Erin Andrews Peephole Video on CBS and Fox News

CBS and Fox News have shown the Erin Andrews peephole video (technically, just small parts of it). The Erin Andrews peephole video has made it onto national television, albeit in bits of pixilated, blurred out segments or still pictures with black bars over the more interesting parts of Erin Andrews (taking their cue from the New York Post or just showing the Post's pictures).

The announcers or anchors at CBS and Fox News have been properly horrified or indignant at Erin Andrews' treatment at the hands of the blogosphere (see Erin Andrews peephole video here and here and here...) and newspapers like the New York Post. They have commiserated over Erin Andrews' exposure while exposing her (and strategically not exposing her) themselves -- all in the name of providing the news.

Which it is. News, that is. The Erin Andrews peephole video is news. It happened; it is of public interest. Most things can be categorized as such or angled to become newsworthy. But the problem reporting the news is not in delivering the facts as they exist, which the various news organizations do reasonably well, but in the self-righteousness of those that deliver the news in condemnation of others while blatantly engaged in the same practice they are condemning -- the dissemination of naked images of Erin Andrews that she has expressly cautioned against.

CBS started the bits and pieces airing on "The Early Show" Tuesday morning, July 21. Julie Chen said that what happened to Erin Andrews was "many women's worst nightmare" and proceeded to lead into a story where actual seconds of the video were shown (but blurred in the appropriate places). Over on "Fox & Friends" later that day, stills of the video were displayed prominently throughout their news segment, lacy red tape covering the naked Erin Andrews' in the places she would rather people not see.

CBS' Daniel Sieberg said the woman in the video was "purportedly Erin Andrews," even after Erin Andrews admitted that it was indeed she who was "surreptitiously" filmed by some Peeping Tom in some unknown hotel sometime in the past. It is unclear what CBS was attempting to say when they implied that the woman in the peephole video may not have been Erin Andrews, unless it was meant as a legal dodge.

Which "Fox & Friends" delivered along with their news segment as well, bringing on a legal analyst who then told viewers that prosecuting websites and individuals for third-party videos would be next to impossible even in states whose laws covered the crime, which most states do not.

Erin Andrews, the subject of the peephole video that has gone viral on the internet and now has become teaser segments on network television, issued a statement that stated she would go after anyone who published the offensive and illegal peephole video. The statement read in part: "Although the perpetrator or perpetrators of this criminal act have not yet been identified, when they are identified she intends to bring both civil and criminal charges against them and against anyone who has published the material."

Does this mean that CBS and Fox News and the New York Post are liable for the pictures and video segments they have published? Of course they are. But are they criminally liable? That remains unclear.

But what is not unclear is that Erin Andrews expressly announced that the video taken of her was done without her knowledge, which is an invasion of her privacy. By extension, CBS' and Fox News' publication of the material is an invasion of her privacy as well. And although the networks might find themselves safe from criminal charges in broadcasting stills and small portions of the Erin Andrews peephole video for "news" purposes, it does not negate the fact that they are indeed broadcasting -- disseminating -- illegally obtained material.

Which means that Erin Andrews might not have much of a problem with a civil suit against those media outlets who seem intent on ignoring her warning.

Placed in a reporting perspective, MSNBC aired the story but has not shown pictures or video, strategically barred or blurred or otherwise. Newsday lambasted the New York Post for its poor taste in placing pictures of the peephole video on its front page and on its website. ABC has not aired a still picture or video segment (perhaps due to Erin Andrews being an employee of sister company ESPN; ABC and ESPN are both owned by Walt Disney Company). Even the celebrity gossip website TMZ has refused to post pictures from the peephole video on their pages, stating that the video was (and is) a clear violation of Erin Andrews' privacy rights.

All of the aforementioned news outlets reported the Erin Andrews peephole video story; none of them have showed a still picture or part of the illegal video. They broadcast the news.

Does Erin Andrews have grounds for legal action against CBS, Fox News, the New York Post and others involved in "teasing" the public with pixilated and blurred and black-barred (red-barred for conservative Fox News) images of the illegal peephole video? Perhaps. But whether or not she will pursue legal measures remains to be seen. If the popular ESPN sportscaster should pursue the situation, the matter could set legal precedent and alter internet law altogether.

Sources:

Fox News
CBS News
MediaMatters.org
New York Post