User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
Buy MLB playoff tickets, plus 2011 World Series, 2011 ALCS tickets and NLCS game tickets. We also have Texas Rangers playoff schedule, tickets to Red Sox games and Yankees game tickets. Plus, buy Phillies baseball tickets, Tigers playoff tickets and the biggies like ALDS baseball tickets and 2011 NLDS tickets. |
Demarini, Easton and TPX Baseball Bats
|
AllianceTickets.com has cheap MLB Tickets. Get all your Colorado Rockies Tickets, Seattle Mariners Tickets, San Francisco Giants Tickets and all your favorite baseball tickets here. We also carry cheap Denver Broncos Tickets, Seattle Seahawks Tickets and Denver Nuggets Tickets. |
Page rendered in 1.9693 seconds
40 querie(s) executed
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
Disagree. Harassment is what is said, not what is heard. If Andrews is adept at deflecting these sort of things, that means that what Sutcliffe said is just fine? Should the camera have found Erin with a sour look on her face after Rick said that?
I'll tell you honestly - this is false. It may have been truer ten years ago, but most of that element is not with the company anymore. The suits are ultra-sensitive to any charge of "old boy's club", to the extent of prosecuting it too far.
Yes and no, and again, if you want to take it here, the issue is "on the air" like Steve said. If Erin Andrews wants to "flirt" with a guy like Rick Sutcliffe, that is cool with me. But being on the air on TV is in some ways a public space, not a private one, and some people, men and women, might not want to see that on TV or like what it implies. Suppose, for example, a guy said that to/about your wife in a lecture hall right after she gave a presentation in front of 200 people? Would it be cool with her then?
So, of course, folks can mute ESPN, change channels, pay for Extra Innings, etc, but one can suggest that if this sort of thing is encouraged, it is not a plus for workplace etiquette in general and reflective of more serious issues.
And, yeah, Zumsteg is a little like the kid in the Updike story--it sort of does seem like he is trying to get Andrews think he is cool or something. But I think DMZ meant well and just went way overboard.
She went on to tell one of my coworkers (in pretty much the same breath) that he's dressed "particularly gay today". No one knows whether that's a compliment.
Didn't mean to piss you off if I did--forgot you work there. Just trying to see all the possible angles.
Agree.
I'll tell you honestly - this is false.
Such a weird dynamic. "Look guys, we hired this girl mainly for her looks and we are going to ask you to talk to her during the game. Her job is mainly to look hot and not say anything too crazy. But here's the thing, you cannot comment on her looks even though that's all she really has to offer. Just try to riff off of whatever she is "reporting". Yeah it's a challenge."
Thanks. So, without betraying any confidences, can you tell us how you think Andrews feels about this kind of stuff? Have you met her? I noted that you called her "Erin." We are all just speculating; you might actually have some first-hand info.
Disagree. Harassment is what is said, not what is heard. If Andrews is adept at deflecting these sort of things, that means that what Sutcliffe said is just fine? Should the camera have found Erin with a sour look on her face after Rick said that?
IOW the fact that Andrews exhibited no degree of discomfort is of no account, and should be overridden by the fact that a certain number of viewers, including DMZ, saw "harrassment" in Sutcliffe's remarks. Gee, thanks for the favor, guys.
Harassment is what is said, not what is heard.
But in this case, as in many similar cases, it all comes down to who gets to write the dictionary. In our own daily lives we've all seen innumerable incidents of genuine sexual harassment, where the woman is obviously discomforted and just wants the whole thing to stop.
But this wasn't any such thing, and to me there's something more than a bit "discomforting" in the implicit suggestion that if Ms. Andrews weren't offended, that somehow she should have been. It's almost as if Zumsteg would have both Sutcliffe and Andrews dragged into some sort of sensitivity training session, hectoring Sutcliffe to shut up and telling Andrews to slap him if he didn't.
When people rant against "political correctness," it's true that often what they're saying is little more than an excuse for inexcusable behavior. But cases like this are what keep pumping life into the cliche.
I don't think that's it. If Andrews was offended or embarrassed, it makes this incident worse, obviously, but the mere fact that she wasn't offended doesn't make it right. The fact that viewer(s) (Zumsteg and presumably others) thought it was inappropriate is a problem for ESPN.
Yes and no, and again, if you want to take it here, the issue is "on the air" like Steve said. If Erin Andrews wants to "flirt" with a guy like Rick Sutcliffe, that is cool with me. But being on the air on TV is in some ways a public space, not a private one, and some people, men and women, might not want to see that on TV or like what it implies. Suppose, for example, a guy said that to/about your wife in a lecture hall right after she gave a presentation in front of 200 people? Would it be cool with her then?
I guess I'm just dense, but I think that there may be some sort of difference between banter among ESPN colleagues at a baseball game, where such talk is commonplace, and a similar sort of ad libbing following an academic lecture, where it's not. But correct me if I'm wrong, and that the only thing that matters is the "public" nature of the two events.
Andy is used to older men flirting with younger women.
I feel sorry for you guys who are afraid of your own sexual shadows.
But it's so big!
I don't think that's it. If Andrews was offended or embarrassed, it makes this incident worse, obviously, but the mere fact that she wasn't offended doesn't make it right.
Whether it was "right" or not is a matter of individual judgment, but the fact that Andrews was clearly not offended means that as a matter of public concern, this incident goes to the end of a very long line in terms of commanding serious attention.
The fact that viewer(s) (Zumsteg and presumably others) thought it was inappropriate is a problem for ESPN.
But as others have pointed out, much of ESPN's appeal is in the informal atmosphere that they strive to create in the booth. I can't even imagine that the reaction of Zumsteg and a few semi-pro bluenoses are going to cause ESPN to lose much sleep over any of this.
Honestly, this whole silly "controversy" reminds me of nothing more than the old parody group,
The Society for Indency to Naked Animals.
I don't think Andrews' apparent lack of discomfort plays into it for a couple of reasons. First, Andrews knows that her audience in made up of a lot of Robert in Redondos. Thus she knows that any fuss she kicks up will hurt her career in sports broadcasting. Thus no one can ever be sure if she is offended or not. Second, if Andrews truly is not offended, and ESPN does nothing, that puts the next woman who feels "harassed" in such a manner in a really tough spot. If she says something, it's "Why can't you just play along like Erin?" and if she says nothing, she has to tolerate an uncomfortable work environment.
ESPN should have a firm policy based on the workplace conduct, not about the reaction to the conduct.
Nah, you're not "wrong." This is all a gray area, which is why I asked TVe to shed some light if he can. It may be that Andrews has encouraged Sutcliffe to kid with her on the air; she may think it helps her ratings or something. And, hell, who knows, maybe she thinks Sutcliffe is a sexy, funny, older man--a lot of this kind of stuff depends on the relationship between the individuals involved. I have friendships with a couple of the younger hotties here (older brother thing, I think) that allow for a little "banter." EDIT: But I don't do it within earshot of bosses, colleagues, etc unless we are all friends. And never around students, of course. Public/private. With a couple of others, it is all business.
But I hold to the idea that Sutcliffe should have refrained from saying what he said on the air.
Never mind that Andrews not showing offense doesn't mean anything (though I'm impressed you know she wasn't offended in the slightest). Having to deal w/ that sort of nonsense out in the open leaves her (or anyone in her position) stuck in an untenable position. She can be the good soldier and play it off (eating some crow in the process, assuming she's not a fan of Sut's woo-pitch), or she can make a stink about it right then and there (potentially screwing the pooch professionally by taking a stand against Sut's jackassery). Either way, she's dealing w/ garbage that she shouldn't have to deal with.
You can see it. He grabs O'Brien on the shoulder as soon as he switches back to talking about his cancer, and you can hear the emotion in his voice. The guy is rightfully scared for his life. I don't think he's a horrible person.
He should apologize for the comment, and that should be enough.
So's your mom.
Valid point, as I alluded to in post 108.
So's your mom.
Well played, sir.
to add to erik's assertions: if someone in my workplace talked like that to a coworker, even if he said he was just kidding around, he'd be talked to for his first transgression, then disciplined, then terminated if it went on. we also have that in place for excessive profanity, and controlled substances. it's a workplace reality. people have certain expectations now that, imho, are valid. they don't want to hate going to work every day. if andrews has a thick skin, good for her. but she shouldn't have to develop one because some of the neanderthals in her workplace yearn for the days when you could grab the secretary in the mail room.
was DMZ a little too zealous? i think so. but he is on the right side of the argument.
Brent Musburger and Jack Arute are still able to engage in some nice, light fun banter, but for some reason Brent never alludes to how aroused he is by Jack's clothes. Huh.
Would it not depend on the coworker? Or more specifically, the relationship you have with the coworker? I know I can get away with saying some things to my coworkers that I wouldn't say to a stranger, because they are my friends and they have a good sense of humor and know I'm ####### around.
I don't really want to get into this discussion specifically because I have a feeling I'd wind up defending Sutcliffe and that is not acceptable.
Because I have that kind of power? Nah. To be clear, I have no problem with Ms. Andrews being employed by ESPN. It's their network, if they decide eye candy = better ratings then go for it. But then to act outraged when the hotness of your employee - who was hired based mostly on their hotness - comes up on air is just silly. But I have a pretty low tolerance for playing along.
It depends who else is present. If you and your "friends" engage in such banter back at the workplace with just you and other friend/employees, probably no big deal. Most of us probably do such things. However, if you are both out on, say, a sales call and engage in such banter in front of potential customers and clients, then it probably doesn't matter if your friend isn't offended. In fact, if she is engaging in such banter with you, she may get in trouble as well.
IOW, if Sut had said all this during a break, I doubt anyone would be upset, even if they somehow found out. But saying it on air puts in front of a lot of customers.
I do think the folks pointing out that he was emotional at the cancer talk have a very good point. I also think what he said didn't merit, under any circumstances, the level of response DMZ had.
Privately it would, but publicly (in front of clients or potential clients) it would be unacceptable no matter the co-worker.
Ah yes, that's a good point.
Thanks.
And, yeah, we can all pretty much agree that bunyon's mom is big.
bunyon, I hope our relationship allows for this kind of banter in a public space. If not, I hope I will be talked to rather than terminated.
Besides, Kevin lives on this board to give offense.
I just assumed kevin was weighing in because he had experience in this area, as evidenced by the thread a few years back where he discussed the attractiveness of his female coworkers (with a link to their pictures) and talked about how much he'd like to fool around with one of them before she left town.
Really? Wow.
Even post #126?
That's an unarguable abstract sentiment, but to apply it to this particular incident is almost comically inappropriate. It all comes down to how you view it, and it's by no means a given that the Zumsteg reaction should govern anyone else's. In effect, what you're asking is that the standard be set by the Helen Lovejoys and Ned Flanders of the world, rather than by people with slightly more relaxed sensibilities.
Never mind that Andrews not showing offense doesn't mean anything (though I'm impressed you know she wasn't offended in the slightest). Having to deal w/ that sort of nonsense out in the open leaves her (or anyone in her position) stuck in an untenable position. She can be the good soldier and play it off (eating some crow in the process, assuming she's not a fan of Sut's woo-pitch), or she can make a stink about it right then and there (potentially screwing the pooch professionally by taking a stand against Sut's jackassery). Either way, she's dealing w/ garbage that she shouldn't have to deal with.
My evidence for her reaction is right there on the tape. Your evidence for her being offended is so far only in your overactive imagination.
And as to the "garbage"---Jesus F*ck*ng Christ, Sutcliffe's comment, and Andrews' reaction, were totally within the normal realm of conversations between people who know each other and engage in mindless but harmless banter, both in private life and on television. By some of these comments here, you'd think that Sutcliffe had mentioned her thong instead of her skirt, and you'd think that he had been propositioning her. But in reality this stuff was so G-rated that it could have made it onto The Children's Channel. And this is nothing but one more episode in the neverending case of Mountain v. Molehill.
This reminds me of the saga of Marla Collins. She was a young lady the Cubs put in white hotpants with blue pinstripes and gave the critical job of delivering baseballs to the umps. After a few years of that, she posed for nude pix for a boy's rag (Playboy, Penthouse, on of those). So they canned her. Their hypocrisy didn't bother them one bit.
Wow, I never thought of kevin as being so normal.
I'm not sure our relationship is quite there, but in honor of my relationship with your mom, I'll let it go.
In keeping with the kevin theme, can you link to some pictures?
It was of course even more than this. He commented in graphic terms on the physical attributes of one in particular.
Then panicked when he realized that he'd done so in a very public space, with his name associated with it, and that it would be very easy to get back to her. IIRC he ran to Jim to get his offensive statements removed.
Good times.
My evidence for her reaction is right there on the tape.
Andy, it's nice to see your ability to beat home your talking points to the point of (either willfully or unknowningly) ignoring what other folks say in response to your assertions goes beyond your obstinate stances in the BBTF steriod threads. Have fun agreeing with yourself.
Yes and no. But as has come up in various ways in the race threads, intent is not always determinative, depending on the context.
I don't think this is new, whether you agree w/it or not. Use of the word, \"######\", for instance, seems to be verboten regardless of intent and interpretation. In some cases, this (defining harassment regardless of intent and perception) seems reasonable to me.
I would, but the camera broke.
We got men sitting here being outraged over how some beautiful woman is being treated and in the end she doesn't even knows you exists or cares about you.
Must have been when you looked up.
That's not Erin Andrews in the photo you linked.
What was the name of the woman who interviewed Joba earlier this year and was allegedly put off by something he said (though she denies it)?
That was Erin.
Then panicked when he realized that he'd done so in a very public space, with his name associated with it, and that it would be very easy to get back to her. IIRC he ran to Jim to get his offensive statements removed.
Good times.
This has nothing to do with the content of this discussion, but one time last year I was on a Washington Post forum that had maybe attracted at most a couple of dozen participants. The subject concerned little known places of recreation in the DC area, and of course I mentioned the pool room I go to, and mentioned the names of the two best pros who then used to play in their weekly tournaments.
Less than a week after the forum was on the web, one of the players approached me in the pool room and asked me if "Andy" was my "real" name. (She only knew me by my pool room name.) When I said yeah, but why, she said that she'd been googling herself and right there near the top of the page was my comment about her in that forum. I guess it's lucky that all I said about her was what a good player she was....
Got ya. I was stuck equating Sutcliffe as the protagonist.
This is why there will likely not be concensus on this issue. Some people think its about how a beautiful woman is being treated and others think it's about appropriate workplace conduct.
Ugh. Nearly all sideline reporting is just a waste of airtime. It's a thankless job alright, because there is nothing to thank them for. Doesn't matter if it's Erin Andrews, Tony Siragusa, or Chris Myers. It adds nothing to the broadcast.
I had Zumsteg as the "A&P" kid. I liked that story--read it when I was very young.
I agree. I think she's both stunningly gorgeous with a sin-inducing body and good at her job. If you think the former is what got her the latter, well, as has been pointed out, there are plenty of other good sideline reporters who aren't knockouts on one hand, and on the other hand you can check out the sideliners on local broadcasts who look good but are totally inept, and see why they aren't working for ESPN. The gap between Erin Andrews and Lindsay Soto is ginormous, and it has nothing to do with looks.
Wow now I am getting Joan Didion's "On Morality"
I had Zumsteg as the "A&P;" kid. I liked that story--read it when I was very young.
It's a great story. I first read it as a story about class. I saw the girls as privileged and that they were making the store manager's life hard, but the protagonist made the decision to side with the glamor of the privileged instead of the working stiffs around him. I always felt sorry for the store manager, but I also felt I would have done the same thing as the protagonist while knowing I was being a fool the whole time. I'm not a big Updike fan, but that story is a home run. It has the mark of great literature in that it changes everytime you read it, or, more accurately, it catalogs how you, yourself have changed since the last time you read it.
That's a good point; I'm not sure you could ever see her face.
My evidence for her reaction is right there on the tape.
Andy, it's nice to see your ability to beat home your talking points to the point of (either willfully or unknowningly) ignoring what other folks say in response to your assertions goes beyond your obstinate stances in the BBTF steriod threads. Have fun agreeing with yourself.
It's always easier to pretend that I've ignored what other folks are saying when you yourself ignore what I've been writing over the past couple of hours. And it's always easier to make a case for "harassment" by establishing a rule that it need exist only in the mind of a third party, and not demonstrated by any tangible reaction of the woman being "harassed." But if you want to cite some actual argument that I've "ignored," please do so.
-----------
I don't think this is new, whether you agree w/it or not. Use of the word, "######", for instance, seems to be verboten regardless of intent and interpretation. In some cases, this (defining harassment regardless of intent and perception) seems reasonable to me.
This wasn't addressed to me, but to a point I'm also making. And it's a legitimate reply, but only if you apply it to cases like the one you just cite, where there's a clear public consensus about the word or the action. But there is no such consensus surrounding what Sutcliffe did, only an attempt by some people to browbeat others into pretending that there is one.
There are many things one can do in the workplace which are forbidden -- just check Kevin's personnel file -- but which have nothing to do with "harassment."
I first read it at age 16, and yeah, I could see myself doing what the kid who quits did--trying to impress the girls, playing hero to myself. There is a lot more to the story than that, but that is what hit me at that age. I'm not huge on Updike either.
I drove a cab for about 4 months, 41 years ago, and from the minute I walked into Roman Billiards on my lunch break wearing my Silver Spring Yellow badge, I've been forever known as "Taxi." That's how those things work in pool rooms, though sad to say, nicknames there are disappearing even faster than cigarette smoke. As Kramer might put it, I "yearn" for the days when players had monikers like "Shakey," "Crip," "The Riverboat Nitshlt," "Robbin' John," "Booty Green," "the Schoolteacher," "Geese," and my favorite of all, "Half Man." Not because he was missing a nut, but simply because he was barely five feet tall.
Actually, my mom would never do a libertarian, so it must have been someone else (now this thread can really get nasty).
He is but so are all the outraged people here on BTF.
Must have been someone from the hard right.
Naw. First of all, I don't see much "outrage" here. Second, #160 makes the right distinction.
Thanks Andy and DMN. Andy: Can you answer my question about the tape? Did you see one where we see her reaction to his comments, b/c I don't see that.
DMN and Andy: I agree w/the distinction, DMN, but I wonder why it's verboten to say ###### at all. WOuld it be traceable to a "consensus", as Andy says, that it's simply harassing? I don't know, just asking.
Naw, she's just gullible. I had her at Obama.
You tell them Kevin, they are not out there on the front lines like you were when you were in the service.
That's it, I'm out of here. Kevin, enjoy yourself in the strange, insular little world you have created.
Turkeys, too.
Seriously, it's really good. People should read it.
On "######": It's usually verboten in public (though not by black comedians), it's verboten in private, nearly always when used interracially and sometimes when used intraracially. And it can be "harassment" as well, if it's used repeatedly and / or with malicious intent. But in and of itself, that's far less clear.
agreed, but not in the course of the workday and in the office. sure, they might never be upset with the banter, but this sort of thing is leaving your employer exposed to a suit if one of your coworkers decides later that he or she didn't appreciate what was going on, or if an onlooker decides it was inappropriate. the workplace rules are meant to be preemptive. so admittedly, its not all about making the workplace a less threatening place. no system works perfectly.
i dunno. were we talking about your mom?
sorry, just kidding. i hope i get a pass on that, based on some of the rougher comments that have been tossed around.
That was Erin.
She cleared that up after, Joba did not offend her.
"He said nothing of the sort. He's a sweetheart. It was my fault. I was looking over at my producer at the end, asking him what we needed to get next from him because I had to do another interview with him about the bugs in Cleveland. Again, my fault I shouldn't have looked away so quick. I didn't think that would be included on interview."
I'll need pix, and you said the camera broke. Old-line leftists like my mom can smell libertarians.
(I'll let you take the last shot--I think my mom might be getting mad at me by internet osmosis, so I am dropping out. I left you a lot of openings with the "smell" line) ;-
Do you believe the fact she was on national television and is a professional broadcaster might have affected that? We have zero idea what her response was off camera.
That's an easy way to dismiss a point without having to address it. Thanks for summing up and then dismissing our shallow, underhanded motives.
Naw, we've been talking about MY mom. Or at least bunyon wishes.
(I'll let you take the last shot--I think my mom might be getting mad at me by internet osmosis, so I am dropping out. I left you a lot of openings with the "smell" line) ;-
No, that's no fun. And, to be fair, libertarians always have to lie about their politics to get in anyone's pants.
(And my brain froze with all the smelly openings mentioned in your post).
Do you believe the fact she was on national television and is a professional broadcaster might have affected that? We have zero idea what her response was off camera.
Of course there's a possibility that she might have been offended, but since there's absolutely no evidence pointing in that direction, isn't it a little presumptuous to attempt to put sentiments in her mind? What seems clear is that some people are projecting their own set of values / standards onto Ms. Lewis, regardless of any tangible evidence that she shares those values. The phrase "more Catholic than the Pope" comes to mind.
Not a problem, anytime.
I have heard people say that about the issue you mention as well as about abortions, child support and workplace stuff. Women can be jerks at work, too.
Even if you are right, I have learned the hard way that one of the surest ways to avoid/degrade an argument is to ascribe shallow, pathetic motivations to the opponent. It is a mistake I have made. I could say, for example, that you are making an issue of people talking about it because you think the best way to score with hot women is to be the manly man who puts down the PC wimps, or that you are really just a sexist pig who is unable to man up intellectually and admit that to yourself.
In either case, it's obnoxious and counterproductive to argue that way--and of course I don't know you and vice versa.
And to my mind the problem here relates precisely to the different standards involving women in the workplace. She's hired to be eye-candy, meaning of course, were she less attractive, she'd be much less likely to get the job. That's not fair in itself. But since she's hired as eye-candy, she can't then complain about being treated as eye-candy by the boys. Well, that's unfair too.
Well, she reacted with a smile and a rejoinder to their first comments about the dress ("It's for a boy"), and after that you can also hear Sutcliffe looking forward to "a hug" from his male colleagues after his return---and "a smile" from Erin. Not even a hug from her, just a smile. In context, those "wind" and "batting practice" remarks were about as innocuous as it gets. I still see molehills being made into mountains.
Nonsense. There is no "should be offended". That is you merely you placing your own codes and morals on another person. something you have no business doing. Either a person is offended or they are not, they shouldn't have to be offended because you want them to be offended.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main