erin Andrews "The sideline reporter". That is wrong, and maybe my complaint is with the execs who offer her deals strictly based off the video itself.

I believe (my opinion) that when she accepts these offers from television corporations and advertising firms that the thought of exactly WHY they are offering it to her NEVER goes through her head.

I have never had an issue with how she is as a sideline reporter.....personally I find the job a little redundant to be honest because it never provides really anything.

But to say one thing and do another.....that is hypocritical and therefore I think she's a fraud. Don't tell me you feared for your life and felt humiliated about a video that has turned her into:

"She is one of the top sports personalities in the country," says Michael Norton of Gillette"

She wanted to get her smile back?? Then why does DWTS feel compelled to bring up the event ON THEIR SHOW? That creates that "woe is me" character of EA.

I used the picture/video as examples of my arguement. Don't say it's wrong for third parties to show my video cause SEX SELLS....then go on DWTS (who you signed with when the iron was hot) and sell it.

I'm not saying she should crawl in a hole and go away, but there are other ways to handle this whole situation. How about never saying that was you in the video in the first place?? (Thanks Julie) It's a great idea since the video was on the net for MONTHS before we found out it was EA.

That's just one example of how she could have done things differently.

The fact is Sarah she SAID one thing and went ahead and capitalized on it just like the papers/media did in her own way. That's my post and my opinion.

I have nothing against her work, never did. However by cashing in on the best thing that happened in her career after playing the "woe is me" card....that's shameful

Listen to ya everyday....

-RoCk

SarahSpain said:

user-pic

So you agree that she's allowed to be angry that blogs and media outlets are running footage that was acquired via illegal action...good.

But you equate doing a dancing show with skimpy costumes as the same thing. "Sex Sells" isn't a catch-all that umbrellas illegal acts AND dancing. One is a violation of privacy, one is a choice. She was unknowingly filmed naked and doesn't want that footage propogated. She KNOWINGLY joined a show that she has control over and that she elected to do. There's a very big difference.

She has the right to want illegally acquired footage of her to be withheld, but be okay with people seeing footage of her fully clothed dancing.

Re: Oprah - she has a right to tell her side of the story and not let the only voices out there be blogs and other third parties.

Re: The offers - do you expect her to set up some sort of screening process whereby she determines whether an offer is the result of the scandal? How do you propose she work in the future if you don't want her to accept any offers that may/may not be partly tied to her recently becoming a household name? At this point she's tied to this incident whether she likes it or not and there's no way for here to move forward in any arena without you claiming that she got there for the wrongs reasons and is "cashing in."

If she released a porn about being stalked or something--fine, that's directly cashing in on a tragic event. She's not doing that. She's trying to continue a career she's worked VERY hard for and it's beyond insulting for you to insinuate that she never would have gotten offers for other jobs without having to first be violated and victimized.

Bullssignlebron said:

default userpic local-auth auth-type-mt

Erin andrews needs to hook up with Adam Burish of the Blackhawks what a couple that would make. They've both made great videos for the utube. Check out the one of Burish leaving the bar at 8am. Classic! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M_SOrJkCNY4

Rock Mamola said:

user-pic

I'm surprised Kane was able to stand at the parade....

That's a lot of boozing!

-RoCK

bigwhisker said:

user-pic

Rock, just face it. What she does with her career is besides the point. What matters is that you're REALLY only passed that you're not getting any ass from her!!

Rock Mamola said:

user-pic

Yeah...you're right.

I'm passed, really passed.

-RoCK

bigwhisker said:

user-pic

Sorry buddy....I'm still waiting for a valid *argument* here....somewhere!

Just face it, dude....you're grabbing for straws with one hand....and grabbing for some Andrews' ass with the other!

Rock Mamola said:

user-pic

coming from a guy with an picture like that...

those EA's?

paulyballgame said:

default userpic local-auth auth-type-mt

Rock doesn't make any sense at all and comes across as a complete fool. Because she didn't think a THIRD PARTY should profit off of the crime committed against her, she's a hypocrite for continuing on with her own career?! Rock failed to make even one salient point to back up his argument. Since Erin Andrews was upset about having her privacy violated and then put on display for the entire world to see she's a bad person for moving on with her life? What is your point Rock? You've had about 2 dozen chances on here to make your point, but you seem incapable of making it. Maybe this writing thing isn't the right venue for your limited intellect.

Rock Mamola said:

user-pic

Everyone is missing my point. It's more like 2 dozen people MISSING my point.....

I'm really amazed and confused all at the same time. What's so hard to understand.

- makes statements how it's wrong that people are cashing in on her video/pics

- cashes in on her new found fame because of those same vids/pics

What's so hard to understand?

BigRichB said:

default userpic local-auth auth-type-mt

Im not going to get into the name calling or scream out sexism here, but c'mon Rock, why does this suprise you? People have been trying to get paid for their 15 minutes of fame since the 80's. Some people use personaly tragedy to do this, some use being exploited! She is in the Sports Media business, which the majority consumer of it is Male, and not saying shes a horrible Journalist, but lets face it, Sports Media outlets tend to want a pretty face and shapely figure out there to get ratings and compete with the other outlets! Sad and sexist as that sounds to people, it has truth to it, and its not limited to sports, the media in general does this, they'll exploit anyone willing to let it be done to them for a nice paycheck! Which then causes the person to want to parlay that into something bigger!

Cindy Hamilton said:

default userpic local-auth auth-type-mt

Rock, count me as one of the two dozen people missing your point so could you please help me understand where you're coming from and answer my questions: How is she 'cashing in' if she's accepting job offers? Is it your argument that she never would have gotten those job offers if she hadn't been the victim of a crime? What would you prefer her to - what would be more appropriate behavior you think she should engage in? Would it have been more acceptable to you if she had appeared on DWTS but not participated in a segment referencing the crime?

RWD said:

default userpic local-auth auth-type-mt

You do condone what Mr. Barrett did. In fact, you claim that Erin is indebted to him. "You should have a sizeable portion of all the money you made (including the 200,000 you made off DWTS) off your post-nude video career and set it aside for Mr. Michael Barrett who followed you and truly made you a star."

Do you realize how disgusting that is? Do you realize that you just stated she should be INDEBTED to a STALKER? Do you know how sick and twisted that is? The first time I read this, I literally gagged. I felt sick reading what you wrote. You just JUSTIFIED his crime in that sentence.

No one is missing your point. What's happening is you don't understand what you're really saying.

bigjim said:

default userpic local-auth auth-type-mt

Rock did you think that since EVERYONE is "missing" your point. It might be you missing the point? Your mad because she keeps talking about the incident. Did you ever think that the media isn't going to let it go away for a long time? They initially wanted to know her reactions about it, now they want to know how it has changed her, how shes recovered, hows she moved on, etc. She works in the media and she will be continued to be asked about it for sometime. In order for her to avoid it, she would have to do just want you want her to do and go cower inside her home. I suggest you take a page out of Erin's book and not let the incident define her. She was a good confident sports reporter before hand and she will continue to do well in whatever she decides to do come July 1st. Her "cashing" in and accepting any sort of job that gives her a paycheck is not because of the video. You seem to have forgotten she had a successful career before this and was well compensated. Her having a successful career now and being well compensated apparently is unacceptable to you. Its too bad she didnt do what you would like her to do and quit ESPN, leave the public limelight and go make minimum wage as a receptionist at a doctors office. Because her ever accepting a lucrative job again and "CASHING IN" is obviously attached to the video and is fraudulent. It has nothing to do with the 9-10 years of hard work she put in beforehand to be respected as something other than a sex symbol and more for her sports knowledge and reporting ability. Give it a rest Rock and realize your wrong, Im sure its the first time.

Sherry said:

default userpic local-auth auth-type-mt

I don't understand why a person cannot go on with their life and their career, even after the person has been victimized and it has been on the news. I'm stunned and sickened at your sympathy for the victimizer.

makerinfan said:

default userpic local-auth auth-type-mt

ITA with Sherry. In fact, I could consider Rock's sympathy for the victimizer to be more characteristic of someone truly soulless.

makerinfan said:

default userpic local-auth auth-type-mt

"One thing that always has pissed me off is how some people are so soulless that they benefit of a personal tragedy or a hardship put on people."

Hmmm...one thing that always pisses me off is the laziness of blog writers who refuse or are unable to proofread and/or utilize grammar check prior to posting their idiotic opinions.

lawlady3 said:

default userpic local-auth auth-type-mt

The only person that is making everybody ill here is you Rock!
Your insensitivity and sexist bordering on misogynistic views are truly despicable.
This woman was victimized beyond her control. She was videotaped in a hotel room which is supposed to be a private place. Her rights and privacy were violated in a way that I cannot even imagine. So what does she do? Instead of curling up into a ball and being depressed for the rest of her life, she decides to move on and continue working in her job at ESPN. However, she found that she was still not happy and did not really give herself time to heal so she wisely chose to do something else to try and get her life back into her own hands. DWTS was a vehicle for her to get control of her life again. It is a dancing show and she has always liked to dance. Yes she was wearing skimpy costumes but what is she supposed to wear in a dancing competition, a potato sack? That argument about how she should not wear skimpy clothes after she has been violated beyond her control is the dumbest thing I have ever heard. One thing has nothing to do with another. Yes her privacy was violeted and she went on a dancing show and wore the "standard" clothing that dancers wear(truthfully she could have worn a lot more revealing clothing imo.) There is no correlation between the two events.
Also, after going on dwts a lot of opportunites have come her way. I say good for her. She has worked as a sideline reporter for many years on ESPN and has done a good job. Is she supposed to stay a sideline reporter for the rest of her life? I am sure that gets tiring after a while. Having to travel so much and be in different hotels every night for so many days in the year I am sure is no picnic, yet, she has done that and paid her dues. She is now being offered opportunities and she would be stupid not to reach for the brass ring and grab those chances. She has worked hard and she deserves it. All the more power to her and I say, "go for it girl" and show all the doubting women and men what a strong person is truly made of.
Rock, you will never have the opportunities that she does and it bothers you doesn't it? Suck it up buddy. We are women hear us roar!

lawlady3 said:

default userpic local-auth auth-type-mt

Oops, I spelled violated above incorrectly. I was typing in a frenzy and did not check for spelling. :)

flobflo said:

user-pic

If it were "Janice from Berwyn" who got stalked she would not have been interviewed on Oprah. Most likely she got the Sony and dwts gig because she works for Disney. NOT because she got stalked and recorded.

flo

Keals said:

default userpic local-auth auth-type-mt

I have no use for Erin Andrews. She is a fraud. Talentless fraud. Oh yeah her boob job is not that good.

Leave a Comment?

Some HTML is permitted: a, strong, em

What your comment will look like:

said:

what will you say?

Most Active Pages Right Now

ChicagoNow.com on Facebook

Real-Time The Rock Report Tweets

The Rock Report on Facebook