Golfweek editor replaced (FIRED) over noose cover

[jonf]

3Jack,

First off. TIger is a busy man. Golf season is about to start, and you don't become the best in the world by doing interviews. You do it by practicing.

Second. Tiger DID make a statement. The fact that you cannot take it at face value does not make it any less valuable or legitimate.

Third. Can you honestly expect anybody 'embroiled' in this whole scenario to make a statement without the assistance of PR or a lawyer. I mean, really. We've already seen what that can do to people. Step out of your fantasy world for a second. It's pretty obvious that on this issue, there is absolutely no leeway. There is a minuscule line that has to be tread, and to expect anybody, particularly someone who is not in the media business, to walk that in an impromptu interview with reporters trying to back you into any number of corners, is absurd.

[3Jack]

Don't put words in my mouth, and please don't be bitter.

Wasn't it Tiger's father who said that he would one day be more important than just a golfer?

I only have proposed that this was an opportunity for him to be that person which his father indicated one day he would be.

[jonf]

Don't put words in my mouth, and please don't be bitter.

Wasn't it Tiger's father who said that he would one day be more important than just a golfer?

I only have proposed that this was an opportunity for him to be that person which his father indicated one day he would be.

I think he already is more important than just a golfer. How? By being 'just a golfer'. He is already a role model for millions of people. And he's showing a level of maturity that few would be able to show in a situation like this. Being preachy is not the only way to lead. Tiger is leading by example. He is setting a stellar one by not falling into the mudslinging and headhunting of this whole ridiculous debacle. That is an example many could do well to follow.

[3Jack]

[quote=jonf;231816]3Jack,

First off. TIger is a busy man. Golf season is about to start, and you don't become the best in the world by doing interviews. You do it by practicing.

Agreed.

Second. Tiger DID make a statement. The fact that you cannot take it at face value does not make it any less valuable or legitimate.

The face value at which I take it is that it came through his management team. I concurr that these statements would not be released without Tiger's approval.

Third. Can you honestly expect anybody 'embroiled' in this whole scenario to make a statement without the assistance of PR or a lawyer.

I don't think Tiger is 'embroiled' in this. In fact, his prompt dismissal of Kelly's remark distanced himself from the issue as much as one could. I'm simply saying that an opportunity to be a catalyst for real discussion was missed. No more, no less.

I mean, really. We've already seen what that can do to people. Step out of your fantasy world for a second.

If you want this to start getting personal, bring it, but I don't think it's necessary to attempt to belittle me for my viewpoint. I think I have presented my viewpoint in a fair and valid manner.

It's pretty obvious that on this issue, there is absolutely no leeway. There is a minuscule line that has to be tread, and to expect anybody, particularly someone who is not in the media business, to walk that in an impromptu interview with reporters trying to back you into any number of corners, is absurd.

[quote=jonf;231816]I think you may be selling Tiger a bit short here. Here's a guy who has won 13 majors, who has been in the media spotlight since he was two or three years old, who has dined with kings and presidents and has teed it up with the richest people in the world. My money thinks that he'd handle himself just fine.

[jonf]

It's not that I don't think he could handle himself. It's that, no matter what he says, somebody will give him a lot of .

[3Jack]

But most would give him respect.

[fundonny]

How can you possibly back up that statement? It's speculative, not factual. MOST? You don't know that, no one does.

But most would give him respect.

[sharkshooter]

Don't put words in my mouth, and please don't be bitter.

...

But, this is exactly what you are doing with Tiger.

Tiger responded, but not how you wanted him to, so you are insisting that he did not respond appropriately, and want him to respond as you would have.

Until you become his press agent or his lawyer, you do not have that right. And, considering your reaction to his response here, you never will.

[jonf]

But most would give him respect.

So you're not debating my assertion that people would try to drag him through the mud? If so, then how could you expect him to speak out on this issue?

[3Jack]

But, this is exactly what you are doing with Tiger.

Tiger responded, but not how you wanted him to, so you are insisting that he did not respond appropriately, and want him to respond as you would have.

Until you become his press agent or his lawyer, you do not have that right. And, considering your reaction to his response here, you never will.

I have never put any words in Tiger's mouth, I'm merely suggesting that he should have taken an opportunity to respond in person, no more no less.

I don't understand why this opinion of mine, which is hardly an original thought, is getting you guys so wound up.

[3Jack]

So you're not debating my assertion that people would try to drag him through the mud? If so, then how could you expect him to speak out on this issue?

So what? Who cares if you're dragged through the mud if you know in your heart that you're doing the right thing?

[3Jack]

How can you possibly back up that statement? It's speculative, not factual. MOST? You don't know that, no one does.

Sorry, most REASONABLE people would realize that he's trying to to the right thing, hence, the respect.

[jonf]

Again, you keep bringing up this notion of doing the right thing. I simply fail to comprehend how repeating what he has already said is 'doing the right thing'. He has already made it perfectly clear what his position is on this issue. There is absolutely no moral or logical reason for him to repeat it over and over. He has said his piece once, and that should be more than enough.

[jonf]

Sorry, most REASONABLE people would realize that he's trying to to the right thing, hence, the respect.

Oh, right, because we've seen just how many reasonable people there are out there over the past two weeks.

If the majority of people and media outlets were reasonable, I could certainly see your point. However, the entire reason this is even a topic of conversation is because media outlets and the public are being unreasonable and blowing it out of proportion.

[jonf]

So what? Who cares if you're dragged through the mud if you know in your heart that you're doing the right thing?

So you want Woods to become a martyr over something that he doesn't believe is an issue?

[3Jack]

Again, you keep bringing up this notion of doing the right thing. I simply fail to comprehend how repeating what he has already said is 'doing the right thing'. He has already made it perfectly clear what his position is on this issue. There is absolutely no moral or logical reason for him to repeat it over and over. He has said his piece once, and that should be more than enough.

I'm not saying, nor did I intend to imply that he should simply re-cant what his represntatives said on his behalf. As you say, repeating it at this point is pointless.

What I said, if you go back and read it again, is that he should have voiced his acceptance of apology in person in the first place, rather than go through his management team. I clearly said that he had an oppotunity to do it differently, but chose to use the safe route of allowing his pr and management team to speak for him (and yes, I realize he'd have to approve what they said on his behalf).

[3Jack]

So you want Woods to become a martyr over something that he doesn't believe is an issue?

If he doesn't think it's an issue, then I guess it's all good. But deep down, I wonder what he really thinks. Surely he's educated on the connotation the word carries. Perhaps he is doing the right thing by issuing stock forgiveness through his managers, but I'm just throwing it out there that the possibility exists that he had an opportunity to do more, and chose not to, for a myriad of reasons.

[3Jack]

Oh, right, because we've seen just how many reasonable people there are out there over the past two weeks.

If the majority of people and media outlets were reasonable, I could certainly see your point. However, the entire reason this is even a topic of conversation is because media outlets and the public are being unreasonable and blowing it out of proportion.

You're an educated chap, that much is obvious. Would you have appreciated his effort if he went above and beyond his management team in this instance?

[3Jack]

I wish I could find a link to this article, but SI.com / Golf.com has made a mess of their online offerings... I can't seem to find anything on those sites anymore. But, I digress...

Here's the last paragraph from the article:
==============================
In the end Tllghman was brough down by her failur to grasp or respect the undercurrent of meaning attached to the L word. But isn't Woods guilty of the same thing? By so blithely dismissing the incident, isn't he (Tiger Woods) contributing to the offense? Woods doesn't have to become a civil-rights spokesman, but he could have at least acknowledged that he understands the meaning of the word, and how powerful and hurtful it remains. In other words, wouldn't it be nice if for nce Woods saw himself as the heir not only to Jack Nicklaus, but also to Jackie Robinson?
==============================

An interesting take, to say the least.

The full article to which I refer above is now available online here. As is usually the case, someone usually says it better, and this is definitely the case here. Everything I was attempting to convey is much more eloquently stated by the author, Farrell Evans.

[Kilroy]

Tiger has now made a comment... No suprise here.

Woods said he never felt pressure to speak out on the use of "lynch," which stirs graphic reminders of the Old South in which 3,466 blacks were lynched in the United States from 1882 to 1968.
"It was more media-driven than anything else," Woods said.
More...

[3Jack]

Tiger has now made a comment... No suprise here.

Kinda too bad there's no surprise there.

[Kilroy]

The point is he does not think it's a big deal at all. Since the comment was "about" him that should end it right there, but of course it doesn't, thanks to the media hype and people like Sharpton using it to stir up trouble.

[jonf]

Kinda too bad there's no surprise there.

Could you explain what you mean by that?

[3Jack]

Could you explain what you mean by that?

Surely!

I've been thinking alot about this, and I think that despite Tiger's foundation and all the time and money he puts towards it, he had an opportunity due to Kelly's unfortunate slip, to go above and beyond the call, and really begin to reach an audience beyond that of the golf world, to become more of what his father alluded to many years ago when he said, and I'm paraphrasing, that Tiger's impact on society would be far greater than that which he achieves on the golf course.

I think the article to which I have now been able to link in a previous post is similar in its train of thought.

[sensfan63]

Surely!

I've been thinking alot about this, and I think that despite Tiger's foundation and all the time and money he puts towards it, he had an opportunity due to Kelly's unfortunate slip, to go above and beyond the call, and really begin to reach an audience beyond that of the golf world, to become more of what his father alluded to many years ago when he said, and I'm paraphrasing, that Tiger's impact on society would be far greater than that which he achieves on the golf course.

I think the article to which I have now been able to link in a previous post is similar in its train of thought.

I just read that article. I was open-minded going into it, but when the author compared Al Sharpton's reaction vis-a-vis Tiger's actions, I stopped reading.

[jonf]

Surely!

I've been thinking alot about this, and I think that despite Tiger's foundation and all the time and money he puts towards it, he had an opportunity due to Kelly's unfortunate slip, to go above and beyond the call, and really begin to reach an audience beyond that of the golf world, to become more of what his father alluded to many years ago when he said, and I'm paraphrasing, that Tiger's impact on society would be far greater than that which he achieves on the golf course.

I think the article to which I have now been able to link in a previous post is similar in its train of thought.

Right. I was hoping to get more at specifics...ie...what was it Tiger should have said if this was not the 'right' thing to say? I assume by the way that you have reacted to his second statement that you think it was in some way inadequate or deficient (correct me if I'm wrong). If that is the case, then what exactly would you have liked to see/hear?

[3Jack]

I'm just surprised how he brushed it off as a non-issue, and how he says he felt no pressure from anyone to speak out.

I guess if it's not a big deal to him then that's fine, I'm just a bit surprised by that is all.

[3Jack]

I just read that article. I was open-minded going into it, but when the author compared Al Sharpton's reaction vis-a-vis Tiger's actions, I stopped reading.

Why not read everything to get persepectives from all angles?

[Indio]

I'm just surprised how he brushed it off as a non-issue, and how he says he felt no pressure from anyone to speak out.

I guess if it's not a big deal to him then that's fine, I'm just a bit surprised by that is all.

I think Tiger did the right thing. This was not a case like the Jena 6 where it was an actualy malicious event. It was a tasteless comment by someone that should have known better. If he would have got up on a soap box and started preaching to the masses of how maligned African Americans been, Sharpton et al would have had a field day with it. Not what is needed.

[3Jack]

It was a opportunity to open some dialogue if he wanted to, and obviously, that's not what he's about at this point in his life, which is more than fine. There's nothing wrong with just being a golfer, and the best of all time for that matter.