Brandel Gives Tiger an F/ Tiger's Agent Hints at Legal Action Against Chamblee

[Mr. Desmond]

Why bother? Provided he's not tapping phones or bribing law enforcement officers - his editor can take care of the rest .

Actually, I do think that one of the worst jobs in the world must be that of the editor who finds himself between the celebrity pundit and their audience. I think it would be much more interesting to talk to BC's editor about this, than BC himself.

I don't know the terms of their agreement, but the editor asked Brandel to rewrite.

Apparently, the editor was not worried about defamation or slander. As previously discussed, those laws are fairly loose when it comes to public figures, so it's possible the editor was trying to help BC. They released the column because they did not fear a suit.

BC's ego, I'd guess, would not fit through a doorway, and was too big to accept a re-write. Maybe this incident put a dent in the ego.... but not for long...

[turtleback]

All I'll say is that if you need 500 words to explain how you didn't call someone a racist...

I guess I am not as concise nor clever as some at misrepresenting what people say.

[Spitfisher]

Tiger makes so much money, that even something like a 0.1% reduction of income could be a million dollar plus liability for Brandel.

It would not take too much for a decent lawyer to convince some jury that Tiger lost 1/1000 his earning potential this year, due to "...these unfounded libelous comments from a famous sports writer...".

There isn't a lawyer in the country that would  take that case, ( ok there could be a few that seek their 5 minutes of fame) The judge would likely throw it out before it even was filed. Even Tigers minions are not that crazy to file. Steineys comment about legal action was nothing more than grand standing.

[Lihu]

There isn't a lawyer in the country that would  take that case, ( ok there could be a few that seek their 5 minutes of fame) The judge would likely throw it out before it even was filed. Even Tigers minions are not that crazy to file. Steineys comment about legal action was nothing more than grand standing.

It only takes a few lawyers...

[newtogolf]

There isn't a lawyer in the country that would  take that case, ( ok there could be a few that seek their 5 minutes of fame) The judge would likely throw it out before it even was filed. Even Tigers minions are not that crazy to file. Steineys comment about legal action was nothing more than grand standing.

No one said that there was legal justification for Tiger to pursue it legally which is why he's gone the route he has.  Golf Channel has to decide if it's in their best interest to protect BC or take action against BC in order to appease Tiger's camp.

BC took the first shot, Tiger's responded.  It seems BC shouldn't make accusations (implied or direct) that he isn't prepared to back up or take the heat for.  Maybe next time he'll think twice before he does it again.

[k-troop]

http://thesandtrap.com/b/thrash_talk/an_open_letter_to_tiger_woods#comment-26217

Just saw this.  Good job @mchepp in recognizing that controversial commentary has value.

[iacas]

http://thesandtrap.com/b/thrash_talk/an_open_letter_to_tiger_woods#comment-26217

Just saw this.  Good job @mchepp in recognizing that controversial commentary has value.

Just asking: who, if anyone, has said controversial commentary doesn't have value?

[turtleback]

Just asking: who, if anyone, has said controversial commentary doesn't have value?

Yup, lots of leaps of (il)logic in this thread.

[k-troop]

Yup, lots of leaps of (il)logic in this thread.

Please quote one of my arguments and describe a logical fallacy. An argument I've made where the conclusion doesn't follow from the premises, or the premises fail to support the conclusion? If you disagree with a premise, that's doesn't make an argument illogical.

Just asking: who, if anyone, has said controversial commentary doesn't have value?

No one has specifically said that, but I think that 90% of the people on this forum, including you, Fourputt, and TB, all agree that Chamblee's piece should not have been written and has little or no value (except to prove that Chamblee is a douche).

Premise: controversial commentary adds value to the state of discourse on a particular topic.

Premise: Chamblee's piece was commentary and it was controversial.

Premise: commentary that adds value to the state of discourse on a particular topic should be written.

Conclusion: Chamblee's piece adds value to the state of discourse on this topic and should be written.

I believe in freedom of the press. I believe that suppression of the written word should be a last resort taken only when the potential damage of the writing is serious enough to justify it. I'm also smart enough to figure out for myself what will influence my thoughts and opinions and what is nonsense that should be ignored.

Kevin, what's the cost (or value) of your reputation? How much do you love your mother? How much do you dislike the taste of your least favorite food? Please quantify your opinion on George W. Bush and Obama - not just your vote total, but your opinion of them in summation, as parents, husbands, politicians, and everything else. I want an actual number, please. Quantify it.

Since you brought it up, I'll give an example from politics.

During the 2004 Presidential campaign, a document "surfaced" which seemed to prove that President Bush fabricated (or someone fabricated on his behalf) his service records in the Texas Air National Guard.  Dan Rather ran the story on 60 minutes and, as a result, he resigned and the news team was fired.

This was news, not sports, and was reported as factual, not opinion.  It also (potentially) impacted a Presidential election, so far more important than a few hundred words in a sports column--and far more important to get it right.

Regardless of whether the specific document Rather cited was authentic or forged, the story was a good story and we are all better because Rather (and CBS) had the stones to go with it.  Whether a potential President of the US honorably completed his military service, or whether embarked on that service to avoid Vietnam, or shirked it altogether, or both, was a very important question.  That question was more-or-less answered over the next several weeks:  the journalistic consensus was that Bush completed his TANG service.  That discussion wouldn't have happened if 60 minutes had not run the story.

Whether the "false" story impacted your opinion of Bush (and thus your vote) largely depended on whether you believed it.

I love golf, and happen to think that Tiger is the greatest to have played the game--I'm glad this happened.  Tiger had three rules infractions in a year, and a fourth that raised eyebrows at the time (and still does for some).  This discussion of whether Tiger is a cheater needed to happen.  It is happening--this thread (we are a microcosm of the world) is happening because Chamblee wrote his article.

Stories should be suppressed or discouraged only if the potential impact of their falsity is so severe as to outweigh the general benefits of discourse.  Twig-gate is a far, far less impactful event than the 2004 Presidential election.

I also believe that Chamblee's story negatively impacts Tiger only if you believe it.  If you don't believe it, then it negatively impacts your opinion of Chamblee.  Either way it has value.  If it's so false, and so negatively impactful against Tiger, that it warrants either firing Chamblee or damages in a libel suit, then that is the "check" on the system.  Other than that, I say write away--I can decide for myself whether to believe you.

[newtogolf]

Please quote one of my arguments and describe a logical fallacy. An argument I've made where the conclusion doesn't follow from the premises, or the premises fail to support the conclusion? If you disagree with a premise, that's doesn't make an argument illogical.

No one has specifically said that, but I think that 90% of the people on this forum, including you, Fourputt, and TB, all agree that Chamblee's piece should not have been written and has little or no value (except to prove that Chamblee is a douche).

Premise: controversial commentary adds value to the state of discourse on a particular topic.

Premise: Chamblee's piece was commentary and it was controversial.

Premise: commentary that adds value to the state of discourse on a particular topic should be written.

Conclusion: Chamblee's piece adds value to the state of discourse on this topic and should be written.

I believe in freedom of the press. I believe that suppression of the written word should be a last resort taken only when the potential damage of the writing is serious enough to justify it. I'm also smart enough to figure out for myself what will influence my thoughts and opinions and what is nonsense that should be ignored.

Since you brought it up, I'll give an example from politics.

During the 2004 Presidential campaign, a document "surfaced" which seemed to prove that President Bush fabricated (or someone fabricated on his behalf) his service records in the Texas Air National Guard.  Dan Rather ran the story on 60 minutes and, as a result, he resigned and the news team was fired.

This was news, not sports, and was reported as factual, not opinion.  It also (potentially) impacted a Presidential election, so far more important than a few hundred words in a sports column--and far more important to get it right.

Regardless of whether the specific document Rather cited was authentic or forged, the story was a good story and we are all better because Rather (and CBS) had the stones to go with it.  Whether a potential President of the US honorably completed his military service, or whether embarked on that service to avoid Vietnam, or shirked it altogether, or both, was a very important question.  That question was more-or-less answered over the next several weeks:  the journalistic consensus was that Bush completed his TANG service.  That discussion wouldn't have happened if 60 minutes had not run the story.

Whether the "false" story impacted your opinion of Bush (and thus your vote) largely depended on whether you believed it.

I love golf, and happen to think that Tiger is the greatest to have played the game--I'm glad this happened.  Tiger had three rules infractions in a year, and a fourth that raised eyebrows at the time (and still does for some).  This discussion of whether Tiger is a cheater needed to happen.  It is happening--this thread (we are a microcosm of the world) is happening because Chamblee wrote his article.

Stories should be suppressed or discouraged only if the potential impact of their falsity is so severe as to outweigh the general benefits of discourse.  Twig-gate is a far, far less impactful event than the 2004 Presidential election.

I also believe that Chamblee's story negatively impacts Tiger only if you believe it.  If you don't believe it, then it negatively impacts your opinion of Chamblee.  Either way it has value.  If it's so false, and so negatively impactful against Tiger, that it warrants either firing Chamblee or damages in a libel suit, then that is the "check" on the system.  Other than that, I say write away--I can decide for myself whether to believe you.

You didn't include me in the list but I wanted to clarify that I have no issue with Chamblee writing the article.  The entire article was entertaining and acceptable for print EXCEPT for the part where BC implied Tiger was a cheater.  The paragraph of BC getting caught cheating, the method in which his teacher marked his paper, and the grade BC assigned Tiger was where went over the line.

BC knew there would be fallout, his editors knew there would be fallout, heck even his son knew he messed up so why is anyone surprised that his job is at risk?

Rather was fired because he used his platform to implicate Bush for not completing his service in the Air National Guard.  Rather knew his allegation wasn't substantiated as there were questions regarding the documents authenticity.  They were proven fake, Rather's staff was fired and he resigned.  In a desperate measure to save face, Rather tried to sue CBS three years later for $70M and the case was dismissed in NY State Appeals Court.

Rather nor BC are doing our country a service implicating individuals without any proof to further their own personal agenda.

[iacas]

No one has specifically said that, but I think that 90% of the people on this forum, including you, Fourputt, and TB, all agree that Chamblee's piece should not have been written and has little or no value (except to prove that Chamblee is a douche).

Now you're conflating two things.

You can fully support controversial commentary while also believing that Brandel went too far with his "Tiger is a dirty rotten cheater" stuff. IMO, he didn't have the support to make such a big allegation, but I've frequently supported articles that are critical.

Most of the article was fine. Not of much value - seriously, grading Dufner because of his wife is tacky at best and not all that "valuable" - but fine.

Premise: controversial commentary adds value to the state of discourse on a particular topic.

Premise: Chamblee's piece was commentary and it was controversial.

Premise: commentary that adds value to the state of discourse on a particular topic should be written.

Conclusion: Chamblee's piece adds value to the state of discourse on this topic and should be written.

Nope. Again, it's plenty rational and reasonable to swap out your second premise with "Chamblee's piece was professional trolling, linkbait, and scandal-based" and your third premise with "Chamblee's piece added little to no value to the state of discourse and should not have been written."

Even his kid could see that, and so I think it's perfectly reasonable, again, to support critical pieces but to draw the line in the sand somewhere.

I believe in freedom of the press.

So do I. You're not going to get anywhere with this. I've already addressed his RIGHT to say what he said. What I then said was that just because he has a right to say it doesn't mean that it was right to say it.

Since you brought it up, I'll give an example from politics.

I asked you a question. You were unable to answer it. I don't care about an example from politics. I asked you to quantify a few things that have value to you (and thus a "cost" if lost).

This discussion of whether Tiger is a cheater needed to happen.

That's your opinion. I'll point out that the discussion was already happening. It only was inflamed again because Brandel went so far as to use the actual "c" word.

Stories should be suppressed or discouraged only if the potential impact of their falsity is so severe as to outweigh the general benefits of discourse.

I'll again point out that you couldn't quantify the cost or value of several things, and then point out the obvious errors with judging whether something outweighs something else.

In the world of golf, the "cheater" allegation has a very high bar, and Brandel did not meet that burden of proof, IMO. He didn't scratch the surface of reasonable doubt. His own kid thought it was dumb.

Nobody's arguing that articles should be "suppressed" by his editor or publisher.

I also believe that Chamblee's story negatively impacts Tiger only if you believe it. If you don't believe it, then it negatively impacts your opinion of Chamblee.  Either way it has value.

And as with politics, the casual golf fan will hear about this article and not take the time to read more and form a more informed opinion. "I heard Obama wants to give everyone on welfare free cell phones? I'm not paying for that." Happens all the time.

Plus was Brandel's apology appended to the article on golf.com or did only viewers of Golf Channel get to see it? I know no news station is "fair and balanced" (despite claims), but publishing an article on one place and then an apology only where hard-core golf fans will see it is hardly "fair" either.

I hardly see much value there, but this wasn't a critical piece. It contained no investigative techniques. It was simply someone passing judgment on Tiger and someone's wife. This article belonged more in the pages of a tabloid than on Sports Illustrated, or golf.com, or wherever.

P.S. I've said more than once that BC is good at his job. His job is not about being right. It's about attracting viewers. Should he be punished? I wouldn't do any more than has already been done. I thought it was stupid of Steinberg to threaten a lawsuit, and if they're doing any back-channel crap, I don't support that either. But I also continue to believe that he crossed the line with the "cheater" stuff, and as a former player, he should really have known better. He didn't satisfy the requirements.

P.P.S. Leave politics out of it. This is the golf section of the site, not the Grill Room.

[turtleback]

Please quote one of my arguments and describe a logical fallacy. An argument I've made where the conclusion doesn't follow from the premises, or the premises fail to support the conclusion? If you disagree with a premise, that's do

The part where you implied that I called hurlyburly a racist.

I said Chamblee has no basis to call Tiger a cheater.

I said I had as much basis to call hurlyburly a racist as Brandel had to call Tiger a cheater.  (I.e., NONE)

Your conclusion (implied rather than stated outright, because you are clever and lawyer-like):  I called hurleyburley a racist.

[birlyshirly]

The part where you implied that I called hurlyburly a racist.

I said Chamblee has no basis to call Tiger a cheater.

I said I had as much basis to call hurlyburly a racist as Brandel had to call Tiger a cheater.  (I.e., NONE)

Your conclusion (implied rather than stated outright, because you are clever and lawyer-like):  I called hurleyburley a racist.

Hey turtleback - is it ok to infer that you're still talking about me here?

Rather than trade points of rhetorical analysis with K-troop (who, being clever and lawyer-like, might try and trip you up with dirty tricks) - why don't you just clear this up nice and simple-like by answering the following question?

Do you think that, on balance, I'm a racist?

Your options are "yes" or "no". If you don't know, on the basis that I haven't given you enough evidence to feel justified in calling me a racist, then just answer "no". Don't feel that you have to be 100% certain. Feel free to answer on the balance of probabilities. Feel free to quote me in support of your conclusions.

Just clear this up, and then we can move on, eh?

[...] it's plenty rational and reasonable to swap out your second premise with "Chamblee's piece was professional trolling, linkbait, and scandal-based" and your third premise with "Chamblee's piece added little to no value to the state of discourse and should not have been written."

It's not rational and reasonable to introduce your conclusions as premises to an argument. That's no way to debate - it's just a war of attrition.

It would be reasonable and rational to challenge the validity of the premises that K-Troop put forward - but that's entirely different from simply substituting your preferred, subjective, value-laden conclusions.

K-troop has already pointed this out

- but it obviously bears repeating.

[Lihu]

Hey turtleback - is it ok to infer that you're still talking about me here?

Do you think that, on balance, I'm a racist?

I was going to go through the entire thread to check if there is someone named hurlyburly .

I just finished reading a book called "Uneven Lies", about African Americans in golf. Throughout the book, it contains many cases where there were distinct acts of racism. So, it is understandable that there are some latent hurt feelings regarding this topic.

However, this entire topic does not have any feeling as being rooted in racism . Instead, I see it as a topic concerning a 2-bit writer trying to make a name for himself by attacking the number one golfer and inspiration to many young golfers.

Turtleback, Tiger is half Asian (Thai) and I am half Taiwanese (who were also mistreated by the Nationalist Chinese when they came to our island in 1949), but I feel there is absolutely no feeling of racism in this entire thread.

To others, "Uneven Lies" is quite a good read. The forward is by Tiger Woods.

An interesting fact from the book is that the inventor of the Golf Tee is an African American Doctor.

[iacas]

It's not rational and reasonable to introduce your conclusions as premises to an argument. That's no way to debate - it's just a war of attrition.

My "premises" were not very different in style than "Premise: commentary that adds value to the state of discourse on a particular topic should be written." That assumes that you agree his piece added value in a very 1+1=3 sort of way. My tactics were slightly different, but not a lot. In the end, I reject the premise he skipped - that all controversial stuff has value.

[Golfingdad]

The part where you implied that I called hurlyburly a racist.

I said Chamblee has no basis to call Tiger a cheater.

I said I had as much basis to call hurlyburly a racist as Brandel had to call Tiger a cheater.  (I.e., NONE)

Your conclusion (implied rather than stated outright, because you are clever and lawyer-like):  I called hurleyburley a racist.

You're playing a game with words here, just like Brandel was.  You said you "had as much basis to call birlyshirly a racist as Brandel had to call Tiger a cheater."  And, yes, I get that your point was to say "none."  However, you also said that to somebody who believes Brandel was justified in writing that article, and you know full well he believes that Brandel was justified in writing that article.  So if you're going to play dumb here and act like you didn't try to stir the pot a little, then you're not being honest with yourself.  You intentionally chose to not clarify that statement any further in that post.

[iacas]

You're playing a game with words here, just like Brandel was.  You said you "had as much basis to call birlyshirly a racist as Brandel had to call Tiger a cheater."  And, yes, I get that your point was to say "none."  However, you also said that to somebody who believes Brandel was justified in writing that article, and you know full well he believes that Brandel was justified in writing that article.  So if you're going to play dumb here and act like you didn't try to stir the pot a little, then you're not being honest with yourself.  You intentionally chose to not clarify that statement any further in that post.

Yet he had said several times by that point that BC had no justification. No? Bit of a word game though since as you said he also knew the opinion of the target. Regardless, no more racist talk. It ends now please. PM if you wanna talk about it more.

[turtleback]

Originally Posted by birlyshirly

Do you think that, on balance, I'm a racist?

No.  Just as I do not think Tiger is a cheater.

And, to get back on topic (sorry Erik, but I was asked a direct question), since we are asking pointed questions, do you think Tiger, on balance, is a cheater?