Sean B. Fitzgerald It doesn’t go something like this, it goes exactly like this.

Jason Whitlock, Erin Andrews, Deadspin, ESPN, etc.

It took a few days but it's finally here! Jason Whitlock's Fox Sports column on the Erin Andrews story. And like his bio promises, the column is both edgy and thought-provoking. So much so that it has inspired me to go through it one journalistic gem at a time. Drumroll please...

It was a gross, heinous invasion of privacy.

Yes, it was.

It was not the crime of the century, decade, year, month, week, day or even hour.

So far, so good.

The intent of this column is not to minimize the horrible violation of privacy that struck America's favorite sideline Barbie doll, Erin Andrews. This column will attempt to add context and reasonable perspective — two things generally lacking when a favored white woman is wronged in America — to the debate raging in the sports blogosphere about whether blogs contributed to the crime perpetrated against Ms. Andrews.

Irony, thy name is Jason Whitlock. I look forward to seeing how "context and reasonable perspective" will be added from a columnist who could bring up the issue of race on an argument over the making of a peanut butter and jelly sandwich.

I have to be honest here, he did show some restraint in this piece. On a story where a sideline reporter had her privacy invaded, he made it 65 words before referring to a skin color.

Surely by now you've heard. Someone secretly videotaped Erin Andrews while she was nude at a hotel(s) curling her hair and ironing her clothes.

What else was she doing Jason?

TMZ.com speculated rather persuasively the Zapruder in this fiasco might very well be one of Andrews' co-workers.

Can we drop the Zapruder analogies? Every time there is crude video footage capturing something remotely interesting, there is immediately a Zapruder quip or remark. I'm starting believe Abraham Zapruder is more famous than John F. Kennedy.

The video had been available (and ignored) on the Internet for months, but gained popularity this week when the influential Web site Deadspin wrote a post on the subject and linked to the Web site hosting the Andrews peephole footage.

"Ignored" implies people knew about it and made a conscious decision to not address it. It wasn't a big deal prior because as far as anyone knew, it was just one of millions of other pornographic videos. No one knew it was Erin Andrews. Deadspin was simply reporting speculation, which is what they do.

Deadspin has been the world-wide leader in sexually objectifying Erin Andrews (ESPN actually trails Deadspin in this category) and in invading the privacy of athletes and members of the sports media, so it is not all that surprising that its editor, AJ Daulerio, would throw the match on gasoline poured by a peephole pervert. Daulerio has since apologized, sort of. Daulerio's original enabler and co-conspirator, Will Leitch, the former editor of Deadspin, offered his apology on Tuesday.

Enabler. Co-conspirator. I was waiting for the "reasonable perspective" and it finally arrived. Whitlock never disappoints.

Of course, Leitch and Daulerio do everything they can to distance themselves from the crime. Leitch rambles on about how every "upright walking normal human being" he has spoken with is "profoundly disturbed" by this crime against white womanhood. It's all so (freaking) dishonest and biased that I'm embarrassed I read it.

Damn you, Jason! Don't make me agree with you! But he's right. I've never considered Will Leitch one to indulge much in the use of hyperbole, but I stand corrected. To say he was "profoundly disturbed" by the videotape is exactly what Whitlock said; dishonest. Sure it was disconcerting and unsettling to a point, but Leitch won't be losing sleep over it any time soon. I understand that everything written is written in a relative sense. But anyone who has read Deadspin over the past few years knows his choice of words cannot be taken seriously.

In the sports world, Deadspin eliminated the shame of privacy invasion for profit and made it mainstream. When Leitch and Buzz Bissinger had their infamous "Costas Now" confrontation, Leitch said the web site "humanized" its victims.

"Victims". There's that perspective again.

No, the site exploits private lives for profit, just like Hollywood paparazzi. Sometimes, it's a relatively harmless invasion of privacy. But sometimes it isn't.  I contend — and I'll explain — that Daulerio's invasion of Stuart Scott's and Michelle Beisner's privacy in 2007 is just as gross and heinous as what happened to Erin Andrews. Everyone celebrated and/or blew off the crime against Scott and Beisner because Scott is not beloved by white men (or people like me who are turned off by his ghetto shtick).

Or by anyone. Period.

But let me refresh your memory once again regarding Deadspin's original, unpunished sin. At a Super Bowl party Daulerio looked over Stu Scott's shoulder and read a text message that Scott sent to Beisner at 12:30 a.m. The message simply stated, "Lemme know."  Here's how Daulerio interpreted the text:

"Now, obviously, "Lemme know" is pretty non-descript. But at 12:30 a.m., in Miami, well, it means "Are you coming out tonight to f--- me or what?" Especially given who Scott was texting (I literally read the name right off his phone):

"Her name is Michelle Beisner, former Denver Broncos cheerleader and aspiring D-list Hollywood actress-type. Blonde. White Woman. Hey, nobody likes to start rumors about Stuart F---ing Scott, but if Michelle Beisner is his booty call, well, BooYa, my friend. Boo F---ing Ya."

OK, you might think no one is being videotaped naked in the Scott post. I'd argue that Scott and Beisner would've preferred to be videotaped naked rather than having an influential blog accuse the then-married Scott of adultery and Beisner of being a home-wrecking, booty-call-answering whore.

Jason, pay attention to the road! You're veering off course. 

That being said, it was clearly inappropriate of Deadspin to print that part of Daulerio's post. Seeing that I truly believe that Deadspin's intention was not that of harm, my only excuse for them was that even they (at the time) didn't take themselves too seriously. If they had any sense of their influence on legitimate news and public opinion, Leitch would have not let that post get past the draft page. It was hypocritical of them to report any speculation on the night activities of a prominent sportscaster. If ESPN were to question the faithfulness of an athlete based on the extrapolation of two words off a text message, you better believe Deadspin would lambaste ESPN for their lack of journalistic integrity.

Why was Beisner unworthy of sympathy? Her privacy was violated. It couldn't be because she committed the felony of Befriending a Black Man While White and Attractive?

Jason! We've been lost for three hours. Can you please ask for directions?

Deadspin has rewritten the rulebook when it comes to privacy and fairness as it pertains to athletes and sports media. The site is inherently unfair to minorities and random members of the media it chooses to dislike for whatever reason.

Does Whitlock even read Deadspin? Here's a list of the teams, individuals, or news outlets covered on the mainpage of DS this afternoon: Michael Vick, the New York Mets, Larry King, the Boston Red Sox, Lance Armstrong, Alex Rodriguesz, Jay Mariotti, Jim Parque, Tim Tebow, Lebron James, ESPN, Ben Roethlisberger, Jason Whitlock(!), Mark Buehrle, the NFL, and that cop who wrongly arrested the black(!) Harvard professor. And if you visit the site on a regular basis, you'll easily see a similar cross-section of coverage. That "unfair"ness he speaks of? It pertains to everyone. Right now, I can picture Whitlock literally grasping at straws.

No one objects. The mainstream media have treated Leitch and Daulerio like they're Woodward and Bernstein.

Another overused analogy. It's time we eliminate both "Zapruder" and "Woodward and Berstein" from our analogy-vernacular.

Sports Illustrated's magazine and web site served as Leitch's hype man. He was celebrated in a magazine profile. His good friend, Richard Deitsch, regularly broke out the cheerleading uniform at SI.com, tossing Leitch softball questions or plugging Leitch in monthly media rankings.

Nothing like the way Bill Simmons drops Jason's name in his podcasts and columns. Those two examples are mutually exclusive. I hope they talk about "The Wire" the next time he's on!

Do I believe Deadspin is evil? No. I like to laugh at my own stupidity and the hypocrisy and buffoonery of my peers and athletes. Most days I enjoy Deadspin. But the site, like everything else on this planet, is flawed, and Deadspin is flawed in ways the mainstream media should notice, analyze and criticize.

When you're a big guy like Jason Whitlock, it's tough to backtrack quietly. But I must say, he's doing an admirable job.

I've argued for the past two years the site is no different from ESPN, Deadspin's favorite whipping-boy institution. For two days ESPN ignored the Ben Roethlisberger sexual-assault lawsuit. There has been no official explanation why the civil suit filed against Big (White) Ben is being treated differently from Shannon Brown's or Isiah Thomas' much-discussed sexual-harassment lawsuit or countless other he-said-she-saids. ESPN plays favorites for a wide variety of reasons. It's unfair.

I would like Jason to write a recipe book. Not just for the fact that it would have some crazy-awesome food concoctions unthought of by the normal-sized man, but I would be intrigued to see how quickly he incorporates race. Would it be in the title? Would he write a twenty page diatribe on how "salt" comes first in the phrase "salt and pepper"? And would he blame Deadspin for the bastardization of the word "beef"?

Invasion of privacy for profit is what we all do to some degree in this day and age of Internet, camera-phone journalism. We're in desperate pursuit of clicks and ratings. There was a time when athletes could visit nightclubs and whatnot without fear of being photographed or videotaped. We respected their right to a private life even while in public. We judged and analyzed them by what they did on the field. We don't do that now, and the change has little to do with improved journalism. It's all about improved ratings and hits.

Never has a point been beaten to death more than this one. I've must of read 700 articles discussing how athletes no longer have any privacy. EVERY PERSON HAS A PHONE! EVERY PHONE HAS A CAMERA! REMEMBER?!

I'm just as guilty. The difference is I want us all to play by the same rules, regardless of color, willingness to befriend certain bloggers or business relationships. If we're willing to exploit athletes and their private lives for profit, let's not complain when we are exploited. Again, I just want the exploitation to be equal opportunity. It's not right now.

(Whispers) Does he realize that he brought up race?...No? Didn't think so.

The Pacman Jones stripclub video served no journalistic purpose. It was aired on ESPN and everywhere else solely to titillate and entertain. The raw footage didn't help us understand the crime. There was no interaction between Jones, his entourage and the club's bouncers. There were black asses shaking and black entertainers demonstrating how fools depart from their money. It was a reality version of Spike Lee's underrated movie Bamboozled.

If you would like to talk about "shocking" and "depressing", take a gander at the recent Pacman Jones video. Jones may have not been doing anything illegal while the camera was rolling, but I am still wondering how he thought "making it rain" was entertaining. Watching over-worked, under-bathed strippers pick singles off a sticky dance floor is both unsettling and vomit-inducing.

America couldn't get enough of the Pacman video until Erin Andrews was caught dropping it like it was hot in front of a hotel mirror.

So he did watch.

ESPN won't cover that story. It's climbed up on some high horse and is passing judgment on the New York Post for running pictures of ESPN's sideline Barbie.

I would discuss the ridiculousness of trying to compare the coverage of the two videos, but I assume any toddler would even realize that I am wasting their time.

How do you think the world-wide leader in hypocrisy would handle it if Serena Williams, Anna Kournikova or Candace Parker had been videotaped? I bet the network would throw together a two-hour documentary on how the video was made. And Leitch and Daulerio would drop the profoundly-disturbed-and-remorseful act.

In conclusion, Deadspin and ESPN are in bed with eachother? No, that can't be right. Anna Kournikova is relevant? All this "edginess" is exhausting. I need a nap.