I don't understand women in the media at times. They clearly make it to the top for having above average to stellar looks and exploit it to their advantage, yet when it is flipped around on them they cry fowl.
Now don't get me wrong, for an invasion of privacy to have been like this is just wrong, but at the same time, it's just her naked. What's the big deal? It's not like they caught her in an intimate moment with another man/woman/inanimate object, it's just her naked.
If anything, this has gotten her far more publicity than her average-sportscasting skills ever have and now she gets to look like a media darling because she has been victimized. She has every right to be upset (conspiracy theories abound) but at the same time she is going to benefit from it ten-fold.
But as stated, something about this seems fishy. There is the perfect storm (naked for no reason but to be naked, reverse peephole, guy in the hallway somehow not getting caught, low quality video so she keeps some sense of "mystery", using ABC & ESPN resources to QUICKLY remove all videos, etc) and the fact that if kept under-wraps she suffers absolutely no backlash from the media & public yet gains all the martyr-dom.
Comment