Tuesday, March 1, 2016

Erin Andrews Continued

When I saw a headline from Buzzfeed about the Erin Andrews case I analyzed earlier in the semester, I was immediately interested. Though the incident happened in 2009, lawsuits surrounding the case are still going on. Since articles from 2009 didn't have all the information about the court proceedings, I learned that Andrews is currently suing a hotel where she was filmed, because they never informed her that they told a man where she was staying. She's also suing in $75 million for damages from Michael David Barrett, who took the video.

The most interesting part of this article, for me, was the way ESPN handled the case and her job right after the incident. Though ESPN's public statements were completely supportive of Andrews, their internal decisions were much less sympathetic. Andrews recently said in court that ESPN required her to do a sit-down interview about the situation before she could return to work. I'm not sure how other tragedies and crimes are dealt with by networks, but this seems incredibly gendered to me, and I don't think this would have happened if the crime had been less sexual - for instance, robbery. To me, the interview requirement seems like another case of the professional sports industry caring about PR and image much more than victims of gendered violence.

The article also mentions that during the court proceedings, her attorney asked her if she'd ever done pornography - a question that's irrelevant and reminiscent of the virgin/vamp frame and several rape myths. Andrews was a victim of a crime that was in no way instigated by her past behavior, no matter what that behavior consists of.

During the current trial, Andrews recently said, “My goal was to get everybody’s respect ... I wanted everybody to know I knew what I was taking about. I loved the game as much as they did, and I had the respect from athletes and coaches.” This seems like so little to ask, but provides a strong contras with the way she was actually treated in the aftermath of this incident.

Link to article: http://www.buzzfeed.com/claudiakoerner/erin-andrews-said-espn-required-her-to-do-interview-on-peeph?bftw&utm_term=.tlVD0GnKNR#.wsDQnE1X4B

1 comment:

  1. Although I agree with you that she probably shouldn't have had to do an interview given the circumstances, I can see why the network wanted her to. The internet was running rampant with people saying the whole thing was a publicity stunt on the part of Andrews, and no one knew the source of the video. I think ESPN was fair in wanting to let the public know that it was not, and let them in on Andrews's side of the story. I do, however, think it was wrong to not let her work until she complied. The surfacing of such a video should not have been in the position to compromise her career when she had nothing to do with it.

    ReplyDelete