© Mark Zerof-USA TODAY Sports Cincinnati Bengals offensive tackle Andrew Whitworth (77) offensive tackle Eric Winston (73) linebacker Rey Maualuga (58) center T.J. Johnson (60) linebacker Emmanuel Lamur (59) wait to be introduced before the game against the Kansas City Chiefs at Paul Brown Stadium. Please don’t think that I’m lacking in sympathy for Andrew Whitworth and the other several Cincinnati Bengals players whose unclad rumps — and some fronts — were inadvertently exposed to the prying eyes of the NFL Network’s viewership on Sunday.

RELATED: Katherine McCarron rips NFL over nudity in locker interview

But Whitworth’s plea to overhaul the league’s media policy thanks to a poorly aimed locker room camera, is a bigger load of junk than, well, you got the picture.



Whitworth was one of several Bengals players caught unaware when the network snared Adam “Pacman” Jones for a quick Q-and-A session after Cincinnati had toppled the Buffalo Bills 34-21 and marched on to a 6-0 record.

As Jones talked to reporter Albert Breer about the “nitty-gritty” of his team’s latest triumph, the locker room hinterland showed at least seven players in various forms of undress, ranging from the partially-clothed, to those using the old towel-covering-the-assets ploy, to the kind of thing that’ll give you nightmares.

Whitworth, an offensive tackle in his 10th year in the league and a former Bengals NFL Players Association representative, was understandably annoyed. He swiftly demanded answers from both the league and the network. He called the NFL’s open locker room policy “outdated” and pleaded for change in how he changes, or at least who gets to see it.

“This is my office space, I shouldn’t have to change in it,” Whitworth said. “Every single day I have to change clothes and be naked, or not, in front of the media. It’s just not right.”

However, while Whitworth received support from several other NFL players, he should perhaps be careful what he wishes for. His idea for an alternative such as a media mixed zone might protect a few sensitive egos but would do nothing to help the league or its players.

A mixed zone is where players walk through a barricaded area and journalists are fenced behind waist-high metal grilles. Typically, it either turns into an unruly scrum or, very often, means a player simply walks past without talking to the press.

Such an arrangement can be traced to European soccer competitions, such as the English Premier League and frankly, it doesn’t work. With few exceptions, the EPL and its clubs do a miserable job of ensuring players or even coaches provide much in the way of access to the media, and by extension the public.

Whether an athlete should be forced to share their comments is a matter of opinion. Organizations such as the NFL and the professional tennis circuits take a punitive approach, fining those who do not attend mandatory media sessions, as Marshawn Lynch well knows.

The “must speak” policy that the NFL insists is vital to maintaining its brand and giving the public access to the inner workings of the game, would be far more difficult to enforce in a mixed zone, rather than with an open locker room, a system that has operated for decades without issue.

In England, the lack of access creates a combative scenario between players and the media and the resulting basic, perfunctory level of coverage makes for a severe disconnect between athletes and fans.

It is also important to see the Sunday situation for what it was, a grave mistake.

In most instances, cameras point towards a player with his own locker space behind him, instead of at the carnage, strewn clothing and roaming bare bodies of the locker room.

If there is a recurrence of this incident, it would be a bigger shock than it was for viewers who were confronted with an unexpected peep show on their television screens Sunday.

Part of what makes the NFL and American sports special is the ability for fans, through the media, to get up close and personal with their heroes. Just as long as it’s not too close, nor too personal.