Erin Andrews case a wake-up call for all. Let's hope we wake up.
I've always felt the Internet ranked as possibly the best technological advance of this age. I've also felt it also ranks as the worst. For every great use of it, there's at least one that manages to shine a light on the slimiest elements of our society.
The latter was on full display earlier this week when video of ESPN reporter Erin Andrews, captured by a hidden camera as she walked around naked in her hotel room, found its way on to the web. Worse, it made its way on to Deadspin, previously known as one of the best sports websites in existence. Although its editor removed the video and apologized for his actions, the damage to its reputation is done in my books.
This was a criminal act, if Deadspin somehow didn't notice, and an invasion of privacy of the highest order. It was a virtual sexual assault.
Deadspin was not alone. Less well-known sites also aired the video and the New York Post, which will never be confused with the New York Times, printed a grainy clip from the video.
For shame.
This wasn't just an example of people showing poor judgment. It lays bare the Internet culture that believes everything is for public consumption, libel is a concept from the past and common decency is something your grandmother worried about. It's a culture that preaches everything is designed for entertainment, whether it's video of people suffering serious injuries doing stupid things or invasions of privacy of the most heinous degree.
It's a culture that made the video the most sought-after item on Google this week.
I've never favoured regulating the Internet. Until now.
WEEKEND RATINGS: What's most interesting about last weekend's overnight ratings isn't so much what's on the list, but what isn't. That would be an MLS game between Houston and Toronto FC on Saturday, which drew all of 51,000 viewers to CBC.
It was a bit of an anomaly -- TFC games are averaging 118,000 on CBC -- but even that season average might not be enough to keep the national broadcaster interested beyond this season. TFC games on Rogers Sportsnet, which shows them mostly on its Ontario and Pacific channels, are averaging 46,000 viewers. The good news is that's up 53 per cent from 2007.
Here are the top-rated sports events in English Canada over the weekend, as always, provided by BBM Nielsen Media Research:
I'm not sure why TFC's ratings failures are so surprising. A national network airing a team with absolutely zero interest outside Toronto is beyond ludicrous.
Posted by: JP | 07/22/2009 at 07:13 PM
Regulating the internet how, Chris? Whoever shot the Andrews video was *already* doing something illegal.
You want to make it, uh, double-illegal?
Posted by: Josh | 07/23/2009 at 12:22 PM
Chris, you've failed to mention that EVERY other TFC game on CBC runs from 3:30-6, eastern standard time. Not a fair comparison when start times are disregarded.
The 1pm start pretty much alienates viewers in both the West and the Pacific, who otherwise are still asleep, or, just starting their day.
I've followed your blog a a while, and you seem to have something against the CBC...
Why don't you blog about your CBC grudge?
Posted by: Anthony | 07/23/2009 at 01:38 PM
If that TFC match only got 51,000 viewers in all of Canada then the viewing figures for outside the GTA must have been astonishingly low.
Chris, do you get a regional breakdown of the ratings?
Posted by: Coisty | 07/23/2009 at 02:15 PM
If you combine the French RDS numbers with the TSN numbers, the highest rated game of the weekend would have easily been Montreal vs Saskatchwan. Probably close to 500,000 viewers.
Posted by: JoeKnowsIt | 07/23/2009 at 04:44 PM
Why aren't you calling for the regulation of video cameras? After all, if people needed to be licensed and fingerprinted before buying a camera, and every camera recorded a unique serial number in the image, stuff like this wouldn't happen. Right?
Posted by: Rekrul | 07/23/2009 at 07:31 PM
You are behind the story Chris. It looks like someone from ESPN was behind the story and maybe took the video. The video was on-line for four months and there was no story. It only became a story late last week when ESPN's lawyers sent out a public memo drawing the public's attention to it. Then it exploded. And funny, just before the ESPN Espy awards are being shown in Prime Time. Hmmmmm
Also the women in the video is blonde. But you can't tell who she is. We only found that out when ESPN said it was her. Why would they do that????
Do some digging on the Net and you will find out what is really going on. Here are some good links.
BTW...the Kingston blogger Out of Left Field did a really good job on this story.
What You Don’t Know Yet About The Naked Erin Andrews Hotel Videos
http://donchavez.com/blog/2009/07/17/what-you-dont-know-yet-about-the-naked-erin-andrews-hotel-videos/
ESPN HOTTIE ERIN ANDREWS IN PEEP SHOCKER
http://www.nypost.com/seven/07212009/news/nationalnews/espn_hottie_erin_andrews_in_peep_shocker_180520.htm
Posted by: Cal | 07/23/2009 at 09:43 PM
You exactly would you regulate the internet?
Posted by: Jake | 07/24/2009 at 10:18 PM
Regulation of the internet is not necessary. Prosecution of the person taking the video, and those distributing it, should be vigorous.
Could it be that your reaction is a form of Neo-Luddism: as in, "Newspapers are dying. Blame the Internet"?
Posted by: Paul Creighton | 07/27/2009 at 01:55 PM
you favor regulating the internet?. thankfully you arent the one who is or ever will be making the decisions regarding that. what will be next?.
what will types like you decide next that we shouldnt see or harm our minds with?
in any case how would you go about doing it?. Australia has tried something like it and it has been a spectacular failure of the highest possible order.
go ahead and try. even the most paranoid government on earth has tried and cant quite do it.
everything IS for public consumption, libel IS a concept from the past and common decency is something your grandmother worried about. thats subjective. not everyone thinks the way you do. but that when 'REGULATE THE INTERNET' comes out. when something appears that YOU dont agree with.
"It's a culture that preaches everything is designed for entertainment, whether it's video of people suffering serious injuries doing stupid things or invasions of privacy of the most heinous degree."
give me a break, there are far more heinous things out there than a blurry video that has been "out there" for months.
everything you bring up that has to do with standards is subjective. seems to me that only a few reporters are raising a fuss. a few others voice concerns. what about the rest of us. all the hundreds of millions?
are we all stupid, heinous privacy invaders?. thats why you'll lose trying to regulate the internet. because you probably just thought "yes".
Posted by: R Stull | 07/27/2009 at 05:29 PM
You are made of Fail. Like someone else mentioned, taping someone without their permission is already illegal. Don't blame the Internet. A private moment of an over paid sports star get leaks to the net. Cry me a river. That seems like a logically good reason to sensor the net.
Posted by: Dick Luger | 07/27/2009 at 07:35 PM
Please who cares! regulate the internet NOT!The person who did it was one of her own crew or some sicko! Just because of that u want to regulate it. Grow up just throw the guy in jail period. WE are not kids.
Posted by: ROADWARRIOR | 07/28/2009 at 09:00 AM
While I think this was absolutely wrong and the perpetrator should be punished, I don't think we should "regulate" the internet. Yes, Ms. Andrews was a victim of a crime, but she is by no means the first nor the last. If not for her celebrity status this wouldn't even garner a mention on the nightly news.
Problem is every time something wrong happens there is a knee-jerk reaction calling for drastic changes to the way things are done. This usually occurs before the facts of the situation are known and before we know if a change is truly needed.
Look at all the videos of criminal acts and accidents on television and the internet. I'm sure there are more than a few people who feel uncomfortable watching a painful/embarassing/traumatic moment of their lives replayed at the click of a mouse. Should they all be declared illegal and removed? Should the owner's be fined or imprisoned for posting the material? Or should we punish the person who stalked an innocent woman who believed she was in the privacy of her hotel room and tried to make profit from his ill-gotten footage?
I for one would like people to stop taking this apologist attitude every time someone does something stupid. There are way too many people trying to make excuses for the irresponsible behavior of others. You need look no further than the prick who recorded the footage to direct the blame (and the punishment) for this particular incident.
Posted by: tony | 07/28/2009 at 03:41 PM
"It lays bare the Internet culture that believes everything is for public consumption, libel is a concept from the past and common decency is something your grandmother worried about."
If anything should be regulated it's pundits who blame tools for the acts of their users. And why are we always so up-tight about a naked body? Compare that with thirty graphic murders on TV every week. The lesson: sex - bad, violence - good.
Oh, and my grandmother was a nudist.
Posted by: RobShaver | 07/28/2009 at 04:46 PM