Of that much, we are certain, given Ted Miller's nine hundred word essay on Christal Morrison's "killer looks."
First off, he's right. The girl is absolutely stunning -- in that bible school, girl-next-door kind of way. In fact, we'll readily admit that when we saw her smiling face on the front page of this morning's PI, we cut straight to page D1 for the full-size photo. Yeah, she's not bad.
After cooling ourselves off with an icepack, we started to think more on the journalistic merits of putting so much emphasis on the girl's looks.
It's well known that the PI has been trying to out-hip the Times for years now, but isn't it still supposed to be a respected source of actual news? Perhaps sports and sex go hand in hand. Athletes are, after all, sexy. They look after their bodies with a dedication most people can't imagine. That said, we can't think of many examples out there of sports coverage so overtly centered on an athlete's sex appeal. It's usually a given that they look good. 'Nuff said.
And aside from Dan Savage's sports coverage, we can't think of too many male athletes being so openly ogled in print.
What Miller should have done was draft a column based on Morrison's outstanding talent on the court. Be subtle. Let the pictures speak for themselves. Instead, Miller chose to wrap that talent within an obvious commentary on Morrison's sex appeal. Worse, it reads like a goddamn 19th century romance novel:
When Christal Morrison doffs her Washington warm-ups and walks onto the volleyball court, pulses begin racing for a variety of reasons.First, there is the superficial. To not acknowledge the sheepish grins and nudges exchanged between the males in the stands would require ignoring something that almost always comes up when Morrison is the subject of conversation.
Rumor has it that she is not unpleasant to look at.Ah, but Morrison wouldn't be worthy of these pages if she merely cut a fine form. Objectification is only Point A. It's a first impression for those who have functioning eyes, but it never reigns exclusively if something more substantive and defining follows.
In Morrison's case, Point B manifests on the court when a volleyball is lofted for her and she strides netward -- right, left, right, left -- and then leaps. Her hands and feet briefly form the ends of a "C" as her back arches her 6-foot-2 frame. Her outstretched arms flow apart, the right cocking behind her head, the left sweeping forward toward the target.



i used to edit the sports page for the UW Daily and one time one of my writers turned in a "column" that was essentially a love letter to morrison. i was almost as grossed out then as i am now.
"Romance novel" seems pretty right, but for the aura of sleaze, I'd fast-forward a century or two. I kept waiting for him to describe wanting to thrust throbbing manhood betwixt her velvet walls.
My god that is creepy.
In the 19th century, that column would've been by "Anonymous."
"That said, we can't think of many examples out there of sports coverage so overtly centered on an athlete's sex appeal."
Guess you guys weren't around when A-Rod used to play for the Mariners.
Miller should feel like a dirty old man. That's an embarrassment.
I don't understand why Morrison would want the editor write that article - it objectifies her. Oh wait... scout season, front page of the PI = no brainer.
Seriously.... I have no idea how some people are paid writers. This is the 3rd article I've read which is plain horrible.
In today's internet world to get it out in the public NOW, a lot has been lost.
Really, I'm just upset I don't have a job writing and these people do. Their syntax hurts my eye and their metaphors are like.... are like.... similes..
This girl is hot but it seems a little inappropriate on the sports page....Maybe in Maxim or Stuff would be better....