by John Walters

Starting Five Two

1. Run, Oprah, Run

Never held public office? Check.

Television star? Check.

Billionaire? Check (No. 569 on this list)

Charismatic? Check.

And unlike the guy who cornered Super Tuesday, Oprah has opened a successful school and a magazine that has not folded. Unlike Donald, she’s an entirely self-made billionaire. Entirely. She even has her own network.

I’m firmly convinced that Oprah Winfrey would make a better president than Donald Drumpf, and I promise you that if she does run, I will vote for her. If she can inspire a flash mob on a Chicago street to work in unison like this…

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OpPKLz3UZu0

…imagine what she could do as the leader of the free world. Besides, if she wins, you get a car, and you get a car, and you get a car….

2. Daily Harrumph: Is Erin Andrews Erin Brockovich?

As Twitter hammers home daily, there are certain topics that people have a difficult time discussing dispassionately. Racism, of course. And sexual harassment. And so, not unlike the situation with Concerned Students 1950, the Erin Andrews liability trial—she is seeking $75 million from her convicted stalker and West End Hotel Partners—brings out the all-or-nothing truthers.

It’s not enough to be outwardly (and inwardly) against racism. The only way you get a pass from the Concerned Students folk is if you accede to every one of their claims and demands, and agree with them on every single point they make, no matter how outrageous or illogical they may be (Poop Swastika Syndrome). They are bullies parading as activists.

Likewise, it’s not enough to condemn the jerk who robbed Andrews of her privacy, not enough to suggest that his 2 1/2 year sentence was too light, not even enough to support her right to take this to trial (even if you think the $75 million figure is a little bonkers). No, you have to believe every last claim Andrews makes because, you know she’s a victim (and if you don’t, you’re a victim shamer) and she cried on the stand, and a pretty girl crying on the stand drumpfs everything.

Wrong.

The issue that I introduced on Twitter on Monday night and the only relevant issue that I am discussing here is whether Andrews’ interpretation of events between her and ESPN is accurate. That’s it. She testified on Monday, and I quote, “My bosses at ESPN told me, ‘Before you go back on-air for college football, we need you to give us a sit-down interview.’ That was the only way I was going to be allowed back.”

The inference that many a person, and a few mouth-watering, ESPN-loathing sports blogs made was that ESPN issued Andrews an ultimatum.  That it forced her against her will to address this incident on television, otherwise she would not be allowed back on the air. Further, there is the implication that Andrews may have not agreed at first to this condition but was issued an either/or demand.

And if that’s the case, then Andrews has every right to publicize ESPN’s callous behavior toward her.

On Tuesday, the WWL fired back, “Developments in the case have been interpreted by some to mean that ESPN was unsupportive of Erin in the aftermath of her ordeal, Nothing could be further from the truth. We have been and continue to be supportive of Erin.”

Further, an ESPN source told AdWeek that there was never an ESPN ultimatum that Andrews either do an interview or not return to air.

Isn’t there a chance that Andrews is not lying—and that ESPN is not lying, either—but that perhaps her interpretation of how things went down seven years ago is not quite accurate? Consider that ESPN, in her words, “highly recommended” that Andrews do the interview on GMA, and why wouldn’t they? It’s a Disney property. Why would they want her to go on CNN or Today? However, when she suggested Oprah instead, they never offered resistance. They were fine with doing what, in a terrible situation and ordeal for her, would make her least uncomfortable.

A few more things:

–First, can the “As a father…” folks who want to preach to me or anyone else on this please  step to the side? Your ability to have interlocked bodies with a female at some point in your adult life does not give you moral authority here or anywhere else. You are a special person….to your child. Unless you are a bad father, in which case you’re a worse person than if you had never fertilized an egg in the first place. Your paternity has no role in this discussion. Sorry.

–Second, Erin Andrews is no longer a victim here. She is a plaintiff. She was a victim in the criminal trial, and justice prevailed. I’m sure Erin doesn’t want to walk around every day of her life being thought of as a victim, and so you can’t just slap that tag on her every time it works to your or her advantage. She brought this trial to court, and she has every right to do so, but this is a civil trial and she is rightly recognized here as the plaintiff. If you want to accuse me or someone else of “plaintiff shaming,” go ahead.

–Third, let’s remember that her attorney is attempting to win a case and a large, large sum of money. This anecdote with ESPN did not just arise out of the blue. She knew that her lawyer would introduce it; this was part of the strategy. And the anecdote is barely relevant to the evil committed by Andrews’ stalker (yes, I know his name, I’m just choosing not to use it) or the negligence of the Marriott hotel. The anecdote is only introduced to make Andrews appear to be a more sympathetic figure to the jury and to that end making ESPN the bad guy only illustrates further how this ordeal victimized her.

–Fourth, why am I making a big deal out of this? Because this situation illustrates what happens when lazy, one-sided journalism is committed (yet again; Hello, Deadspin) and when readers allow emotions to overwhelm their objectivity. I’m not saying ESPN did not issue the ultimatum. I’m wondering why everyone instantly accepted the idea that they did based on her testimony and Deadspin’s heavily slanted story. Newsflash: Deadspin loathes ESPN.

I bash ESPN a lot, but I try to make it about the issue at hand as opposed to what uniform I’m wearing. Common sense tells me that ESPN probably suggested that going on the air and discussing this story was the best way for Andrews to own it, as opposed to letting the sports blogs and TMZs of the world endlessly blather and speculate about it and make it an even more hyped tale. I could be wrong. But that is where common sense leads me.

–Fifth, why didn’t ESPN just come right out and say that Andrews misled the jury and/or misspoke the other day, if that is what happened? Because there is no upside for ESPN to do so. First of all, they are not the defendants here. Second, to do so would only make them look in the eyes of the “As a father…” crowd as being sexist and/or callous. Why pile on a woman who has suffered enough? So instead they issued this read-between-the-lines statement, which was the equivalent to a southerner saying, “Bless your heart.”

–Finally, and again it amuses me, The Mouth of the South, Clay Travis, the self-described world’s foremost expert on 1) all things legal 2) all things college football 3) all things PC bro 4) all things involving hot women involved with either 1, 2 or 3, and a man who is unbelievably industrious in discussing hot-button issues either via Twitter, a Periscope show or in his column, AAAAAAAAAND a person who lives in Nashville and attended Vanderbilt Law School, has had absolutely not one word to say about this trial. Not a peep. Even Clay has a sacred cow. Amazing.

(Update: I should add here that I am a fan of Clay’s. I admire his work ethic, his fearlessness in presenting his viewpoint, his connection to his legion of fans, and his entrepreneurial spirit. I probably agree with him more often than most people do. I’m just pointing out here that even he must take a play off once in awhile. If this were any other woman at most any other network, he’d be all in on it.)

p.s. And my friends at The Big Lead have had nothing to say about what I just wrote, because that site is a little cozy with Fox (Andrews’ and Travis’ employer) itself these days. Everyone wants a nationally syndicated radio show, I guess.

Music 101

I Got A Name

Guitarist/songwriter Jim Croce was the Italian-American John Denver (or vice-versa). In the late Sixties and early Seventies he wrote some classic tunes, two of which rose to No. 1 on the Billboard charts. Like Denver, Croce was killed in a plane crash. He died in September of 1973, far too young at the age of 30. This song was released one day later. Considering how his life was cruelly cut short, I couldn’t put “Time In A Bottle” (one of his No. 1’s) or “Photographs and Memories” here without it getting a little dusty.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YcqauC49Xmc

Remote Patrol

Oregon at UCLA

9 p.m. ESPN2

The Ducks (23-6) are in first place in the Pac-12, the “conference of champions.” The Bruins (15-14) desperately need a big win, and they’re not going  dancing anyway unless they win the conference tourney next week. Doesn’t matter. I’m just here for the Bill Walton word salad. If you hate him, stay away. I happen to love the free association musings.