Golfweek editor replaced (FIRED) over noose cover

[3Jack]

ORLANDO, Fla. — One day after PGA Tour executives threatened to pull their advertising because of a racially insensitive cover graphic of a noose, Golfweek magazine replaced its editor and vice president, Dave Seanor.

more...

[nhwott5]

stupid, tilghman is given 2 weeks, yet this editor is fired for creating a discussion on the matter?, stupid,

[Skiddlydidly]

Huh, I wonder what the proper image is to depict racism?

[3Jack]

stupid, tilghman is given 2 weeks, yet this editor is fired for creating a discussion on the matter?, stupid,

Huh? An off the cuff remark, versus editorial cover art of a noose. Which person had more time to think about their actions??

The answer is pretty obvious.

[Skiddlydidly]

Huh? An off the cuff remark, versus editorial cover art of a noose. Which person had more time to think about their actions??

The answer is pretty obvious.

So what should they have put on the cover to indicate an article about racism, then?

[hoolio]

Huh, I wonder what the proper image is to depict racism?

According to Seanor, a picture of an Executive Suite at an event would probably fit.

"Look at the executive suites at the PGA Tour, or the USGA, or the PGA of America. There are very, very few people of colour there,"

[3Jack]

So what should they have put on the cover to indicate an article about racism, then?

I'm no photo editor man.

[LobWedge]

So what should they have put on the cover to indicate an article about racism, then?

How about something that isn't sensationalist bull that just adds more fuel to the fire? It's Golfweek, not the National Enquirer.

[nhwott5]

it is called selling magazines, i woud love to see the numbers of sales form this isue to the next,

as for off the cuff vs time gto think, well off the cuff is much more dangerous to me, it shows what peopel think staements made "off teh cuff" more often than not represent a persons true feelings,

anway i think this matter has certainly been beaten to death (um) so i am no longer interested in it myself

[sharkshooter]

as for off the cuff vs time gto think, well off the cuff is much more dangerous to me, it shows what peopel think staements made "off teh cuff" more often than not represent a persons true feelings,

I totally disagree.

Some of us were raised to think that certain words were acceptable, and now we are taught that they are not. Our first instincts may be deeply buried, and we might slip up and use a now-unacceptable word, in ad-lib discussions. Most of us would feel sorry for having done so, knowing that we had erred, and appologize for it. This, in my opinion, is forgivable.

To draft, write, edit, print and publish the same thing suggests that it was not a "slip of the tongue", and is in inexplicably bad taste.

[jonf]

Huh? An off the cuff remark, versus editorial cover art of a noose. Which person had more time to think about their actions??

The answer is pretty obvious.

The difference is, that cover is about an existing issue. It's not like, out of the middle of nowhere, he decided to slap a noose on the cover of his magazine. The biggest news in the golf world right now is the 'lynching' comment. It might not be the most tasteful cover ever, but it is completely relevant to the topic at hand. If people are going to be discussing/debating this issue, the imagery of the noose is already implicit. I don't think that adding a picture of it somehow crosses a line.

I think people feel uncomfortable with this cover because it's in your face, and forces you to actually confront the issue at hand. When you're talking about it, you aren't necessarily forced to think about what exactly it is that you are talking about. The cover makes people uncomfortable, which it should. But being uncomfortable doesn't mean it's out of line. It means its relevant.

[3Jack]

The difference is, that cover is about an existing issue. It's not like, out of the middle of nowhere, he decided to slap a noose on the cover of his magazine. The biggest news in the golf world right now is the 'lynching' comment. It might not be the most tasteful cover ever, but it is completely relevant to the topic at hand. If people are going to be discussing/debating this issue, the imagery of the noose is already implicit. I don't think that adding a picture of it somehow crosses a line.

Geez louise.

[nhwott5]

well said

The difference is, that cover is about an existing issue. It's not like, out of the middle of nowhere, he decided to slap a noose on the cover of his magazine. The biggest news in the golf world right now is the 'lynching' comment. It might not be the most tasteful cover ever, but it is completely relevant to the topic at hand. If people are going to be discussing/debating this issue, the imagery of the noose is already implicit. I don't think that adding a picture of it somehow crosses a line.

I think people feel uncomfortable with this cover because it's in your face, and forces you to actually confront the issue at hand. When you're talking about it, you aren't necessarily forced to think about what exactly it is that you are talking about. The cover makes people uncomfortable, which it should. But being uncomfortable doesn't mean it's out of line. It means its relevant.

[sharkshooter]

... and forces you to actually confront the issue at hand. ...

In my experience, we need to stop confronting issues that are decades old, and confront today. By continuing to play to emotional issues from past centuries, we fan the flames of hatred and division, rather than looking to the things that bind us across racial and other barriers.

Forgive and forget. Move on.

[jonf]

In my experience, we need to stop confronting issues that are decades old, and confront today. By continuing to play to emotional issues from past centuries, we fan the flames of hatred and division, rather than looking to the things that bind us across racial and other barriers.

Forgive and forget. Move on.

Oh, don't get me wrong. I agree with you completely on this count. I have said so many times already in the various threads on this topic. I am just saying that it, in respect to the publishing of this image, I don't think its any more inappropriate or damaging than any of the other discussion that is occuring. This slip-up has already become an issue, and will continue to be an issue for a little while longer, so there is no reason not to publish an image that is relevant to the debate at hand, simply because it's uncomfortable.

[3Jack]

It's hardly necessary to fan the flames in such a sensational fashion though. An image of Kelly on the cover would have been sufficient. (Maybe I am a photo editor).

[Kilroy]

A noose is a seriously strong image. Over the top for sure.

[jonf]

The topic is a seriously strong topic. The fact that it's a seriously strong image is exactly why we are discussing Tilghman's comment in the first place. If it didn't have such a negative connotation for some, we wouldn't be here. Given that it does, it makes little sense to continue the debate while punishing those who recognize what it is we're actually debating about. Why? Because it's relevant. If you were writing a book on lynching you might well put a noose on the cover. Why should it be different for a magazine, in which that is the main focus for the week?

If we're actually going to discuss the issue meaningfully, we can't simply ignore what it is we're discussing. The fact is, the noose is a relevant visual representation of the issue that is being discussed. How it is out of line is beyone me. The fact that it makes people uncomfortable doesn't make it any less relevant to the debate at hand, which SHOULD be uncomfortable.

You can't have a meaningful debate about the appropriateness of her comments if you're going to get skiddish every time someone brings up the uncomfortable aspects of lynching. The noose is more uncomfortable because, as a visual representation, it forces one to confront the issue more directly. I say, good for Golfweek.

[Indio]

I'm surprised they didn't have the noose around Kelly's neck with her holding onto the toggle to depeict that she hung herself..... I actually believe people would have reacted less harshly to that.

[Kilroy]

I say, good for Golfweek

I guess I see your point, but you may find that you are one of the few that share that view. I suppose some of the executives in the Golfweek board room must have looked at it the same way and it backfired on them.

[jonf]

I guess I see your point, but you may find that you are one of the few that share that view. I suppose some of the executives in the Golfweek board room must have looked at it the same way and it backfired on them.

I'm sure you're right about that. I'm definitely in the minority here.

To me, it just smacks of hypocrisy.

Tilghman was suspended because of her 'racially insensitive' comment. But, as soon as we actually start discussing the issue, people get squeemish. These type of issues will never be put to bed by sweeping them under the carpet. They will get resolved by confronting them. Those who were upset with her comment were for the most part satisfied when she was suspended. But really, what message did that action send? That we have to make a concerted effort to stop racism? No. It said that we have to be extremely careful about what we say in public, regardless of how we actually feel. It said that, rather than confronting the issues brought up, we're going to suspend her, put it on the backburner, and hope it all blows over. We'll put a bandaid on it, and hope we don't lose too many viewers in the process.

If people are legitimately concerned about the undercurrent of racial tension that was stirred up by her comments, I don't think it helps anyone to start firing and suspending everyone who comes along and tries to confront the issue. These types of discussions will be uncomfortable, they will be awkward, and they will sometimes be shocking. But if there is a real desire to solve the problem, they are necessary.

[Skiddlydidly]

Well said, jonf.

[3Jack]

Unfortunately jonf, magazines and television networks can't / don't want to tick off their advertisers and have them pull their sponsorships, and therefore can't possibly engage in the kind of discussion that you propose would bring us closer to a true resolution of the issue. And golf of all things, relies on Fortune 500 advertisers, who are among the least likely candidates to actively participate in such a forum.

[jonf]

Unfortunately jonf, magazines and television networks can't / don't want to tick off their advertisers and have them pull their sponsorships, and therefore can't possibly engage in the kind of discussion that you propose would bring us closer to a true resolution of the issue. And golf of all things, relies on Fortune 500 advertisers, who are among the least likely candidates to actively participate in such a forum.

Well, I must say, I am much more sympathetic with that line of reasoning. They do have to be accountable to advertisers, as failure to do so would result in their extinction.

However, it shoud also be mentioned that the advertisers potential objection to that type of coverage stems from the public's unwillingness to have those discussions. So, while I do agree that the almighty dollar is an important consideration for businesses, that doesn't change the fact that the general public needs to change its attitude towards this type of situation. If they are truly concerned, then they should be writing letters to publishers encouraging this type of debate, rather than writing letters asking for people's heads.

[davevandyk]

it is called selling magazines, i woud love to see the numbers of sales form this isue to the next,

as for off the cuff vs time gto think, well off the cuff is much more dangerous to me, it shows what peopel think staements made "off teh cuff" more often than not represent a persons true feelings,

anway i think this matter has certainly been beaten to death (um) so i am no longer interested in it myself

i would like to know what the differences are between this month and the next. Golfers who buy Golfweek are not the same consumers that buy the National Enquirer, so i don't think it will be that much more than next month.

I disagree about the off the cuff vs. time to think comment. I think off the cuff remarks would leave you thinking, i can't believe i used "lych" instead of "kill etc" as people could take that in a manner that i didn't mean. But when a person has time to think about it, they basically say "I have thought about it, know how its gonna be reacted to by readers, and yet i am still gonna put it on the front page of what was a month ago a respectable magazine to a lot of people.

[LobWedge]

The topic is a seriously strong topic. The fact that it's a seriously strong image is exactly why we are discussing Tilghman's comment in the first place. If it didn't have such a negative connotation for some, we wouldn't be here. Given that it does, it makes little sense to continue the debate while punishing those who recognize what it is we're actually debating about. Why? Because it's relevant. If you were writing a book on lynching you might well put a noose on the cover. Why should it be different for a magazine, in which that is the main focus for the week?

If we're actually going to discuss the issue meaningfully, we can't simply ignore what it is we're discussing. The fact is, the noose is a relevant visual representation of the issue that is being discussed. How it is out of line is beyone me. The fact that it makes people uncomfortable doesn't make it any less relevant to the debate at hand, which SHOULD be uncomfortable.

You can't have a meaningful debate about the appropriateness of her comments if you're going to get skiddish every time someone brings up the uncomfortable aspects of lynching. The noose is more uncomfortable because, as a visual representation, it forces one to confront the issue more directly. I say, good for Golfweek.

Because the book would likely be written specifically about the racial and historical significance of lynching, not about a statement that was taken completely out of context. How many people do you know that have children that say in anger from time to time, "I'm going to kill that kid!", or "I'm gonna string him up when he gets home!" Lots right? Yet you don't see the newspapers full of headlines reading, "PARENT THERATENS CHILD WITH CERTAIN DEATH FOR REPEATEDLY BREAKING CURFEW", or some other nonsense. People need to lighten up.

If Tilghman's comment using the word "lynch" had been made about a member of any other ethnic group, we would not be having this discussion, because the overall context in which the comment was made would have been understood.

[jonf]

Because the book would likely be written specifically about the racial and historical significance of lynching, not about a statement that was taken completely out of context. How many people do you know that have children that say in anger from time to time, "I'm going to kill that kid!", or "I'm gonna string him up when he gets home!" Lots right? Yet you don't see the newspapers full of headlines reading, "PARENT THERATENS CHILD WITH CERTAIN DEATH FOR REPEATEDLY BREAKING CURFEW", or some other nonsense. People need to lighten up.

If Tilghman's comment using the word "lynch" had been made about a member of any other ethnic group, we would not be having this discussion, because the overall context in which the comment was made would have been understood.

Hey, I agree with you 100 percent. I have thought this whole thing was ridiculous from the start. I'm just saying that, given the context of the discussion which is now occuring, in which people are discussion the potentially racially charged nature of the comment, then an image of a noose is relevant and topical.

[Indio]

Hey, I agree with you 100 percent. I have thought this whole thing was ridiculous from the start. I'm just saying that, given the context of the discussion which is now occuring, in which people are discussion the potentially racially charged nature of the comment, then an image of a noose is relevant and topical.

BUT, entirely unnecessary from a golf rag.... they just added fuel to the fire and from the interviews and reports I have seen, they knew they would but didn't think it would be as bad as it turned out to be.

[LobWedge]

Hey, I agree with you 100 percent. I have thought this whole thing was ridiculous from the start. I'm just saying that, given the context of the discussion which is now occuring, in which people are discussion the potentially racially charged nature of the comment, then an image of a noose is relevant and topical.

That's what I'm trying to get at. The reason that this has become "racially charged" is because people like Al Sharpton jumped all over it, and because idiots like Dave Seanor decided to throw gas on the flames, not because of Tiger Woods and Kelly Tilghman.

Tiger has already stated that he and Kelly are good freinds, and that he completely understands the context of the remark, and that there was no malice aforethought.

The thing that really puzzles me (and pisses me off), is that while the African American community has given Tiger the exhalted mantle of "The Great Hope", and use him as a spokesperson and role model, the minute he brushes off a comment for what its really worth, guys like Sharpton dive right in, guns blazing, because Tiger is suddenly too stupid to realize that someone has made an outrageous "racial" statement. It's completely hypocritical, and nothing more than a publicity grab.

Make up your minds. Either Tiger speaks, and is a role model for African Americans, or he isn't. Tiger is plenty smart enough to speak for himself.

[3Jack]

This week's golf section in Sports Illustrated deals with the issue, and low and behold, they don't use a noose as an illustration. A columnist raises a good point in the issue as well. He contends that Tiger Woods, by mimimalizing the Tighlman's use of the word lynch, has clearly illustrated what he is all about - protecting his assests. It should be noted that last year he topped $100 million in off course income, which is garnered by his endorsement relationships with mainly caucasian controlled corporations. His dismissal of the incident as a 'non-issue' is what his sponsors clearly love about him, but at the same time, his dismissal of the incident does a grave disservice to his heritage. This is what the article contends, and I can't say that I disagree.