Originally Posted by turtleback
Originally Posted by Fourputt
Since you still feel obligated to mention it, apparently you are one of the eyebrow crowd. Anyone whose eyebrows are raised over the drop at the Players simply hasn't got a clue how the rule works. If you feel that way, then you are included in that group. If you don't feel that way then quit bringing it up , because it is irrelevant to this discussion.
Discuss the others if you must, although anyone with a solid grounding in the Rules won't question any of them, but the drop at the Players was as reasonable as was possible to judge at the time from the ground. As such it was 100%, totally and completely proper within the rules, and anyone who disputes that doesn't know what he is talking about. Anyone who thinks that the overhead camera showed something pertinent doesn't understand the tricks that camera angles and telephoto compression can play on perception.
I'm sure that K-troop is only saying that the BMW incident raised eyebrows - not the previous 2 or 3 issues.
Originally Posted by iacas
"Premise: commentary that adds value to the state of discourse on a particular topic should be written."
In the end, I reject the premise he skipped - that all controversial stuff has value.
Your proposed premise is fine - but begs the question of what adds value. K-troop's premise, which you reject, is an attempt to answer that very question.
If I had to make a straight choice, I think I'd come down on the side of K-troop's premise - although I admit it's quite finely balanced.
I see lots of commentary on all sorts of subjects which seems contentious for contentiousness' sake (or written out of bias) - and my initial reaction is dismay at those views being aired.
On the other hand, getting even appalling, skewed arguments out into the open exposes them to scrutiny.
In this case, even if you don't agree with Brandel's conclusions, I think you can welcome the debate that it provoked.
I think it must have prompted a lot of people (myself included) to examine quite closely what "cheating" really means, as opposed to any variety of rule infraction.
Sure - there are going to be some readers take BC at face value and uncritically accept what he wrote.
But to focus too closely on that discounts the possibility of a much wider news audience seeing the video of Tiger's ball moving in the trees, hearing that he's been penalised, and making too far of a leap to the conclusion that Tiger was necessarily cheating.
Debates like this challenge those careless conclusions. The debate that was stirred by BC's article has provided a more visible platform for everyone who believes that Tiger did nothing wrong to state their case.
So, on balance, I think K-troop's premise that controversial commentary adds value is supportable.