ABOUT CLICKED

The modern news consumer ignores Weblogs and online citizen journalism at his own peril. But not everyone has the time to keep track of what's going on the Web. With this blog we hope to track the highlights of what's being discussed online so when news breaks from the Web, we're ready.

Will Femia is a Weblog enthusiast who, through good fortune and dumb luck, was introduced to the form as his position as chat producer for MSNBC.com careered into obsolescence. On any given day, Will can be found having already spent an unhealthy amount of time squinting at a computer screen.

Send a message to Will at spotter@msnbc.com



Too sexy for this blog?

Posted: Wednesday, May 30, 2007 2:03 PM by Will Femia

I've been seeing an increase in the phenomenon of admiring pretty girls online who aren't presenting themselves as pretty girls to be admired.  That is to say, it's one thing for someone like Keyra Augustina to skyrocket to "Howard Stern says she's got the best butt on the Web" fame with a bit lot of grainy homemade skirt lifting. And Ur "oops porn" icon Libby Hoeller, whose erotic "for your eyes only" video for her boyfriend may not have been intended for a large audience but at least serves as a useful cautionary tale. Even the Hot or Not crowd, who may be the very definition of shallow insecurity are, at least, willing participants. But what about a person whose photo just happens to be online? Girl watching (or boy watching I guess) is a relatively harmless and age-old activity, but what about when it runs into the proportion-distortion of the Internet?

A little while ago I linked to a page of attractive female chess players.  In the comments I mentioned that there were other examples, like a high school pole vaulter who was drawing a lot of uninvited attention, of women online put in a sexual context not of their choosing. I didn't include a link at the time because part of the point is that these women didn't ask for the attention, and frankly the attention is pretty creepy. And I wasn't alone in making that decision.  Based on my comment, a reader named Alex went looking to see if he could find the link himself and sent this note:

Will,
You got me curious, and with a little searching, I ended up finding the pole vaulter. I noticed a mild blurb today about the fact that Simmons at Page 2 at ESPN.COM had a paragraph about her edited out of his blog.

The guy makes a good point, it seems a little weird that ESPN would cover Sharapova and Kournikova to the hilt, but when it comes to American teenage bombshell athletes, the line is drawn in the sand...

-Alex

That link doesn't work for me anymore, but you get the point. Part of what makes it an awkward situation is that her fame is the result of legitimate coverage of her athletic achievements, so why should it be wrong for sports journalists to cover her? I don't have an answer other than that sometimes you just have a feeling. Apparently the Washington Post decided that her popularity had reached a critical mass such that the story surpassed the reservations of taste.  They covered Allison Stokke's story on the front page this weekend.

For what it's worth, Deadspin blames her father for breaking media silence and granting tacit permission for us (me) to talk about his daughter's situation.  Sports by Brooks cites local news coverage as the first non-blog coverage of the matter. (NOTE: This one has a lot of bikini girls on it.)

While it may seem contradictory for Stokke and her family to ask everyone to pay attention to the fact that they don't want attention, Stokke's "unofficial fan page" got the message. And the blog that "broke the story" (of her hotness?) received a message of a different sort and now no longer displays the ubiquitous photos it made famous.

But broader coverage doesn't appear to have done anything to suppress the ridiculous number of Facebook fan groups.

I'm curious to know what you as readers think of me not presenting these links in the first place. Was I suffering some kind of weirdo daddy delusion that made me think I could protect this girl by not linking to her online oglers?  Or is there such a thing as journalistic restraint? If the latter, is it suddenly OK to talk about just because the Washington Post already did? Should Stokke quit her complaining and realize that she's won a sort of lottery and hurry up and get herself a Nike endorsement before the band marches on?

P.S. Dear colleagues at NBCSports, you want this young lady for your track and field Olympics coverage.

A regular Clicked in just a bit...

MAIN PAGE

Email this EMAIL THIS

Comments

I discovered the Allison Stokke story yesterday. As the father of two ladies 18 and 21, I was pretty sympathetic to her plight. You did the right thing, Will. Not linking to her story or photos respects her right to privacy. Just because other media are shameless hucksters, doesn't mean you must be.

Dan Straughan, Oklahoma City, OK (Sent Wednesday, May 30, 2007 5:41 PM)

I think the line has to be separated between public pictures (you are out in public and everyone can see you), identifying information, and private pictures/videos meant for one person. If you are at a sporting event, you are going to be photographed, intentionally or not. You are making yourself a public figure and others may choose to post such pictures (under certain rules). The line is crossed when fully identifying information is attached to it. This is supposed to be by permission (although many schools make kids/parents sign waivers, since the scoreboards include identifying details). The line is much further crossed when a private picture (or video) given to one person is then released publicly without permission. So, the pole vaulter may have a reasonable dispute if more information was included with the picture than was available to a spectator (and more than she or her parents gave permission for). But, I do not think she has any dispute if it was no more than was public by her participation. The larger problem of what publicity may do to your social life is perhaps something that every student should be warned about before participating in sports, intra-school events, and other situations where they will be identified.

Paul, Alamo, CA (Sent Wednesday, May 30, 2007 5:48 PM)

Looks like just another average teenage girl to me, what's the big deal.

doug l (Sent Wednesday, May 30, 2007 5:58 PM)

Case in point, its been about a week since you first mentioned her and I had already completely forgotten she existed. I have a feeling everyone else will too, soon enough. Internet fame disappears as fast as it appears, which is unfortunately slightly shorter than the time it takes to make a blog entry about it.

Alex, Lawrence, KS (Sent Wednesday, May 30, 2007 6:00 PM)

Will, it's alot better to have a wierdo daddy delusion than be a pathetic lecher. You did right. You're a good man.

Rick, Sierra Vista, Arizona (Sent Wednesday, May 30, 2007 6:04 PM)

I am in agreement with Dan. Will you did the right thing. When I read the article, I honestly expected a link and when I found none, I smiled. As a lady and a mother of a young girl I applaud you decency.

Lynn, Sparks NV (Sent Wednesday, May 30, 2007 6:20 PM)

You did the right thing. As the parent of a teenaged girl, I applaud your decision. I only wish more journalists would use common sense.

Anon Mommy, USA (Sent Wednesday, May 30, 2007 6:28 PM)

I think it was very classy not to include the link. I also read her story and felt very badly for her situation. Here she is a pretty and talented young lady, blazing her trail in life, and then a single well timed picture was snapped. Then people think they have a right to spread it like wild fire and leer at it, even though there was nothing sexual inferred in her behavior. She was sexualized even though she did not ask or intend to be, and I think that was the biggest problem. (Not to mention she's a teenager for goodness sakes!) I hope for her sake the previous commenter is correct, that her 15 minutes of internet fame will be over soon and she can continue to pursue her athletic talents without flashes in her face and people thinking they have a right to turn her into a sex object.

AmericanMuslimahConvert (Sent Wednesday, May 30, 2007 7:18 PM)

"Linking to her story or photos respects her right to privacy." The key here is "respect." You were, of course, correct to not link. Why? Because she asked you to. And because anybody who really wants to see the photo can. Just type her name into MSN Image Search (your employer, by the way). You will find plenty of copies of the photo in question. The other key here is that she has no right of privacy. She can ask people not to link to her photo, but she has no "right" to demand it. If you don't want people taking your photo, stay out of public places. I know that sounds unreasonable, but that's just life. If you go into public, guess what ... YOU'RE IN PUBLIC. OMG, PEOPLE CAN SEE YOU. They may even note your hotness. I have a confession to make: I used to be the Sports Editor for a small newspaper. Whenever I had to make a decision about which photo made that day's paper ... the hotness of the athlete was ALWAYS a factor. Who wants to (pay to) see a fat, sweaty 17-year-old 275-pound defensive lineman when you can run the shot of that pretty cheerleader doing the aerial splits? Come on, you know the answer.

John Doe, Seattle Wash (Sent Thursday, May 31, 2007 3:00 AM)

The one thing you don't want to do in a case like this (not specific to you Will, just in a general sense) is tell millions of men there are pictures of a beautiful young woman on the 'net that they shouldn't look at . The images I saw weren't lascivious and had the attempt to hide them not taken place I wouldn't have given them a second thought; some random pole vaulter at a competition. Big deal. Now however the impression is "girl so irresistible her pictures drive men crazy with lust, so don't look!". It's a losing battle to fight human nature, capitalize on it or avoid what you find distasteful. Anything else just exacerbates the problem.

Sean, NY (Sent Thursday, May 31, 2007 5:29 AM)

You acted in a manner that respected another individual, and one that befit your inner moral compas. How can we fault you for that. Oh, the result? You acted with class and restraint while others did not. You may not receive great praise for your restraint, but neither do the others garner praise in my book.

Andrew James Riemer, Winsted, MN (Sent Thursday, May 31, 2007 9:55 AM)

I'm having a little trouble "feeling bad" for her. I am a father of two girls, and I certainly would not want this type of thing to happen to either of them, but there is no way to stop human nature. The pictures were not nasty, but quite attractive and tasteful... if some guys want to type nasty captions to it, what are you going to do? If that is all it takes to get her upset I'd say her skin is pretty thin. This is internet fame, after all, and will certainly last less than 15 minutes. This young lady is smart, talented, and obviously loaded with charisma and charm. Something advertisers are always looking for. The best thing she could do is find a nice athletic shoe or sports ware company and get paid for her fame. Even with scholarships, college ain't cheap, and while this is not the ideal situation it certainly demonstrates her marketability. Turn lemons into lemonade I always say. She can't control where her image goes or whats said, but she can take control this way, and benefit from the whole ordeal.

Dave, Dundalk, Md (Sent Thursday, May 31, 2007 10:25 AM)

It's coming to a point where the internet community has got to make some boundaries to ensure those who didn't ask to be famous in this manner, nor embracing their unwanted fame for profit, have their right to privacy protected. Or else the government will step in a severe way eventually that may affect certain other freedoms. And there is something more than definitely creepy about older guys blogging in a sexual way about high school girls where the girl is not at all acting in a provacative or showy way. The photo is just any ole' photo that appears in most local sports section. I expected something sexy or revealing based on buzz. What is it about this photo? She's attractive but no more so than dozens at any local high school athletic event. I think it has more to do with the creep factor that is unique to the internet and men need to stand up and be protective of girls like this who are subjected to thousands of unwanted peeping toms...we should not be encouraging that behavior in any way even if it seems like harmless fun. Way too many strangers (creeps) have way to much information on this girl. This is not harmless "eye candy". And you may not have linked to it...but you've just sent thousands more to it...to her. The internet community needs to start having some standards where certain things are off limits. This is one of those things. If the community doesn't reel this in then eventually a much more strict government/lawyer tandem will.

Alex (Sent Thursday, May 31, 2007 10:47 AM)

Nobody, when they take up a sport, is thinking about the fact that someone might take a picture of him or her at a sporting event and throw it on a blog. NOBODY. People who are claiming that she should have to shut up and deal because she participates in a sport are crazy. She shouldn't have to just accept the fact that she could very well be stalked now, that people are writing explicit and graphic things about her, that people are impersonating her, just because she participates in life. She's not a professional athlete, not an Olympic athlete, not a Dallas Cowboy cheerleader. She was not seeking noteriety or national attention, and had no good reason to expect that she'd receive it. This doesn't happen every day, or it wouldn't be news. I applaud her for being public with her disapproval. So she's pretty. So what? Being attractive is not "asking for" the kind of attention she's receiving. It's not something she can control. And "she's 18" is not a justification for the behavior of supposed adults. Just because it's not illegal to sexualize her doesn't mean it's OK. Good for you, Will, for honoring her wishes.

LV (Sent Thursday, May 31, 2007 11:06 AM)

2/10 knees too pointy, yes ive had better.

bbcom (Sent Thursday, May 31, 2007 12:41 PM)

Like Lonelygirl15, I saw the blog storm but did not go and look at the pictures until it hit the big time newspapers. When I Googled the girl and saw the available images, I knew immediately which one it was. Maybe she is photogenic; in which case she better capitalize on her less-than-15 min. of fame, or it was just a lucky shot for the photographer. Looking at the other pictures of her, and although she is very cute (at my age they all are), looks like lighting, choice of uniform colors, camera angle, athlete's demeanor at that moment, and a recent tan all came together to make one remarkable picture. There's a whole 'nother internet world over where the kids frequent with all their teenage angst, and if you, Will, start linking to what they are interested in, I'll click somewhere else. You did right to avoid this story until it became a big enough story to deserve a mention. Keep on a-clicking.

Scout29c (Sent Thursday, May 31, 2007 2:21 PM)

I'd have to disagree with most of you on this one. This girl is 18. She is taking part in an event or sport that brings things like viewers, cameras...etc. I am not saying that she has no right to privacy, but what privacy is she really losing here? Sure, there are stalking concerns, but what attractive person doesn't have to worry about that? Personally I think people need to lighten up. If she is going to be in the public eye playing sports..sorry. People think you're attractive, and like looking at you. Get over it. If the news media doesn't have to get a release of an image taken of YOU in a public place...what's the difference? Besides...she'll end up making bank over this.

Chuck, Louisville, Ky (Sent Thursday, May 31, 2007 5:10 PM)

The different reactions that everyone is expressing here are far more interesting than the situations that Will first blogged about. In spite of our fancy toys we are still little more than animals.

Dan (Sent Thursday, May 31, 2007 5:33 PM)

Help! I didn't realize that my e-mail address would be linked via my name. Please remove it from my comment.

Carol Anne (Sent Thursday, May 31, 2007 7:24 PM)

Interesting, about this teenager,

John, San Jose, CA (Sent Friday, June 01, 2007 1:50 AM)

Carol Anne, I didn't approve your other comment so it shouldn't be showing up anywhere. Let me know if you're talking about something that's already on the blog somewhere else.

Will Femia (Sent Friday, June 01, 2007 11:41 AM)

Another non story. who cares about a girl that craves the attention that she does not want ... We would not be hearing about all this if she tried to stay out of the spotlight.. ho hum ... can we find an interesting topic PLEASE? usually you are really funny but when you take this dear abby/Mrs prudent stand, its BORING ...take it easy

John McCormick, Largo, Fl. (Sent Saturday, June 02, 2007 1:50 AM)

John, I don't know if you're still checking back here but I have some thoughts on why this isn't a non-story in today's entry. http://clicked.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/06/05/214693.aspx And it doesn't involve me moralizing. :)

Will Femia (Sent Tuesday, June 05, 2007 5:00 PM)



SEND A COMMENT

PLEASE READ: All comments must be approved before appearing in the thread; time and space constraints prevent all comments from appearing. We will only approve comments that are directly related to the blog, use appropriate language and are not attacking the comments of others.

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):

Your name, city and state (John Doe, Seattle, Wash.): 

 Your e-mail address (jdoe@msnbc.com):

Your website (it's okay if you don't have one):

Remember me? (We'll keep it private)

TRACKBACKS

Trackbacks are links to weblogs that reference this post. Like comments, trackbacks do not appear until approved by us. The trackback URL for this post is: http://clicked.msnbc.msn.com/trackback.aspx?PostID=209114