Living vicariously through others, whose lives are much more interesting than ours

NOTE TO GOOGLE SEARCHERS: You are wasting your time with all those Cecily Tynan searches that only lead you down blind alleys and, of all places, here. There is someone far more interesting that you should be searching, and the story is so big around here that it wound up on the front page of the Inquirer today:

CBS3 anchor Alycia Lane says she is "mortified" over a gossip item in yesterday's New York Post that she had sent private e-mails and suggestive "bikini" photos to NFL Network anchor Rich Eisen, which were intercepted by his wife. The story, which Lane said was not what it appeared, quickly became the talk of a celebrity-starved town and even mushroomed into national fodder as scandal-sniffing bloggers inveighed against Lane.

In an exclusive interview yesterday with The Inquirer, Lane insisted she was not a home-wrecker. The photos were simply part of "harmless" banter between "two old friends," and not an attempt to entice the Los Angeles-based Eisen or break up his nearly four-year marriage to former Fox and ABC sports reporter Suzy Shuster. She said she knew he was married.

There are several angles to this story, and you are free to focus on the angle of your choice. My angle has nothing to do with Alycia or her buddy or even her alleged bikini photos or the so-called harmless nature of sending bikini photos to another man.

My angle is the technology and its use as it applies to modern society.

As little as 10 years ago we didn’t have cell phones, and five years ago we didn’t have cell phones that took photographs. Now, they do everything but give you oral sex, and that’s probably in the early stages of development, so watch out for that. That said, it isn’t necessary that we use technology merely because it exists.

Alycia and her friends have free will and the ability to take photos of themselves in various stages of undress, but once they leave their air space, they lose all responsibility for their possession. They can fall into anyone’s hands. The mistake Alycia made was in considering the e-mail “private.” She should know better than anyone that her prominence as a minor local celebrity makes such things interesting, and the fact that she is a news anchor gives her a certain credibility which is pretty much shot in the ass right now.

As a [quote] newsperson, she has a certain responsibility to her job and herself to stay above reproach. Using cell phones as toys for her personal entertainment falls outside of that realm.

Lane said, "This cast me as something I am not at all." Really? I think it casts you as a bikini-wearing, e-mail sending, flirty little news wench. Isn’t that what you are?

"I think unfortunately it's the nature of being a public figure," Lane said yesterday, which indicates that she knows that she is a public figure. "I really and truly want to be known as a journalist. I didn't get into journalism to be part of a gossip column - never in a million years." Ooops.

Really? Maybe not in a million years, but in the 4 years you have been in Philadelphia you have been seen dancing with Prince Albert at the 50th Anniversary of Princess Grace’s wedding and you appeared with Dr. Phil twice to talk about your first divorce in 2004, then went public with your next marriage in 2005. It sounds to me as though you really don’t understand the difference between being a news anchor and being the focus of gossip.

Or maybe you do? After all, perhaps the biggest problem with this story is that the New York Post misidentified the station as “WKYW”, [it is really KYW] so even the free publicity you bought for yourself and the station was goofed up. Front-page ad space is expensive, and your Eyewitness News logo was all over the paper this morning.

Maybe Alycia Lane is the victim of overactive prying into one's personal life or the unwitting participant in technology gone haywire. Whatever it is, the timing couldn't have been better for the station.

It is either a clever May Sweeps ratings stunt or a total coincidence. Either way, I'm guessing that the people who run Eyewitness News are not all that upset about the front page display of their logo, free of charge on both local newspapers.