Michael David Barrett, who thought it was OK to stalk ESPN Reporter and Dancing With The Stars contestant Erin Andrews and secretly make videos of her as she changed clothes in her hotel room and then posted them on the Internet, was sentenced to 30 months in jail Monday, according to the LA Times.
Michael David Barrett pled guilty to having the intent to "harass or to cause substantial emotional distress" to Andrews. Barrett tried to sell his photos to the website TMZ.com and to other online publications. And when the Erin Andrews videos hit the Internet, CBS News and Bill O'Reilly had either actual or still frame photos from the videos as part of their telecasts!
Barrett shot video of Erin Andrews in hotel rooms in three states as she traveled for ESPN. Barrett would book a room next to Andrews and do his work from there. Why the hotels would give a room to a person who asked to be next to Erin Andrews is one for the books.
Andrews thinks her stalker's 30-month sentence is "not enough" and said she's at "the angry stage." I really don't blame her. Stalking of celebrities either online via email or in the way Erin Andrews was is just plain evil. The trouble is law enforcement doesn't do enough to make hard examples of the criminals who engage in such practices.
Even if a person doesn't like Erin Andrews or me, it doesn't give them the right to bother us. Frankly, this is where I do admire Rush Limbaugh (Did I say that?). Rush certainly gets a lot of the same kind of treatment (Well, OK. Except for the video camera thing) that celebrities get. But Limbaugh manages to roll on; Rush's $400 million Clear Channel contract buys him a lot of security and legal projection, too.
Stay tuned.
Monday, March 15, 2010
FBI should arrest cyberstalker with email address topprofster@gmail.com
The one thing that this blogger can't stand are cyberstalkers. There's one person in particular who's really not taking the fact that his actions are against the law seriously.
Whoever the person is and wherever they are, they reportedly have the time waste. They've informed me they're at some office. They think it's funny.
What I did was file a cyberstalking complaint with the FBI today. But even with my emails asking the person to stop, they persist. Simply because they think nothing's going to happen to them.
Really not a smart person, or a good person for that matter.
Hopefully the FBI sees this and takes action. The only information I have is the person's email:
topprofster@gmail.com
I just want the person to go away; preferably to jail.
Whoever the person is and wherever they are, they reportedly have the time waste. They've informed me they're at some office. They think it's funny.
What I did was file a cyberstalking complaint with the FBI today. But even with my emails asking the person to stop, they persist. Simply because they think nothing's going to happen to them.
Really not a smart person, or a good person for that matter.
Hopefully the FBI sees this and takes action. The only information I have is the person's email:
topprofster@gmail.com
I just want the person to go away; preferably to jail.
Rielle Hunter hates GQ photos of Rielle Hunter
Wow, what's going on with Rielle Hunter? She agreed, obviously, to dress a certain way for the photo shoot. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that the photos are going to turn out in a way that's sexually suggestive. What Rielle Hunter's doing is playing the old publicists trick of doing something outlandish, or racist, or in this case just plain awful, then saying 'I didn't know,' or 'It was misunderstood.' It's a ploy borne of celebs reacting to rapid Internet exposure and public comment. If they don't like the action, they say what Rielle Hunter's saying.
Don't believe it.
While this may work for other celebrities in helping their image - Rielle Hunter's just that now, a celebrity - it's not going to help with her public image, which is already in the tank. Again, Rielle Hunter's known for taking up with a married John Edwards, while his wife is battling cancer, then having a kid with her.
That's not something to be proud of.
Rielle Hunter interview in GQ about John Edwards affair is smarmy
It's impossible to clearly view Rielle Hunter as a sympathetic character. Rielle has damaged the lives of four people - John Edwards, Elizabeth Edwards, and Andrew Young and his wife - and not to mention high-roller political donors and Edwards campaign staffers, just by getting sexually involved with John Edwards, not refusing to do so with a married man who has a cancer-stricken wife, and then having his love-child.
Yikes!
Somewhere along the way, America forgot about that, it seems, that she took up with a a married man who has a cancer-stricken wife. For Rielle Hunter to even want to bear her soul to any publication, pay or not, is shameful. For Rielle Hunter to then take a photo that shows her with bare abs and untied sweatpants is also shameful, but it tells the story of what Rielle will use to achieve fame.
It does not matter that John Edwards, Elizabeth Edwards, and Andrew Young and his wife have had their say. She's the hub in the wheel of controversy that was created. No Rielle Hunter, and no John Edwards affair. Regardless of Edwards' character, Hunter just plain could have said "no, Johnny"; instead she followed that famous song and said "Opps, Johnny."
What's weird about all of this is John Edwards, Elizabeth Edwards, and Andrew Young and his wife have all suffered, while Rielle Hunter rises to a such a level that she's earned a "Q rating."
As Don King would say, only in America!
Variety Mag picked apart by online media's fragmentation process
In the story of trade magazine Variety's release of Film Critic Todd McCarthy and Theater Critic David Rooney, the real issue is that the mag is being picked apart by online media's fragmentation process. And within that is a terrible misunderstanding of how media works in the 21st Century.
As blogs like TMZ.com and Variety's real competitor Nikke Finke's Deadline.com become more popular and abundant in number, Variety loses, or has lost, its exclusivity. That has not been replaced by a good technical understanding of how to get its news seen online over its competitors.
Variety is dying as its downsizing. Variety's laid off eight staff members including McCarthy and Rooney, and is stuck within an old media model. It's using the new standard for any old media company that wants to make sure it's seen as "getting" new media: a Facebook and YouTube accounts, and a @Variety Twitter account. But it lacks the full, interconnected and monetized social network platform and its obvious the newspaper's managers don't spend time growing their online system.
Variety's YouTube channel does not help its website. And some of the videos have been blocked by studios like Fox because the videos featured Fox content. Moreover, the Variety YouTube channel lacks ads of its own, and its obvious that Variety has done nothing to take advantage of the revenue-generating possibilities of becoming a YouTube Partner. And that's just for starters.
If Variety understood the idea of making sure its brand was on every platform imaginable, it would have avoided sacking its key employees. But what's happening is Variety, to be frank, obviously does not know what it's doing in the New Media space. A pay space, or velvet rope, will not work because Variety's content is not unique enough to demand such a pay system. It will not work.
Stay tuned.
As blogs like TMZ.com and Variety's real competitor Nikke Finke's Deadline.com become more popular and abundant in number, Variety loses, or has lost, its exclusivity. That has not been replaced by a good technical understanding of how to get its news seen online over its competitors.
Variety is dying as its downsizing. Variety's laid off eight staff members including McCarthy and Rooney, and is stuck within an old media model. It's using the new standard for any old media company that wants to make sure it's seen as "getting" new media: a Facebook and YouTube accounts, and a @Variety Twitter account. But it lacks the full, interconnected and monetized social network platform and its obvious the newspaper's managers don't spend time growing their online system.
Variety's YouTube channel does not help its website. And some of the videos have been blocked by studios like Fox because the videos featured Fox content. Moreover, the Variety YouTube channel lacks ads of its own, and its obvious that Variety has done nothing to take advantage of the revenue-generating possibilities of becoming a YouTube Partner. And that's just for starters.
If Variety understood the idea of making sure its brand was on every platform imaginable, it would have avoided sacking its key employees. But what's happening is Variety, to be frank, obviously does not know what it's doing in the New Media space. A pay space, or velvet rope, will not work because Variety's content is not unique enough to demand such a pay system. It will not work.
Stay tuned.
John Landgraf, President FX Network - Skyline High '80
Skyline High Class of 1980 grads may remember this face but with a beard. Remember John Landgraf from Skyline High, Oakland, California, class of '80? He's now President of FX Networks and has been since 2005.
John Landgraf's produced many of FX Networks' most popular shows, like Karen Sisko, Reno 911, and 30 Days.
NCAA March Madness: NY Times' Pete Thamel thinks Cal's an easy upset
In the NCAA March Madness that is the NCAA Tournament, we have our own March Madness in the form of The New York Times' Pete Thamel, who wrote...
What? Easy upset? Not only did Thamel show his own brand of East Coast March Madness (he may not even live in New York, by the way), he wrote a statement that openly invites one to think Cal has no business in the same building as Louisville.
Geez, even Louisville fans are quick to point to their weaknesses. Here's a post found on the Louisville Forum that looks as if it was written for The New York Times:
Read up, Pete Thamel. The bet here is egg on your face. How about this evaluation:
Something else, the game starts late for Louisville, dinner time for Cal. Here's Pete Thamel's Twitter page so you can give him a hard time on Friday night not to mention all this week: @PeteThamelNYT
Friday night at 7 p.m. PST. Be there. Aloha!
Go Bears!
No. 8 California vs. No. 9 Louisville This is an easy “upset” as Louisville has more talent and depth.
What? Easy upset? Not only did Thamel show his own brand of East Coast March Madness (he may not even live in New York, by the way), he wrote a statement that openly invites one to think Cal has no business in the same building as Louisville.
Geez, even Louisville fans are quick to point to their weaknesses. Here's a post found on the Louisville Forum that looks as if it was written for The New York Times:
I think that you're a little off base here. Cal was a pre-season Top 10 team and played Kansas well on the road early in the season. Sure they played in a weak conference, but their resume isn't much worse than ours. Sure our RPI and SOS are solid, but the only tournament teams that we beat were Syracuse and ND. I would be shocked if Cal doesn't give us all that we can handle on Friday. I don't think we have alot of room to be questioning other teams resume's...there were alot of nervous Cards fans at 6:15pm today.
Read up, Pete Thamel. The bet here is egg on your face. How about this evaluation:
To the Cal fan: you will be glad to know that it's been quick guards, not big front lines, that have beat us this year. We try to press as much as possible, especially since we play 10-12 players every game. I dont think we've played a team all year that has played more players than us. We press full court when we make a basket and sometimes like to apply pressure in the half court. Our best D is zone but we switch a lot.
The bigger problem with our team is that we still don't have an identity. We have no go-to player Samuels will get 25 unstoppable points one game and will take two shots the next. Our two wins over Syracuse were led by two players who could go 4 games without playi g a minute and only diehard fans would notice. And if we start a game slowly, we are amazingly bad at getting going. We were absolutely blown out by Marquette and St. John's late in the year due to early droughts. If I were your coach, I would just emulate the Marquette game. Aggressively double-team Samardo when he gets a pass and it will lead to an abundance of turnovers. Get out in transition as much as possible because our transition D is clueless, then work the ball with passes on offense and you will eventually get am open perimeter shot.
One other unique deficiency of our team is an uncanny ability to lose loose balls and rebounds that were right in front of us. We lose at least 4 balls a game when it was right on someone's figertips. I can guarantee this will happen on Friday because it happens literally every game
Something else, the game starts late for Louisville, dinner time for Cal. Here's Pete Thamel's Twitter page so you can give him a hard time on Friday night not to mention all this week: @PeteThamelNYT
Friday night at 7 p.m. PST. Be there. Aloha!
Go Bears!
NCAA March Madness: Washington and Cal Pac-10 Champions?
March Madness, the 2010 version of NCAA's College Basketball Playoff season, is upon us. The Washington Huskies and the California Golden Bears, both Pac-10 champions, have landed bids in the NCAA Tournament. Now, the Bracketology experts comes out.
Washington and Cal join Duke, Vanderbilt, Kansas, Georgetown, Notre Dame, UTEP, BYU, Xavier, Oakland, Florida, Kansas St., North Texas, Villanova, Robert Norris, Morgan St., Texas, Wisconsin, Lehigh, N. Iowa, New Mexico St., Michigan St., Tennessee, San Diego St., Ohio, Oklahoma St., Georgia Tech, Temple, Cornell, Wofford, Clemson, Missouri, Texas A&M, Sam Houston, Baylor, St. Mary's, Richmond, Purdue, Sienna, and Louisville East Tenn. St., and Kentucky on the "Road to Indy" for the NCAA Final Four.
But what's confusing is two Pac-10 Champions? (Ok, this blogger's a Cal graduate, there's the bias disclaimer.) It's down right weird to have two Pac-10 Champions and makes a mockery of all of the battles waged through the season to be the Pac-10 Champion that Cal is. But on the other hand, with the dramatic Pac-10 Championship game that Cal came up on the wrong end of 79 to 75, the format did manage to produce two NCAA Tournament teams, whereas a standard season-only system would have gained just one. So the whining about that stops here - for now - as it's good for the Pac-10 Conference.
Cal's favored to beat Louisville in the Golden Bears' game at Jacksonville, and Washington's an 11-th seed against the 6th-seed Marquette Golden Eagles. Washington's not even considered as a possibility to beat Marquette by the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel, and the New York Times' thinks Cal's an easy upset for Louisville.
The Pac-10, as usual, gets no respect, but Cal being "an easy upset" is an outrage. The NY Times Peter Themel, who seems to think he's a Bracketology expert, doesn't even give a detailed reason for his statement using the term "easy."
Grrrr. GO BEARS and... Go Huskies!
Washington and Cal join Duke, Vanderbilt, Kansas, Georgetown, Notre Dame, UTEP, BYU, Xavier, Oakland, Florida, Kansas St., North Texas, Villanova, Robert Norris, Morgan St., Texas, Wisconsin, Lehigh, N. Iowa, New Mexico St., Michigan St., Tennessee, San Diego St., Ohio, Oklahoma St., Georgia Tech, Temple, Cornell, Wofford, Clemson, Missouri, Texas A&M, Sam Houston, Baylor, St. Mary's, Richmond, Purdue, Sienna, and Louisville East Tenn. St., and Kentucky on the "Road to Indy" for the NCAA Final Four.
But what's confusing is two Pac-10 Champions? (Ok, this blogger's a Cal graduate, there's the bias disclaimer.) It's down right weird to have two Pac-10 Champions and makes a mockery of all of the battles waged through the season to be the Pac-10 Champion that Cal is. But on the other hand, with the dramatic Pac-10 Championship game that Cal came up on the wrong end of 79 to 75, the format did manage to produce two NCAA Tournament teams, whereas a standard season-only system would have gained just one. So the whining about that stops here - for now - as it's good for the Pac-10 Conference.
Cal's favored to beat Louisville in the Golden Bears' game at Jacksonville, and Washington's an 11-th seed against the 6th-seed Marquette Golden Eagles. Washington's not even considered as a possibility to beat Marquette by the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel, and the New York Times' thinks Cal's an easy upset for Louisville.
The Pac-10, as usual, gets no respect, but Cal being "an easy upset" is an outrage. The NY Times Peter Themel, who seems to think he's a Bracketology expert, doesn't even give a detailed reason for his statement using the term "easy."
Grrrr. GO BEARS and... Go Huskies!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)