Google Erin Andrews and the first image that appears at the top of your page is a picture of her derriere, followed by one of her in a bikini. Google John Madden, and images don't appear at the top of the page at all, and those included in the search display Madden in a booth with headphones on, presumably announcing games. While Andrews' pictures depict a sex symbol, his portray a professional. Sadly, sexualizing women in sports is a popular trend, and Erin Andrews is a leading example.
What happened to Erin Andrews was heinous, and most of the articles written over the past few weeks agree. However, while reading many of these articles, I found an unfortunate tendency that I felt compelled to write about. Most members of the media offer the obligatory statement admonishing what happened to Andrews, but many of them undermine their reproach with the sexist remarks that immediately follow. One article refers to Andrews as "America's favorite sideline Barbie doll" while another calls the incident "the best thing that could have ever happened to Erin Andrews' career."
Naming Andrews "America's doll" has several damaging consequences. First, this implies that she is a toy to be possessed or played with, which removes her humanity and, thus, lessens the offense against her. Second, it labels her as public property, which means that we can do what we wish to her because we own her. Finally, it belittles her career by insinuating that her only contribution to sportscasting is her appearance.
Furthermore, claiming that this disturbing attack on her privacy and sexuality is somehow a boost to her career is disgusting. One can assume that what happened to Andrews was personally humiliating and devastating, and the suggestion that it produced a positive outcome for her is another way for people to undermine the severity of the act.
Female sportscasters, and women in general, are sadly still discussed using sexist language, and anyone who believes this problem no longer exists need look no further than the crime against Erin Andrews and the media commentary that followed. Women are not sexual objects to be rated, as websites such as "sidelinehottie.com" suggest, nor are they "dolls" for men to play with, and the sexual assault of a woman is not a career boost. Sexist language is culturally and morally damaging and should not be tolerated. I encourage members of the media to remember what we were taught as children: Think before you speak!
This article is also published on examiner.com where I am a women's issues writer. Check out my page.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Media defends Erin Andrews, sort of....
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/15438
I'm going to say something you're not going to like.
You want to know why the media is expending so much time and so much writing on Erin Andrews? Money. The entire industry is in freefall, and they're grabbing at anything that gets search engine hits. So they're just as guilty of exploiting her as anyone else.
And by having this post be a thinly-veiled ad for your Examiner content on a pay-for-click site, you are part of the problem.
"You want to know why the media is expending so much time and so much writing on Erin Andrews?"
No, I don't. I never mentioned the amount of media attention that was given to Andrews. I understand why she is a popular topic, and I don't have a problem with that. I criticized the sexist language some articles used when discussing what happened to her. Please pay attention to my actual article.
a. Google doesn't determine their search results, the populace does. I'm sorry men are more into porn then women.
b. Whether you like it or not, it probably is a career boost. I'm sure it's one she'd rather not have.
c.The media has been treating this as if she was murdered or something. Seriously, it feels like sports armageddon. I really don't know what more you want.
When the hell did I mention porn? Or male vs. female differences in searching? I'm saying that the reason the media is treating this like "sports armageddon" is for money. Because they know that a lot of the people reading their stories will be getting there because they're looking for the pictures and/or videos. This isn't a big secret. If you looked at any of the Google Trends or the like when this blew up, that's what most of them were.
@katemoore
As far as my "thinly veiled" ad for my Examiner page, I don't think it was "veiled" at all. I was upfront about asking people to visit my site. Perhaps you are new to the world of blogging, but people often cross post articles/blogs where they think they might generate interest for other sites that they frequent/work for. In fact, the way I found out about the job at Examiner.com was through a post advertising on this site.
In response to your other points, I am completely aware of the basic principles of supply and demand, and I don't believe that my post criticized the media for writing about what happened to Erin Andrews. My criticism was directed at those using sexist language that implied that her assault was somehow partially deserved because she was a public figure.
As far as my articles being part of the problem, I'm not sure I see your point. Did I write about what happened to her? Yes. But I have never linked nor personally accessed the video or pictures, nor have I used victim-blaming language about Andrews. THOSE are the problems I have with some media outlets, not their attention to her in general.
Next time you want to criticize, fine, but please pay attention to the point of the article when you do so. Here was my criticism of some of the articles about Andrews:
"Most members of the media offer the obligatory statement admonishing what happened to Andrews, but many of them undermine their reproach with the sexist remarks that immediately follow."
Yes, viewers have turned her in to a sex symbol, and I think that is sad because she is a talented sportscaster. But, frankly, that was not my point. My argument was that her status as a "sex symbol" didn't give people the right to dismiss/undermine the invasion she experienced.
Then we have to agree to disagree, because I think exploiting what happened to Erin Andrews for profit - which, in essence, is what all the blog posts are doing - is categorically wrong.
Yes, I guess we will because I think calling attention to sexist behaviors/articles in an attempt to rectify such behavior is a vital aspect of feminism not an exploitation.
On the real, the only reason that sports networks like ESPN, SportsChannel, CBS Sports, NBC Sports, ABC Sports, Fox Sports, B Sky B Sports ect even bother to have women sideline reporters is for eye candy purposes.
The men who run these networks are sexist and they believe that only men can seriously and intelligently comment on sports.
They also believe that it's a good idea to have pretty women on a sportscast to keep male viewers (particularly the more casual male sports fans) from changing channels during the boring parts of sports telecasts.
If you watch a sports broadcast, you'll note that the men are of all different ages, heights, weights and appearances - including some guys who are downright unattractive (Terry Bradshaw, John Madden ect) but the women are all young, skinny and conventionally attractive.
That is not an accident - this is deliberate sports network sexism, a policy that comes from top management at all of those sports networks