Dan Riehl Breaks Out With Huge Gates Tax Fraud Exposé: Yet, Gasp! Dude Blows it With Lunkhead Prose Reporting!

Look, Dan Riehl's a nice guy. But let's just say he was distracted by some bikini-babe hotties during freshman composition!

The guy made a genuine contribution to the Gatesgate controversy this week. See his piece, "A Gatesgate at Henry Gates' 'Bogus' Charity?" The essay was a big traffic generator apparently (NTTAWWT!!); and Dan made sure to get a notch on his bedpost by posting his phallic-symbol Sitemeter trophy).

Strangely, though - and perhaps to compensate for whatever insecurities he may suffer - Dan feels the need to pat himself on the back for the scoop; he then TOTALLY BLOWS IT it with some of the worst writing I've seen in the conservative blogosphere:

I think it fair to say the first and perhaps only place this was reported was in my blog post of Saturday. I dug the recipient's links to Gates out via Google after seeing their names on Joe's documentation that made me aware of them and we were both pursuing the story together, and individually at that point. It appears to have gotten someone's attention.

Whoa Nelly! That's one doozy of a paragraph!

Hey, somebody buy that dude a copy of Strunk and White! (Rule 17):

Vigorous writing is concise. A sentence should contain no unnecessary words, a paragraph no unnecessary sentences, for the same reason that a drawing should have no unnecessary lines and a machine no unnecessary parts. This requires not that the writer make all his sentences short, or that he avoid all detail and treat his subjects only in outline, but that every word tell.

Actually, I'm sure readers can find some of my own lunkhead prose in the archives. We're all guilty of it sometimes, no doubt.

And I'm NOT PASSING JUDGMENT, remember! I'm human, of course. So I can't resist getting a kick out of the style malfunctions of old Internet-cop Dan Riehl!

Check out Dan Collins as well, "Dan Riehl Goes to Eleven." Here's Dan C., with reference to his own blogospheric battles-royal:

I found it interesting to discover that due to my posting I was a horrible person, a misogynist, and many other unseemly characterizations. What I found most interesting, though, was the revelation that reproducing and speaking the truth regarding a public document was a transgression much more serious than spewing lies is.

Read the whole thing, here. Dan offers a great cost/benefit analysis of my recent blog controversy.

I'm trying not to engage in flame wars, but Dan Riehl makes it so damn easy!

I'll update if there's more to the backlash.

Professor Gates, Sgt. Crowley to Meet President for Beer Thursday

From Fox News, "Professor, Officer Expected to Meet President for Beer Thursday":

The professor, the policeman and the president are ready to share a beer -- and maybe a few thoughts about race and law enforcement in America.

The gathering set for Thursday evening may help President Barack Obama write a sudsy but happy ending to an arrest that triggered a fierce debate over race relations and briefly knocked him off his stride.

An administration official said Monday that Obama is hosting the two main characters in the unlikely Boston-area drama that dominated several news cycles last week: Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates Jr. and Sgt. James Crowley of the Cambridge, Mass., police department. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because the announcement was not yet public.

More at the link.

And what will the boys be quaffing? See, "Frothy Diplomacy: What Beer Will Obama Choose for White House Meeting? The President Hopes to Ease Tensions by Drinking Beer with Henry Louis Gates Jr. and Sgt. James Crowley." (Via Memeorandum.)

Mousavi Calls for New Protests Next Week

Andrew Berman's got a new update from Iran, "Iranian Revolution (Day Forty-Five)."

But see also the Los Angeles Times, "Iran Opposition Leader Calls for More Street Protests":

Iran's leading opposition figure called on his supporters Monday to head into the streets daily during a religious festival next week, potentially escalating tensions at a time when his election rival, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, is to be sworn in for a second term.

The call for new protests was the most provocative move in weeks by former Prime Minister Mir-Hossein Mousavi. It was a sign that the aging bureaucrat, once a pillar of the Islamic Republic's political establishment, is growing into the role of leader of a youth-based movement that seeks greater democracy and better ties to the rest of the world.

More at the link.

See also, Atlas Shrugs for an earlier report, "Day 43 Iran revolution: Killings Continue Unabated, Iran Plunged Into Fresh Political Turmoil."

Michelle Malkin Launches Culture of Corruption on Sean Hannity (Gets Some Hate Mail in Response)

Via Allahpundt, Michelle Malkin premiered her new book last night on Sean Hannity's show:

In response, Michelle got a round of hate-mail, "E-Mails of the Day":

Michelle Malkin you are a stupid asian BITCH.

The only reason you are on t.v is because americans feel so so sorry for you.

It is obvious that you have no idea what you are talking about.

So go and sell your body some more.

So that you can send money back home to support your slummish asian family.

There's more at the link, unfortunately. Democrats are such nice people, don't you think.

The Amazon link for Michelle's Culture of Corruption is here.

Bill Maher Reminds Me Why I Don't Like Bill Maher

Hey, hats off to Wolf Blitzer, who focused on Bill Maher's America as "stupid country" remark in this interview yesterday,"Bill Maher: U.S. Stupid If It Can Elect Sarah Palin":

Here's the comment at Freedom Eden, "Bill Maher: America is Stupid":

Bill Maher is trashing America again.

It's as if the only way he thinks he can appear relevant is by making inflammatory statements.

He's right in a way. He doesn't get attention unless he's saying something outrageous.

I think Maher does it to survive, to make a buck, because he's not funny anymore.

Talking to CNN's Wolf Blitzer, Maher delivered his latest desperate attempt to get noticed.

Hat Tip: Freedom Eden.

Gatesgate and Police Discretion

From Brandon del Pozo, a NYPD Captain and Ph.D. candidate in philosophy at CUNY:

Without drawing conclusions about the Gates case, there comes some point where a person is genuinely causing public alarm, and where he is acting with a rage that exceeds what we can expect from a reasonable person in a heated moment. The mere presence of the police conducting a legitimate investigation should not provoke continuous rage and epithets from such a person. One response is that the police should just leave if the investigation has been conducted successfully, and that this will calm the person down. In practice, this is indeed often the best thing to do. On the other hand, it should be noted that it is just as much the responsibility of the citizen to see that his actions are an inappropriate way to relate to police officers who have not, in the specific case at hand, acted unreasonably. This point may be hotly contested, but I believe it is true: there is no obligation for the police to hurry in their activities or to leave as soon as possible because they have incited the rage of a person who is acting unreasonably. There is a distinction between hanging around to show them who’s boss and working at a steady, professional pace, to be sure. But in the end the mere presence of the police cannot be seen as an acceptable reason for disorderly conduct, and should therefore not spur the police to leave a scene simply to de-escalate it. A police strategy of “winning by appearing to lose” emboldens citizens to attempt to get the police to lose in more and more serious matters, including walking away from situations where a person is genuinely guilty of a crime.

Be sure to read the whole thing, here (there are currently 454 comments at the post). It's a hard-left blog, so del Pozo's taking some big heat.

Video Hat Tip: Allahpundit, "Must See: Cambridge Cop Says She Won’t Vote for Obama Again After Gatesgate" (via Memeorandum).

Reliable Sources Debates Erin Andrews: Geraldo Rivera Airs Nude Clip Again; Long National Nightmare Winds Down Amid Lingering Moral Hypocrisy

London's Daily Telegraph has a late report out today, "US Sports Reporter to Sue Over Naked Internet Video." But with Sunday's Reliable Sources on the Erin Andrews controversy, we're finally seeing our long national nightmare fade from the media cycle.

Here's the transcript.

Even Christine Brennan is in damage control after her unambiguous statement blaming the victim for the peephole privacy invasion:

KURTZ: So, are the media exploiting this sick act even as they supposedly decry it?

Joining our panel now, Christine Brennan, sports columnist for "USA Today" and a contributor to ABC Sports.

Christine, should "The New York Post" and "Fox & Friends" and others reporting on this outrage have used those screen shots of a very nude Erin Andrews?

CHRISTINE BRENNAN, "USA TODAY": Absolutely not. It is despicable behavior. It's what I said on the first radio interview I did, that what happened to Erin was just gross and despicable.

And, you know, it seems to me that what they're doing -- and I got dragged into it by being quoted completely out of context -- what they are trying to do then is create a story line so that then they can show it again. And, of course, what they'll do in the case of Fox is say, oh, this is terrible, this is awful, get that off the air, as they've shown it again and again.

And think about poor Erin Andrews and what she's going through. And that, to me, is just shoddy journalism.

ASHBURN: It's prurient; right? And we're not as journalists in the porn business. And, well, even if we were, we couldn't find the video right away. It was pulled ....

KURTZ: All right.

Christine, you mentioned an interview that you did this week that drew some controversy. This was with a Raleigh, North Carolina, radio station. It was replayed on "Good Morning America."Let me roll some of that and we'll talk about it on the other side.

(BEGIN AUDIO CLIP) BRENNAN: If you trade off your sex appeal, you trade off your looks, eventually you're going to lose those. She doesn't deserve what happened to her, but part of the shtick, seems to me, is being a little bit out there in a way that, then, are your encouraging a complete nutcase to drill a hole in your room? (END AUDIO CLIP)

KURTZ: Some people jumped on that, as you know, and said it was some version of, well, she kind asked for it.

BRENNAN: Right. There's a sound bite there that's missing, Howie. I said, "And I want to have a long career." I was talking about myself. That was taken out of those clips.

KURTZ: Yourself as a female sportswriter...

BRENNAN: Absolutely.

KURTZ: ... and you're covering a male-dominated sports world?

BRENNAN: Exactly. I mean, so, that first part of that, I was talking about myself. And that was literally taken out of the clip. Also, if I may say, that in the course of that interview, nine minutes and 20 seconds with that North Carolina station, the first words out of my mouth were that this was gross and despicable. And eight times in that nine and a half minutes I said she didn't deserve this, it's wrong, it's terrible.

KURTZ: But what about the part about creating a climate that encourages the nut cases of the world? Creating a climate by flaunting sex appeal?

BRENNAN: I was again talking about myself. The question was about the larger issues of women...

Actually, she wasn't talking about herself, and she was called out for her sexism, rightly so. It turns out this isn't the first time for Brennan either. See, "Remember, Christine Brennan Hates Good Looking Female Journalists." (And see Howard Kurtz at this morning's Washington Post, "Howard Kurtz Discusses the Media and Press Coverage of the News.") Added: Deadspin, "Christine Brennan Continues Her Erin Andrews Smarm Offensive."

Plus, it turns out that Geraldo Rivera also featured a debate-panel on the controversy on Saturday, "Erin Andrews Peephole Video, Photos Shown Again."

As any student of the media knows, Geraldo Rivera's name is synonymous with sensationalist-smut journalism. Like Bill O'Reilly, Rivera aired lengthy clips of the Andrews nude peep video. It comes as no suprise. Rivera's list of controversial broadcast-outrages is virtually unmatched. And he remains a national media personality with a powerful reporting platform. Yet conservatives might recall, in 2007, Rivera threatened to spit on Michelle Malkin for her views on immigration, calling her "the most vile, hateful commentator I've ever met in my life." Malkin subsequently announced that she'd no longer appear on The O'Reilly Factor. (See Michelle's report on that incident here; she also called out Christine Brennan as well, "USA Today Columnist Blames Peeping Tom Victim.")

Here's how one commentator described Rivera's coverage of the Andrews controversy:

FOX's Geraldo Rivera is obsessed with ESPN sportsbabe Erin Andrews and that naked video and how it came to be. Geraldo July 25th: "She's holed up in her house until September... I think she's going to huge. I never heard of her before."

Rivera beats himself off under the desk for eight minutes:

So, where are we now, as a culture and a nation? For almost two weeks now we've had this wrenching national debate on the limits of propriety in mainstream reporting and commentary. But as someone who wrote early on this - and under absolutley no false pretenses - it could be argued that America's abject moral hypocrisy is a crime tantamount to the original hole-carved peeping incident. In yet another commentary, this article summed it up best, "Peeping Erin’s Andrews":

Every article you read about Erin Andrews and her peephole video reads the same. Every story has to use the word “creepy” or “disgusting” or “low-down” or some adjective either directly before or after referencing the video as an over-the-top attempt to try to convince the reader that they didn’t spend all afternoon frantically searching Google and using “happy tissues” like they were going out of style. But, masturbatory habits of the average sports fan aside, the real question that everyone wants to know is Who’s to blame?

Read the whole thing for one of the better compilations of the tragedy of a national moral epic fail. We're all to blame, of course, Heaven forbid.

And speaking of "masturbatory habits," let me close out my daily coverage of the Erin Andrews controversy with some belated - and hopefully final - commentary on the "Rule 5 community."

I announced my retirement from "Rule 5" blogging at Saturday's post, "Erin Andrews Internet Traffic Report."

I should note that I couldn't have been more clear in my motivations for writing my original Erin Andrews Google-bomb entry. But let me reiterate a couple of the main points:

* I have NO PROBLEMS with operationalizing my own egoistic-rational self-interest in testing Robert Stacy McCain's model of traffic-generating nude-pic scandal opportunism. As the TrogloPundit once exclaimed, "It works! R.S. McCain is a genius!" And I would add that R.S. McCain's been an amicable fellow through all of this. Good luck on his continued success!

* And to be clear again, I am NOT PASSING MORAL JUDGMENT on others who have sought to achieve their own self-interest by shamelessly exploiting the objectification of women to increase blog traffic and to build a lowest-common-denominator readership. Despite protests to the contrary, my comments in previous posts have been simply observations all along. But being a blog flame-war, participants have conveniently ignored the facts at hand. It's certainly understandable. Like Dorothy's frail old wizard, it's not flattering when the curtain is finally drawn away. Frankly, we all do it. And since Stacy made the reference in his post last night, I don't mind citing Jesus' words, King James Bible, John 8:7, "He who is without sin among you, let him throw a stone at her first." (And don't miss Stacy's whole post, "'That's Just the Rule 5 Way It Is!'" And Stacy's now-famous Google-bomb masterpiece is here: Carrie Prejean Nude Pic Scandal.")

And given all of this, folks might think it just a bit amusing to find Cynthia Yockey jumping on the moral condemnation bandwagon. I love the title of this post: "I Am With Little Miss Attila in Villainous Company to Challenge American Power." The entry includes some "I can haz faux moral condemnation":

Look, I've been reporting real news on this story for over a week. So, if readers will pardon my language, Cynthia doesn't know WTF she's talking about. Indeed, she'd be better off frankly to just SDASTFU.

You see, Cynthia's a perfect example of a traffic-slutting "Rule 5" acolyte (NTTAWWT!!). Cynthia's claim to fame is her classic Bea Arthur exploitation post, " ‘Symbolism Was My Life’." And as she admits at her eminently "villainous" post:

Now, “nude Bea Arthur” was not a picture and key phrase that I expected to generate a lot of traffic. However, until my Web host changed my blog’s URL without my understanding how much that was going to screw up my standing in Google for the pictures indexed from my blog, I was getting just over half of my daily traffic just from the nude Bea Arthur portrait and my Bea Arthur eulogy post, “Symbolism was my life.”

Hey, more power to you, sweetie! Bea Arthur had a huge rack! I hope your traffic numbers rebound, but to borrow from Stacy's favorite line, "don't piss down my back and tell me it's raining."

Also, after my Saturday entry, the hapless Joy McCann was moved to respond, TWICE: Donald Douglas Would Like Some Attention," and "Cynthia Takes the Wood to Donald Douglas." And in a twist, Joy found a way to plug her husband's work in the "Freakazoid" franchise while simultaneously attacking my family name:

Actually, my main criticism of Donald Douglas is his name. He sound like a Freakazoid! character. What is he?—the Freaka-cousin? Sheesh. Change your name, Bud. Or use a nickname as a first name—one that doesn’t begin with a “D.”

How about “Frank”? Or “Goofball”? Or “Butch”?

Image Credit: Wikipedia (Fair Use Citation)

Actually, no.

That's not Joy's main gripe. Men are assholes, remember? Yep, Joy took issue with the Erin Andrews posting and in her pathetic refusal to take responsibility for her shameless "Rule 5" chubby-building exhortations she instead went for the cheap personal attacks in smearing my family name. Real classy, Joy, that one. Sexy smile though, I must admit!

Husband John's blog is here (he's a real looker; but Joy apparently still needs to post an extra hunk of beecake now and then, NTTAWWT!!) Strange, in any case, all of Joy's fulminations - but it's better not to judge, remember?

Okay, let's not forget Cassandra at Villainous Company. I pretty much said my piece with Cassandra already, but you might want to check her additional comments at the thread.

I think Cassandra's a good woman, and my sincere hope is that after all of this blows over we can still be friends.

Cassandra's problem is that she's way too quick to condemn others for the very same traffic-grabbing exploitation techniques she's not above deploying. (See also, Wikipedia: "Psychological projection.") And I'm not just talking about her hot laced-garter pinup across her blog's banner. No, Cassandra's a huge booster of Project Valour-IT, a veterans' fundraising drive that has helps provide laptaps, game-systems, and GPS devices to returning soldiers. If I'm not mistaken, the major milbloggers have some sort of contest every year to see who can drum up the most contributions. Castle Argghh! has a big thank you to supporters. Cassandra gets a big mention there. And while I'm not at liberty to discuss her methods, I do know that Cassandra's not above hawking some skin in order to get the big blogs on board for promotion (i.e., images, but not of her, as far as I know). But readers will have to check with Cassandra for the details. While I have no problems exploiting a peep scandal for traffic, I'm not going to betray personal confidences, as juicy and damaging as those might be.

So that's it. This story's spent, and my daily Erin Andrews reporting ends here. I will, of course, update with major breaking news if things develop. I will also be watching Erin Andrews' return to sideline reporting in September, if that works out for her. We'll see, and don't be ashamed to stay tuned for updates.

And with the exception of something really egregious, I don't expect to engage in any more flame wars. I've sought no enemies through all my reporting, and I stand by my motto of "no enemies on the right." No doubt some bloggers would rather never speak to me again. That's fine. I understand. Others will continue to flood my e-mail inbox as if nothing ever happened. That's fine too.

And of course, "Rule 5" blogging will continue without a moment's genuine introspection among most of the participants. Joy McCann barely batted a mascara'd eyelash in posting some hot beefcake this morning (see, Oh, Yeah. I Got Your Rule 5 Right Here"); and Chris Wysocki's got a big entry up for some full-steam-ahead babelicioius action: "Donald Douglas and the Rule 5 Identity Crisis."

My only advice is for folks not to get down on themselves - and have fun! Remember, I'm a political scientist. I study political culture AND human interest. I find it extremely interesting that folks are horrified at how I could justify my posting on Erin Andrews on rationalist grounds. In testing Robert Stacy McCain's Google-bomb theory, I acted on a rational egoist premise holding my own utility-maximizing self-interest as the determinant of what's good or bad. Such a position should be no secret to students of rational-egoist epistemology. And among Ayn Rand fans, I'd be particularly suprised to see objections, for Rand's method is pure self-interest maximization:

When one speaks of man’s right to exist for his own sake, for his own rational self-interest, most people assume automatically that this means his right to sacrifice others. Such an assumption is a confession of their own belief that to injure, enslave, rob or murder others is in man’s self-interest - which he must selflessly renounce. The idea that man’s self-interest can be served only by a non-sacrificial relationship with others has never occurred to those humanitarian apostles of unselfishness, who proclaim their desire to achieve the brotherhood of men. And it will not occur to them, or to anyone, so long as the concept “rational” is omitted from the context of “values”, “desires”, “self-interest” and ethics.”

In citing this I readily affirm my guiding theme of honesty and integrity, but also moral clarity. (WYSIWYG!!) Would that so many others shared it. This is not say that an added cost/benefit analysis taking in other emotive-spiritual-non-rationalist factors is to be completely abjured. It's simply to point out that my blogging has always been guided by a foundational set of beliefs, and nothing's changed.

If readers continue to have a problem with my self-interested blogging, perhaps they might enjoy joining the comment boards at Crooks and Liars, Daily Kos or Firedoglake. Leftists despise self-interest maximization. And so, for those who first attacked me with the line, "I can't belive he's a conservative," and for those who eagerly hopped on the bandwagon, I propose that these folks know nothing of where they speak, nor of any system of integrated values upon which they stand.

And if any readers still haven't gotten enough of Erin Andrews, check Coed Magazine's totally opportunistic, "The Complete Erin Andrews Web Photo Index."

Plus, more exploitation at Mediaite, "Erin Andrews Most Influential TV Reporter? What Her Top Ranking Really Means." Also, my previous coverage is available here.

**********

UPDATE: Dan Riehl get chivalrous here, "Short Sighted Bloggers Busted In Cloakroom Circle Jerk." He touts traffic impressive traffic numbers, here, but leaves out a key comment at my post, where I note, upon mention of my retirement rom "Rule 5" blogging, "I'm still learning about all the deceit and double-standards" in bloggging and media worlds (Dan would know, of course).

I'll add updates here if anything else comes up. Dan Riehl's a good guy, not too smart, but solid nevertheless. (You can't police the Internet all by yourself, Dan; but hey, knock yourself out trying.)

Also, interesting commentary, from Michael-Louis Ingram, on ESPN's handling of the controversy, "Sending In The Clowns??? Don't Worry, They're Already Here at ESPN."

Debating 'She Had it Coming' in Nude Peep Shocker: Playboy Centerfold Next for Erin Andrews? NFL Linebacker Shaun Phillips Tweets for Video!

The Erin Andrews nude video controversy has yet to fully fade from the daily news cycle.

Christine Brennan, who alleged that ESPN's Erin Andrews "had it coming," was scheduled to appear on CNN's Reliable Sources this morning. I'll update with a video when it becomes available. From Howard Kurtz on Facebook, "Christine Brennan of ABC will join us Sunday to talk about the media's role in publicizing that peephole video of ESPN's Erin Andrews."

As seen in this Hartford Courant graphic, the story first broke on July 17th, and coverage in the mainstream press peaked on July 21st. The Blog Prof has a roundup of some commentary this morning, but for the most part conservatives have shied away from the shocker. Yet, Sister Toldjah offered a lengthy analysis of the story, and she defended the controversial "she had it coming" meme. See, "The Erin Andrews Video Controversy: Did She “Deserve” It?" I'm especially impressed with Sister Toldjah's piece for having rounded up some out-of-the-way commentary. Noteworty is Ed Berliner's essay, "Brennan 'Dead Solid Perfect' Comments on Andrews Tape":

There are far too many female sports journalists who believe the road to respectability is paved with push-up bras and snuggling up to athletes with more than an interview in mind. In the same breath, there are far too many TV station and network executives who force female reporters in both news and sports to accentuate their positives, and I don’t mean writing skills. I have watched from the insider’s perspective as some very good female reporters careers were derailed thanks to consultants and demographics experts who made them repeat the mantra, “Style over substance”, instead of the proper manner in which it was long taught.

Sister Toldjah is sympathetic to Brennan's analysis, and she suspects Erin Andrews herself has been injudicious in professional dress and mannerism. She cites an Erin Andrews "advice" column at Men's Health to support her conclusions: "There's Nothing Hotter than a Guy Who Has the Confidence to Take a Quick Shower."

Here's this from the post (link):

I can only imagine the emotions that Andrews has gone through since she found out about the video. I imagine it’s like being assaulted but without being physically touched. Someone’s watching you in some of your most private moments, moments not meant to be shared with every horndog who has scoured the I’net for copies of the video. I’ve read articles about this type of invasion of privacy, and some of the women interviewed talked about how for weeks and months – and even years – after finding out they were secretly videotaped that they didn’t feel comfortable showering, dressing, sleeping or anything having to do with showing their bodies in any way for fear that they were still being watched, becoming almost phobic about being in a state of undress (the Susan Wilson story is one of the more prominent and shocking stories out there about video voyeurism).

Andrews is on hiatus from ESPN until September (a hiatus unrelated to the video, I think). It will be interesting to see how – beyond the eventual legal proceedings – she responds to this issue, if at all. All I can say at this point is that I hope what happened to her doesn’t discourage her from returning to sports journalism. Maybe after the shock wears off, this incident will give her a fresh perspective on where she wants to go in sports journalism and how she wants to go about getting there. It would be a shame for her to stay in the shadows rather than return – that would mean that the video voyeurs, the jerk-offs who do this sort of thing for sport and profit, have won. Incidents like this one could also discourage young women from getting into sports journalism, which would also be unfortunate.

Be sure to read the whole thing, here.

Sister Toldjah goes on to speculate on Erin Andrews' success in getting back to work; she also looks at the larger issue of women in sports journalism.

(And note that Michelle Malkin condemns Christine Brennan, "USA Today Columnist Blames Peeping Tom Victim.")

I wrote previously on the circumstances surrounding Andrews' return to work (here): "When the football games start, the working assumption has to be that every guy in the stands has seen Erin Andrews nude." And thus, my sense is that Andrews might never fully regain her confidence, and she may decide ultimately to leave sports broadcasting for good. See also, "EXCLUSIVE: Erin Andrews Still “Shaken” and “Paranoid” After Peeping Tom Incident."

Now it turns out that AskMen.com has published a provocative piece on the way forward for Andrews, "What's Erin Andrews' Next Move?":

Our society is one that is delving deeper and deeper into voyeurism. With technology, we can watch people all over the world from the safety of our own computer chairs. Men will watch women do the most menial things on a webcam - brush their hair, eat an apple, put on makeup - and pay for it ....

So, what comes next for Ms. Andrews? The way I see it, she has three options ...

The third and most controversial solution is to pose for Playboy. Thousands of people have seen her naked in a circumstance that she couldn’t control. It’s time for her to get Hugh Hefner on the phone and take the control back. Instead of the lasting image of her being a fuzzy, creepy video, she can make it a classy photo shoot that takes pride in her body on her terms. It can give your career a boost. Just ask Lisa Rinna.

I don’t want to say “embrace this,” because she was still the victim of a crime, but she has to get past it one way or another. She can do so by laying low, by fighting back, or she can do it with her head held high and a middle finger in the air to the guy who did this to her.

Here’s hoping for the finger.

Not only am I hesitant to "embrace" this proposal, the idea took my breath away as well. Much of the pain of violation is the complete loss of control. But frankly, a nude pictorial, produced on Erin Andrews' own terms, would indeed restore some balance of power back to her, and may help her in the long healing process that will last a lifetime.

And what about other women in sports journalism? SportsMediaWatch offered an analysis, "The Next Erin Andrews":

All the sadness and outrage over the Erin Andrews video could conceivably make one think that such a thing will never happen again.

But even if the crime against Andrews is never repeated, the continued objectification of female sports journalists will no doubt continue. Andrews will likely never attract the same attention she used to once she returns to the air. But that may have less to do with any sensitivity from the media, and more to do with the fact that many of the people lusting after her have already seen what they wanted to see.

The question now is, who replaces Andrews? Who is the next female sports reporter to become famous for something other than her reporting, get attention by the mainstream media and the blogosphere, and then eventually become a topic of deep introspection after someone inevitably crosses the line?

Check the essay for the rest.

But, unbelievably, other top women sports reporters will have to wait their turn, if prominent sports personalities have their say about it!

It turns out that Shaun Phillips, an outside linebacker for the San Diego Chargers, requested the Andrews videotape on Twitter. See, "Shaun Phillips Wants That Erin Andrews Video, Asks Twitter Peeps." Also, "Chargers, I Am Told, Are Often Misunderstood."

Phillips' tweet is still up at time of publication (here). Phillips' website is here.

No word yet from Cassandra at Villainous Company.

Cassandra, for some unfathomable reason, fails to see that her scantilly-clad model pinup at the banner - with a fully revealing lace adjustable garter - might not actually be "fully-clothed." Perhaps readers might have a word to say about "that kind of total hotness!" But hey, it's not my place to criticize Ms. Cassandra! Self-interest is a powerful motivator, of course; and the concept of ego-rationalism I've developed here works on the assumption of moral consistency. It's not clear what compelling response Cassandra might develop. Right now, she's got nothing. Just saying, yo! Must be a radical feminist thing, in any case. They're real nice women!

Oh, and as ESPN's heavily implicated in all of this, don't miss the latest on the Ben Roethlisberger, "Truth and lies about Steelers QB Ben Roethlisberger, Andrea McNulty."

See also, "Making the Rules Between Media Restraint and Media Agressiveness in Ben Roethlisberger Case."

Erin Andrews Internet Traffic Report

***********

"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
Stay hip
Keep cool
To the thrill of it all
When you try too much
You lose control
Pressure rises
And so i´m told
Somethings got the give
Oy veh
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:

Hello Donald:

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."

http://economist.com/debate/overview/149/

And just a little while later a conservative blogger promoted a post to me for some linkage (with the e-mails redacted):

to:

Glenn Reynolds
Ace of Spades
Donald Douglas
John Hinderaker

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."

There are a number of bloggers, like Monique "HotMES" Stuart, who posted Ms. Carrie Prejean as a "Rule 5" entry. See, "A Call to Rule 5: Carrie Prejean."

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.

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.

I will, of course, be continuing my blogging on the Erin Andrews video peephole controversy.

Erin Andrews Video Scandal: The Sexism/Sports Culture Connection; Demand for Peephole Glimpse Still High, Maybe Not ESPN After All!

From the St. Petersburg Times, "Was Erin Andrews Video Born From a Sexist Sports Journalism Culture?":

That uproar you heard this week over a nude video of ESPN sideline reporter Erin Andrews isn't just fan boys salivating over explicit pictures of sports media's biggest sex symbol splashed across cyberspace.

Indeed, that blurry video, taken illegally with a peephole camera as Andrews primped herself in a hotel room, has wrenched the sports world into an uncomfortable discussion: Just what role does the industry play in the mass marketing of female journalists' sex appeal?

And as the issues percolate, a reporter with growing fame as an object of beauty has found her privacy ripped away by a creep with a camera and an Internet connection.

"I think all of us in the media have fostered this culture, in the hopes of driving more people to our networks, our columns and our radio shows," said CBS Sports reporter Lesley Visser, a 30-year veteran recently named No. 1 female sportscaster by the American Sportscasters Association, in an e-mail to the St. Petersburg Times.

"Every woman in this business has dealt with unwanted attention, but this culture makes it more difficult," Visser added. "Erin's America is the merger of a beautiful woman and a lawless Internet."

In the way only a juicy media scandal can, coverage of the sizzling controversy has burned some news outlets. The New York Post and CBS News in particular have taken criticism for showing images from the video, earning their own audience spikes while ruthlessly re-victimizing the sportscaster.

Also, more on that. See Rochelle Nikita, at Associated Content, "Erin Andrews Peephole Videos and Erin Andrews Peephole Pictures: Setting the Record Straight":

So let's get one thing straight about people searching for Erin Andrews peephole videos, peephole pictures, Rapidshare links, and so forth. They think if you take Erin Andrews' side in the peephole incident, you're a feminist, and a sad excuse for one at that. If you think she got what friend. What's that all about?

I typically try not to go the extra mile to insult my readers. But if they think insults in my direction are going to change my mind about Erin Andrews, they can forget about it.

Now I'll admit, Erin Andrews wasn't necessarily doing all she could to prevent something like this. For one, standing naked in your hotel room for several minutes (unless you're hired for a few nights by a United States governor) is not typical for most women I know ....

But one thing is for sure: just because I defend Erin Andrews a little bit does not mean I am a feminist. Far from it, actually. But do I recommend other women act like Erin Andrews? Hardly. I hope you're a little smarter. Erin might have brains when it comes to journalism and reporting, but evidently not too much common sense. You'd think anyone would know better than to wear their birthday suit while curling their hair and ironing their pants. It's a burn hazard.

And that's from a woman! Looks like Christine Brennan's not the only one spouting that line.

Indeed, this feminist writer takes issue with Brennan (and calls her a "sexist"):

I found this article (that is an excellent example of intelligent feminist commentary) which shares Brennan's catty comments on Erin Andrews. Everything she had to say was like one rape myth after another: she was asking for it because she is sexy, it was her fault for flirting with men, next time she should be more responsible, etc, etc. My question to you is, why do women constantly feel the need to show a difference between women who are victimized and themselves? Erin is being blamed for the crime committed against her, for the same reasons all attractive women are when they are harassed, abused or attacked in some way. According to the masses, because of the face they were born with, the way they wear their hair, and the clothes on their back, women, and especially attractive women, were "asking for it." I think humans have this desperate need, when something horrible like this happens, to find some reason why it could never happen to THEM. In actuality, sex crimes can be committed against anyone, regardless of how they dress, how pretty they are, or even how visible they are - because sex crimes aren't about any of these things; they are about power. They are crimes of opportunity, and crimes of insecurity. Sex crimes do not happen because of anything a woman did or did not do; they happen because she simply exists.

I had dismissed Erin's story as something I was going to write about until I saw the Salon.com article and realized that Erin's story is my story, and your story, and the story of, to quote Gloria Steinem, any woman who "chooses to behave like a full human being." Erin has been met by the armies of the status quo and needs her sisterhood, but unfortunately, it seems in this case her peers are the status quo. When will we stop pointing fingers at each other and put the blame where it belongs – SOLELY on the people, mostly men, who commit these crimes against us? Are we too afraid of sounding like feminists to actually be one? Where is Erin's sisterhood now that she needs it most?

But wait! Here's Lanie Grace (NSFW), "Erin Andrews Video: No Pity at all For Her":

I know I am going against the popular crowd but honestly, I don't feel any pity for Erin Andrews, not one bit. The whole thing wreaks of being a publicity stunt and furthermore, this is a woman who exploits her sexuality for fame and glory so please don't waste your time trying to convince me that men simply love her expertise on any given sport ....

One of my favorite lines from her attorney is "That we are still looking for the whereabouts of the unknown perpetrator. Here is the fault in that bogus statement.

"Hottie" knows where she has been staying and definitely being the celebrity she is indeed, it stands to reason she and her security people know exactly who is staying in the room next to her. Certainly the fact these videos were shot in two different Hotels should narrow it down some I would think.

I do not believe for a second the exact location of the two hotels and exact room numbers are still a mystery to anyone in her camp. I guess we are supposed to believe she parades around naked, shaking her ass like Tawny Kitaen on Whitesnake's car in so many hotels that she can't remeber which one it is. Yeah makes sense to me. NOT

Seriously girls, How many of us parade around in the total nude waving a curling iron prancing around in porn star mode while casually getting dressed. Better yet, how many of us curl our hair in the total nude under any circumstance?

I guess women are torn!

Here's USA Today on IndyCar driver Danica Patrick, "Patrick: Video Demonstrates Issues of Internet Age." Also, from the Sports Journalists' Association News, "Woman Sports Presenter in Nude Video Shock."

But here's more on "how she deserved it," at the guys' sports website Deadspin, which helped break the story wide open last week, "The One Where Everyone Talks About That Thing That Everyone's Talking About":

Save the sensitivity for Ms. Erin Andrews. Remember, she is a reporter; and reporters have no morals when it comes to getting a story for their careers (Geraldo, Cooper, ESPN's anchors).

How many times do paparazzi and reporters force their way into people's "private" lives, just to get a story? We always hear of everyone's privacy being exposed in the media, but not the reporters and anchors themselves.

Or how about this guy, at the Los Angeles Daily News? "MEDIA: To Catch an Erin Andrews Predator":

This is not to imply in any way, shape or form that she's remotely at fault for finding herself making national news as the victim in a hotel peephole video scandal, one that has her attorney threatening all kinds of punishment to anyone who dares show the clip or else they're an accessory to a crime.

But ...

In the same media-crazed, image-conscious, ethics-breaching world she works in, could she be that na ve to think she's impervious to perverted behavior and possibly taken better steps to protect herself from unwanted attention?

That maybe if she demanded more take her seriously and acted at least a bit more indignant of the fact that Playboy has awarded her the title, "America's sexiest sportscaster," the past twoyears in a made-for-Internet poll. We could try to overlook those times when she dressed inappropriately on national TV football, basketball or baseball assignments.

Speaking , we in the media know plenty of ways to objectify female reporters who don't deserve it.

But ...

Most of them try to nip that kind of treatment in the bud when they realize their career arc hardly will go far if that's how they're generally perceived.

We're in full agreement with the immediate response to this by USA Today's Christine Brennan, who launched a Tweet the other day that, of course, was immediately misconstrued: "Women sports journalists need to be smart and not play the frat house. There are tons of nuts out there. Erin Andrews incident is bad, but to add perspective: there are 100s of women sports journalists who have never had this happen to them."

That's something every female sports person has to be thinking about as they decide if they're more in tune with creating an image of media maven or a credible news gatherer.

You can try to have it both ways. But ...

Blog Prof has an analysis, "USA Today sports columnist Christine Brennan on Erin Andrews illegal nude peephole video: SHE WAS ASKING FOR IT!."

Okay, and NSFW (and not linked), you'll find full-nude screen shots at The Dirty, "Breaking News: The Plot Thickens, Erin Andrews Was Not a Victim," and the Something Awful Forums, "Sexist and Exploitative to Post Erin Andrews Peephole Pictures?" Plus, see this very critical report at Associated Content, "Erin Andrews Peephole Video on CBS and Fox News: Erin Andrews Peephole Video Goes Mainstream Media 'Disguised' as the News." Also, "Is Bill O'Reilly a Hypocrite for Showing Erin Andrews Video?"

And, in response to Lisa Bloom's comments this week that simply viewing the tape was illegal, see "Erin Andrews Nude Video Means We Should Regulate the Internet?" And, "So Now It Is a Crime to Even Watch the Erin Andrews Video?" (Reposting this one).

Okay, here's an interesting legal analysis, "The Erin Andrews Chronicles: A (Semi) Regular Look at Sports and the Law."

And on the continuing interest in the story, from an Indian newspaper:

Interest refuses to die down in Leaked Erin Andrews Peephole Tape Video. Watching the video has become a rage among teenaged Americans and sports fans. It is the hottest search on the internet for the whole last week.

And, "Erin Andrews Peephole Tape Video Spreading Like Wildfire."

But don't miss Don Chavez (but NSFW), who offers a new theory of the case, "Erin Andrews Peephole Scandal: the Other Victims & the Inside Job Theory":

Without a doubt, people love to look at pictures of Erin Andrews on the Internet. Just like they would look at photos of any other attractive female, whether she be a sportscaster, a Playmate, a Maxim Hometown hottie, the latest sex scandal teacher, or some random woman with a disgruntle ex-boyfriend. The Internet is not what caused this to happen.

The individual who videoed her did not follow her around the country. There were six video clips, all shot of her in the same hotel room, which were on Daily Motion. Once this story broke, those clips were made into a five minute compilation complete with the Sportscenter theme song at the end. So any talk you hear of more video is just someone referring to a smaller portion of the compilation that you “haven’t seen yet”.

Now as you will see below, the user Goblazers1 had a total of 40 videos uploaded to his account. This is the earliest known source of the videos on the Internet (which he has since removed), and Erin Andrews was not the only woman this individual had peeped on. As you will see in these exclusive screen shots that can only be found on Donchavez.com, one of the rooms have a likeness to that of the room Erin Andrews was filmed in.

However, one thing is for sure, not all of these peep holes were in the same location. So this could indicated that Goblazers1 has several peep holes at his disposal, is a traveling peeping tom that has other voyeurs who let him uses their peep holes, or he is a collector of voyeur footage.