What the time leading up to the super bowl has become however, is just painful. It’s painful to wait the two weeks. To have to deal with and listen to the hype, to deal with the trash talk and the silly questions by the “puesdo” media. I don’t mean hard working sports journalists, radio and television people, no sir. I mean people that have no business being on the asking end of questions in a press conference.

Can we at least get some different questions then what we have seen/heard over and over again the last 40 years? This is where “new” media shines as opposed to old school traditional media outlets. Some of the best questions I have heard from this week’s press coverage have come from those of us who make our make on the “outskirts” of sports media as opposed to those in the forefront. Some of these mainstreamers what to be part of the story as well as report it, that’s why they lean towards controversy to generate readership/listenership.

Clearly these so called “media” people would not be able to write a real “story” about this game without help from a researcher, or several online resources. These are the same people who are lambasting the Internet as the downfall of modern journalism as we know it. But ask anyone and they will tell you that print media is dropping dead, and in order to compete, traditional media must now do and operate the same as we ”new” media types do. I am Proud to have had traditional writing and broadcast training, but I’m also proud to be able to say that I saw this coming so many years ago. One of my former publications was the first Draft Guide to have a computer online BBS, and to use AOL chat to “live update” it’s users of the selections at the draft. I’m also proud to have been among one of the first to “live stream” the Draft in person from Radio city (in 2006). Even Mr. Goodell took notice, because the following year the only people who could actually broadcast video were the NFL itself and ESPN.

But who am I to critique? I’m just a Podcaster/Blogger/ Internet radio host/Independent scout and ex-coach, right? So let’s just hope that tomorrow everyone shuts up, and kick off goes off at 6:27:30 like it’s supposed to. Because it’s about time to enjoy a football game, isn’t it?

You remember what happened with Erin Andrews, don’t you? She’s the attractive sideline reporter for ESPN who was recently and purportedly surreptitiously videotaped by a peeping tom while she was walking around her hotel room without wearing any articles of clothing.  Erin Andrews, completely nude as she put on her makeup, has caused a national stir among the nation’s 16 year olds as well as among the media who cover such things.

Ms. Brennan made the following comment about Andrews:

“On the Erin Andrews situation, a quick thought for those who have asked: There are hundreds of women covering sports in this country who haven’t had this happen to them. I wish it didn’t happen to Erin, but I also would suggest to her if she asked (and she hasn’t) that she rely on her talent and brains and not succumb to the lowest common denominator in sports media by playing to the frat house.”

A couple of thoughts on Brennan’s observation of Andrews’ dilemma. It’s an interesting comment from another woman in sports media because the female brethren in a male-dominated industry have tended to band together in support of each other when there is a perceived “attack” on one of their own for reasons not related to job performance. When there have been criticisms of on-air women, not for how they perform their jobs but for how they look, there is usually (and rightfully) a cacophony of outrage from the sorority claiming unfair abuses based on looks that on-air men do not have to be confronted with. Professional reporters of the female variety are constantly talking about the double-standard they have to live under regarding youth and looks that male reporters in front of the camera do not have to put up with. And, they are right. There is a double standard and it shouldn’t exist. However, it does exist and the guys in the back offices of these networks who wear the suits continue to choose women with a “certain look” that management feels will appeal to the core of their audience. In the sports business, that audience core tends to be younger males with raging hormones. Like it or not, that’s the fact.

I’m not sure Andrews’ work as a sideline reporter (at which she is very good and very professional) “plays” to the lowest common denominator, Christine. I haven’t seen her hike her skirt up, on air, or lower her neckline so I’m not sure what you’re referring to when you say she is playing to the lowest common denominator. Andrews is  smart and she’s good at what she does. She’s also significantly more attractive than most other female on-air reporters with an audience of 16-24 males. And yes, she does have a bubbly, on-air personality who can ask the tough questions of her subjects.  Her looks and her audience does create an equation built for creating a sexy personna even if she doesn’t play to it. It’s how ESPN and many other networks have chosen to go but it’s nothing new in the business of delivering news or sports on television.