Erin Andrews Peephole Video; Are Pictures Legitimate News?

The Erin Andrews peephole video invasion of privacy controversy has done one thing: nearly taken over the internet, giving the Michael Jackson story a little rest before its sure return on top of the final autopsy report. The Erin Andrews peephole video has not only dominated the internet, it has also went mainstream, garnering time on all the major networks, even seeing parts of the illegally obtained video shown on CBS and Fox News in the guise of "news." Fox's Bill O'Reilly went a step further in legitimizing the Erin Andrews peephole video by showing approximately 10 seconds of the actual video (properly blurred where necessary to ensure that Erin Andrews' privacy was not again violated [sarcasm implied]). Then ESPN banned New York Post reporters from their airwaves over their publication of Erin Andrews peephole video pictures on the front page of their newspaper.

And all the while, as one revelation is followed by another controversy that is inspired by something associated with the publication of the Erin Andrews peephole video, the media outlets are doing exactly the same thing as the "creepy cameraman" (New York Post appellation) -- taking an illegally obtained video of the naked sportscaster and publishing/posting it for others to view it, albeit blurred, pixilated, or black-barred out (or red-barred, as was the case with Fox News).

Still, blurred out for ten seconds (Bill O'Reilly), pixilated for several seconds (CBS "Early Show"), black-barred over (the New York Post), red-barred over ("Fox & Friends"), or shown in blurry fashion (the quality of the peephole video is reportedly not of the highest quality) without interruption on some website somewhere on the internet, Erin Andrews is being exploited for increased viewership. And every second of it is an invasion of her privacy, including the occluded pictures and video segments.

And as each one of these media outlets hides behind the feeble excuse of teasing its audiences with the titillating images of a blurry but naked Erin Andrews, they grant legitimacy to the idea that it is not an invasion of her privacy. CBS, Fox News, and the New York Post (and any and all others that have shown or broadcast an Erin Andrews image) call it reporting the news when they could just as easily do so without the strategically blocked pictures and videos. Even on the highly visual media outlet of television.

Erin Andrews' privacy was invaded. She was taped "surreptitiously" and without her consent by an unknown person or persons. That person or persons disseminated the illegally obtained video via the internet. Various websites have exploited those images. And now, so has several media companies.

In short, they have also disseminated the offending and offensive video. The fact that the inappropriate places are blurred out does not matter. They have shown photographic stills and/or portions from the actual illegally obtained peephole video that Erin Andrews has admitted were taken of her sometime in the past, illegally obtained without her consent or knowledge.

Her statement when she acknowledged that the video was indeed of her: "While alone in the privacy of her hotel room, Erin Andrews was surreptitiously videotaped without her knowledge or consent. She was the victim of a crime and is taking action to protect herself and help ensure that others are not similarly violated in the future. 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. We request respect of Erin's privacy at this time, while she and her representatives are working with the authorities."

CBS, Fox News, the New York Post, and all other outlets that have aired, ran, streamed, posted, or published pictures or video images of Erin Andrews naked have contributed -- actually aided and abetted -- the initial illegal act perpetrated by the "creepy cameraman." And attempting to place the stamp of legitimacy on what they provide to the public as "news," no matter what is not directly visible, smacks of disingenuousness.

The story is about an invasion of a reporter's privacy. That an illegal video of Erin Andrews naked in her hotel room (or rooms, as the video seems to be a composite of six or seven smaller video segments) exists is part of the story but does not have to be seen -- either unobstructed or occluded by whatever means -- for the story of the illegally obtained peephole video to be reported.

Which makes it look as if CBS, Fox News, the New York Post and others have perpetuated the initial crime.

Erin Andrews said she would prosecute the perpetrator or perpetrators who initially filmed the video and any other entity that published the illegal product ("anyone who has published the material").

ESPN, which is conducting an internal investigation into the matter, has already banned the New York Post from its broadcasts. Should the network, which is owned by the giant Walt Disney Company, not also restrict Fox News (owned by News Corporation, the same media conglomerate that owns the Post) and CBS as well? Or was the slap at the New York Post symbolic, knowing that taking such measures with Fox and CBS would severely curtail ESPN's sports coverage?

It should be interesting to see if Erin Andrews files invasion of privacy lawsuits against the offending networks. It will also be interesting to see just how far the mainstream media will go in order to provide the public with Erin Andrews' private "news."

******

Sources:

"Early Show," CBS Television
"The O'Reilly Factor," Fox News Television
"Fox & Friends," Fox News Television
New York Post