Jury Awards Erin Andrews $55 Million

I came across an article regarding sportscaster Erin Andrews and the final decision involving the lawsuit against her stalker. This past Monday, Andrews won a $55 million judgement against both her stalker, who recorded secret nude videos of her, as well as the owner of a Nashville, Tennessee hotel where he took them. Originally Andrews sought $75 million from the stalker and the operator of the Nashville Marriott at Vanderbilt University. Neither Andrews or her lawyers spoke to reporters after the verdict was decided, but she did tweet a statement thanking the jury and the citizens of Nashville (see below).

Michael David Barrett, her stalker, removed door peepholes and aimed a cellphone camera into her room in order to record her. He has served more than two years in prison in Nashville, TN and Columbus, OH for his behavior. Her lawyers placed blame on the hotel, arguing that they should have never told Barrett where she was staying or allowed him to book a hotel room next to hers. When I first heard about this case, I thought it was strange that the hotel did not alert her that someone asked for a room next to hers. The article then goes onto discuss the consequences for Andrews, describing her humiliation knowing that millions of people have seen the videos, as well as the harassment she has received online and in public.

The lawyers defending the hotel argued that Andrews did not suffer any permanent damage and did not show signs that her professional career was being affected. In fact, they argued that her career actually benefited from the incident. I found this argument somewhat absurd, is there a set criteria for how a person should act when they are stalked and their body is publicly displayed for everyone to see? Did they expect Andrews to crawl into a ball and throw away her career forever? The prominent defense attorney states, "She still travels. She still stays in hotels. She does everything she did before this happened- and frankly does it better." What does he want her to do, never leave her house? His statement made it seem as though survivors that move on with their lives must not be have been affected by their experience, when in fact survivors are called survivors because they have the ability to continue living despite their traumatic incidents.

Within the article, the authors mentions that her stalker had already served a prison sentence prior to this case. I thought that this was interesting because by framing Barrett this way, it makes it seem as though stalkers are typically convicted criminals. However, after reading this weeks article, de Becker claims that stalkers, "They're not from Mars-they are from Miami and Boston, San Diego and Brentwood. They are the man our sister dated, the man our company hired, the man our friend married" (194). I do not think that the journalists meant to stereotype stalkers in general, but perhaps they should have left out the detail about Barrett and kept the focus on Andrews.

Overall, I thought the article was sensitive to Andrews's case and it never accused her or victim blamed. The journalists presented both sides of the argument without any bias, meeting the fairness objectivity criteria that all reporters should follow.





Link to article:
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/jury-awards-erin-andrews-55-million-over-nude-video-n533526