"There is a marked tendency for heterosexual men to be interested in women."
-- Joy McCann, "Men Are Fascinated by Blondes."
Imagine the concupiscent fellow out there who Googles in quest of such a keyword combination. Would you prefer that the traffic thus generated be monopolized by liberal sleazebags like Perez Hilton? Should such traffic go only to people who hate Sarah Palin and hate Carrie Prejean and hate everything they stand for? Or do you think there may be some redemptive value if occasionally -- perhaps only in 1 out of 100 such random Google hits -- that fellow clicks onto a conservative site?
Hey, maybe some of these guys might decide to vote Republican. And maybe some of them will be intrigued enough by my crazy-ass blogging that they start clicking around the site and read some of the more serious stuff I write. Maybe some few of them will look at my blogroll and say, "Who is this Little Miss Attila?"
Click. You're welcome. "Hits is hits," eh?
-- R.S. McCain, "How to Argue With a Woman . . ."
So if you´re feeling fraught
With mental strain
Too much thinking´s got you down again
Well let your senses skip
To the thrill of it all
When you try too much
You lose control
And so i´m told
Somethings got the give
High life ecstasy
You might as well live
I can´t see
I can´t speak
I couldnt take more than another week
Without you - oh no
So I will drink my fill
Till the thrill is you
Oh the thrill of it all
Oh the thrill of it all
No I won´t forget
The thrill of it all
No no no no no no no ....
-- Bryan Ferry, "The Thrill of it All" (1974)
"The fact is that a man who wants to act virtuously in every way necessarily comes to grief among so many who are not virtuous."
-- Niccolò Machiavelli, "The Prince" (1532)
This is a weekend traffic report for my Erin Andrews Google-bomb launched last Sunday. First I'll discuss the data, then I'll share what I've learned about blogging, feminism, mass media, sports culture, and moral hypocrisy.
The 7-day traffic data was saved yesterday from my Sitemeter hit-counter. The entry for yesterday, July 24th, is incomplete because I saved the screen-capture when I woke up, around 6:00am. For more information, Click the Sitemeter link above and look around at the various categories. You'll notice how traffic spiked after I first posted on Erin Andrews last Sunday, July 19th. Also, my eXTREeMe Tracker hit-counter records 12,010 unique visitors for Tuesday July 21th, which is when the story really hit the mainstream press. The eXTReMe Tracking statistic is my blogging record.
It's hard to beat the data presented here for those interested in building traffic, and especially those bloggers within the "Rule 5 community."
Now, note a couple of things: First, I published my original, first-hand report on the July 17th tea parties late on July 17th, "Nationwide Protests Against Obamacare! Democrats Harrass Tea Partyers as Healthcare Monstrosity Stalls in Congress."
Then, Glenn Reynolds at Instapundit linked (Instalanche!); plus, the post was aggregated by a number of search engines as a "related post" item at the footer of those pages. So, on Saturday July 18th, I had my best traffic day ever for political blogging and original reporting. Just over 9,000 unique visiters came to American Power for the tea party entry.
Now, think about that: While I still like to think of myself as a "9th-tier blogger," I'm not anymore, really, at least in terms of content production and Wikio rankings (I'm right behind the radical "Open Left" blog at #74). Also, more and more media outlets are sending their stuff to me for promotion. In a first, The Economist contacted me the other day:
I noticed the content that is discussed on your blog American Power and thought you might be interested in The Economist's current online debate on the following proposition: "This house believes that Barack Obama's America is now an honest broker between Israel and the Arabs."
And just a little while later a conservative blogger promoted a post to me for some linkage (with the e-mails redacted):
Ace of Spades
It's nice to be in such august company, but it's not a big deal. It's the way it is now on the web, and so I'm pleased that my POLITICAL BLOGGING is getting some notice; that elite media outlets and sundry bloggers have thought to promote their stuff at American Power. That said, I wish I was getting Hot Air's traffic!
So, that leads me to the Erin Andrews nude video controversy.
I want to be clear about a few things up front:
* I am NOT APOLOGIZING for writing my initial post, "Nude Video of Erin Andrews!" I wrote the post out of, er, naked self-interest, and I'm not ashamed of it.
* I do regret DISTRIBUTING THE POST by e-mail labeled as a "Rule 5 Exclusive." That was a mistake, and I have already apologized for sending it. Yet, the post itself was NOT in essence a normal Rule 5 entry for this blog, as evidenced by a look at any of the iterations of the genre published here in recent months. I simply became excited by the scoop - first discovered at WeSmirch - and in I lamely sent it out labeled "Rule 5." It was hasty and injudicious. That said, shortly thereafter Smitty at The Other McCain linked the post rather ambiguously to that week's "Rule 5" roundup, and the deal was sealed. My defense of the entry is at the original post. But as I said there upon publication, "I'm testing Robert Stacy McCain's Hot Babes Google Bomb theory." And test it I did. I saw a news opportunity that might bring in some traffic. My hunch exceeded expectations. And, it is what it is - exploitation of privacy invasion for profit. It's ugly, but that's what I did, no apologies. And keep in mind, not once have I published nude photo images of Erin Andrews to the front of this blog. If you want that, just check the New York Post, "ESPN Hottie Erin Andrews in Peep Shocker: Nude Hotel Video Splashed Online" (with full-frontal nudity barely black-barred at the photo; plus additional images); and Bill O'Reilly's blurred nude video clip of Ms. Andrews is here (which I did post in an earlier entry).
* I am passing NO VALUE JUDGMENTS on anyone in the remainder of this commentary. Most of all, nothing written here shall be construed as criticism of Robert Stacy McCain. The "McCain Method" works, it's as simple as that. Robert has helped me branch out in my blogging and to lose the inhibitions that were holding me back. That said, with this week's episode some might think posting on Erin Andrews is extreme. That could be. But then, folks will need to rethink what they hope to achieve with their babelicious breast-blogging. And I'll bare some skeletons here: It could be argued that many in the "Rule 5" community have crossed the lines of decency into the realm of no-holds-barred objectification of woman. But, that's okay, if that's what folks want. It's a free country. So let me repeat: I'M PASSING NO VALUE JUDGMENTS in the analysis that follows.
Okay, with that, let me address the two posts that were written in response to my initial Erin Andrews entry.
Joy McCann, at Little Miss Attila, wrote a post called, "Men Being Assholes." Frankly, I can't disagree. One thing I've learned this week in my exclusive Erin Andrews coverage is that the sports world went total Blitzkreig for the story. I became sick to my stomach many times in writing about the controversy. It's perverted on so many levels. Yet, sex scandals sell. And this one in particular had elements never really seen before (the lack of consent; the peephole voyeurism; breaking the last taboos, etc.) and thus appealed to the most primal elements of the masculine psycho-sexual male-dominance physiology.
That said, with all due respect, I don't think Joy McCann has a leg to stand on. She's been a ready participant in exploiting traffic surges from "Rule 5" blogging; and to encourage the guys searching for their next chubby, she published something of a babe-blogging ethos, "There is a marked tendency for heterosexual men to be interested in women." Ms. McCann also refused to condemn Michael Jackson upon his death - and in fact gladly published Jackson 5 YouTubes at her blog. Yet, despite Jackson's aquittal on child-molestation charges, there's little doubt that the King of Pop brutally violated the innocent in the sick perversity of his Neverland enclave while providing hospitality for pre-adolescent boys. THAT IS DEPRAVED. And all together, Joy McCann would appear as a freaking hypocrite (but I'm NOT passing judgment; just observing).
Cassandra at Villainous Company also attacked my Erin Andrews entry. It's true that Cassandra has never liked "Rule 5" babe blogging, and she's taken Robert Stacy McCain to task for it. And yet, "The lady doth protest too much, methinks." For like radical feminist Jessica Valenti at Feministing, Cassandra is not above posting gratuitous images of sexual exploitation at her blog's banner masthead. I guess it's like blacks who think it okay to call one another "nigga." You can call others sexist while doing the same thing yourself. Cassandra's certainly demonstrated her radical-feminist bona fides through it all, so readers can keep that in mind. Always remember, Cassandra's actually a hardline feminist ayatollah (and again, I'm just making an observation).
So let me close with some addtional thoughts on the "Rule 5 community."
Yet, folks should think through Carrie Prejean "Rule 5" blogging. At the time of the Miss California pageant controversy, she claimed she'd been victimized and exploited (not unlike Erin Andrews):
Miss California Carrie Prejean wants to put a lid on those nude photos that have been posted on the Internet - stat.
We've obtained a cease and desist letter fired off from Carrie's lawyer to thedirty.com, demanding that the site take down two photos, showing a topless Carrie posing for the cam.
In the letter, her lawyer says, "One of the displayed images of Ms. Prejean was illegally taken under false pretenses when she was a 17-year-old minor and unable to consent to its creation."
The letter goes on: "The other image depicts Ms. Prejean's likeness but is not an actual photograph. It is an electronic manipulation ["photoshopped'] of her image created without her consent."
Again, I'm NOT passing judgment. Folks can do as they please. In fact, I like "Rule 5" blogging. Some of the guys post very respectable entries. But there's more hypocrisy here than in a manure pond of a dairy farm.
Furthermore, one member of the "Rule 5" community got tired of all the "celebrity" posting. So, he snapped shots of his neighbor, "Ms. Pendergast", in her bikini by the pool, in full-frontal nude through the apartment window, and while shaving her legs in the bathroom after a shower - and then he published them!"
But Ms. Pendergast is not a famous sports reporter at ESPN, so the hypocritical anger of folks like Cassandra was projected here, at my post. I guess Ms. Pendergast didn't rate up there, like any other wives or daughers "in the nude through a keyhole." (And who can forget Dan Riehl, who while outraged at the Erin Andrews exploitation, was quick to get his rocks off by blogging Ann Althouse's nipples? - NTTAWWT!!)
And, with all due respect to Chris Wysocki, I probably wouldn't do a "Rule 5" entry on "German Hookers on Unemployment." And I won't mention the name, but another "Rule 5" participant referred readers to an entry for a "Jailbait Swimsuit Special."
I think folks get the picture ...
So, with that, I'M RETIRING FROM "RULE 5" BLOGGING. In fact, I'm making a number of changes around here. I'm going to continue to stay honest to WHO I AM, as a husband, a father, a professor, a blogger, and an activist. I'm especially going to stay true to myself as A HETEROSEXUAL MALE, and readers will see that I've added a new feature at the top of the sidebar: "Hot Women Love American Power!"
With that, I'll leave readers with even more on the media hypocrisy. I've been reporting on this all week, and I'm still learning about all the deceit and double-standards. A good read for another angle is at the Sacramento Bee, "Making the Rules Between Media Restraint and Media Agressiveness in Ben Roethlisberger Case" :
We got a couple of creepy voyeuristic peeks into the sports media this week. Both stories, one involving a champion quarterback and the other involving a pretty sideline reporter, could make you teeter between feeling stimulated and feeling dirty. One involved a shameful peephole that undressed a popular sports figure. And the other involved Erin Andrews.I will, of course, be continuing my blogging on the Erin Andrews video peephole controversy.
The Ben Roethlisberger and Andrews stories aren't that different metaphorically, believe it or not. They involve what the public craves, and how much of that craving should be fed, and how this ever-growing appetite takes us into places we ought not be sometimes.
I can't tell you how many people I've heard say how disgusting it is that someone would illegally videotape a naked Andrews in her hotel room ... while requesting the link. And I can't tell you how many people I've heard complain about how the media behaves . . . while craving and even demanding the dirt produced by that behavior. We cover our aghast faces with our hands but can't help but feed our primal urges by peeking through splayed fingers.