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

[Fourputt]

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.

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.

[Golfingdad]

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.

Yeah, it's unfortunate that Brandel, or anybody for that matter, bothered including ANY of the "three" non-BMW rules issues in this discussion.

[birlyshirly]

No.

Thank-you.

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.

"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.

[Mr. Desmond]

Thank-you.

I'm sure that K-troop is only saying that the BMW incident raised eyebrows - not the previous 2 or 3 issues.

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.

Sometimes, controversial statements are meant for shock value to garner attention to the author, or to promote a lie. In these cases, controversial statements may have no value other than to expose the author as a con man. But their value is negative because they usually unfairly disparage another individual, event, etc.

[birlyshirly]

Sometimes, controversial statements are meant for shock value to garner attention to the author, or to promote a lie. In these cases, controversial statements may have no value other than to expose the author as a con man. But their value is negative because they usually unfairly disparage another individual, event, etc.

I'd argue though that where those kind of statements gain enough traction have damage potential, they only do so because they fit in with pre-existing doubts, suspicions, biases etc in the wider audience.

So the resulting debate has added value, in that those wider assumptions can be properly challenged.

I admit though, I do sometimes have to struggle to apply this line of reasoning to shock journalism.

[boogielicious]

Thank-you.

I'm sure that K-troop is only saying that the BMW incident raised eyebrows - not the previous 2 or 3 issues.

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.

This is a very Machiavellian, "the end justifies the means" approach.  There was no honor is what BC did.  He did not stir up controversy to promote healthy discussion for the betterment of the game of golf.  He caused a stink to get his name in the game because he knows he is really irrelevant.  He is the quintessential talent-less theater critic who berates the performances of players with talent because he knows he failed at the same game due to his shortcomings.  His shortcomings as a critic are even now more transparent.

[birlyshirly]

This is a very Machiavellian, "the end justifies the means" approach.  There was no honor is what BC did.  He did not stir up controversy to promote healthy discussion for the betterment of the game of golf.  He caused a stink to get his name in the game because he knows he is really irrelevant.  He is the quintessential talent-less theater critic who berates the performances of players with talent because he knows he failed at the same game due to his shortcomings.  His shortcomings as a critic are even now more transparent.

Fair enough. You have an alternative proposal in which you get to judge everyone's actions by what you suppose their intent to have been.

I have no real issue with that - apart from its practical implementation...

I was just trying to make sense of K-troop's premise. Your proposal offers no justification for freedom of comment and expression.

[boogielicious]

Please don't  make your responses personal.  You have a habit of that.  We are debating a point.

It has been obvious to me and many others that for several years that BC has personal issues with Woods. His commentary is almost always critical.  It has become his 'personal vendetta' in the eyes of many golf viewers of the Golf Channel.  He is like the kid who taunts another kid over and over and then acts surprised when there is backlash.  He never mentioned any other players rules violations in his article, only Woods.  He is overtly critical of everything Woods does and even gives halfhearted praise when Woods wins.  This latest example is where he crossed the line in the eyes of many golf fans.

You are defending his right to free speech, which is rightly deserves.  But he does not deserve immunity from his statements.  His employer can censure, reassign or outright dismiss him if they feel his commentary reflects badly on them.  Many posters in this thread feel that BC deserves one of the three.

[Mr. Desmond]

I'd argue though that where those kind of statements gain enough traction have damage potential, they only do so because they fit in with pre-existing doubts, suspicions, biases etc in the wider audience.

So the resulting debate has added value, in that those wider assumptions can be properly challenged.

I admit though, I do sometimes have to struggle to apply this line of reasoning to shock journalism.

Feeding doubts with lies is not healthy.

[birlyshirly]

Please don't  make your responses personal.  You have a habit of that.  We are debating a point.

Quote:

Originally Posted by boogielicious

It has been obvious to me and many others that for several years that BC has personal issues with Woods. His commentary is almost always critical.  It has become his 'personal vendetta' in the eyes of many golf viewers of the Golf Channel.  He is like the kid who taunts another kid over and over and then acts surprised when there is backlash.  He never mentioned any other players rules violations in his article, only Woods.  He is overtly critical of everything Woods does and even gives halfhearted praise when Woods wins.  This latest example is where he crossed the line in the eyes of many golf fans.

You are defending his right to free speech, which is rightly deserves.  But he does not deserve immunity from his statements.  His employer can censure, reassign or outright dismiss him if they feel his commentary reflects badly on them.  Many posters in this thread feel that BC deserves one of the three.

I don't know a whole lot about BC, prior to this article. So I suppose I'm judging the situation on a "clean slate" basis which might make no sense to people who think he lost his sense of balance years ago.

I've never said that he deserves immunity. I'm in favour of the application of libel law as it stands. I've also said that I think it would be appropriate, if it's feasible, for the PGA to look at his conduct as a member and representative of their profession. And if GC or golf.com or any other media outlet decided that he's too loose of a cannon to claim a salary, well that's fair game too.

All I'm arguing for here is the justification for the debate.

Feeding doubts with lies is not healthy.

Agreed. But neither is allowing them to put down roots in the dark.

[Phil McGleno]

Not everything that's wrong to say is libel or illegal-That doesnt make it the right thing to say.-You keep hammering on that point and its been said many times that the guy might be legally ok to say something but it still might not be smart to say it.-Thats what @turtleback 's point was. There doesnt need to have been a debate, and the debate is actually over whether Brandel is a tool or not-Not about Tiger. Thats what the debate is about, so good for you girlyshirly you got your debate-But its about thew rong guy.[quote name="birlyshirly" url="/t/70622/brandel-gives-tiger-an-f-tigers-agent-hints-at-legal-action-against-chamblee/540#post_916263"] I don't know a whole lot about BC, prior to this article. So I suppose I'm judging the situation on a "clean slate" basis which might make no sense to people who think he lost his sense of balance years ago. I've never said that he deserves immunity. I'm in favour of the application of libel law as it stands. I've also said that I think it would be appropriate, if it's feasible, for the PGA to look at his conduct as a member and representative of their profession. And if GC or golf.com or any other media outlet decided that he's too loose of a cannon to claim a salary, well that's fair game too. All I'm arguing for here is the justification for the debate. Agreed. But neither is allowing them to put down roots in the dark. [/quote]

[boogielicious]

I don't know a whole lot about BC, prior to this article. So I suppose I'm judging the situation on a "clean slate" basis which might make no sense to people who think he lost his sense of balance years ago.

I've never said that he deserves immunity. I'm in favour of the application of libel law as it stands. I've also said that I think it would be appropriate, if it's feasible, for the PGA to look at his conduct as a member and representative of their profession. And if GC or golf.com or any other media outlet decided that he's too loose of a cannon to claim a salary, well that's fair game too.

All I'm arguing for here is the justification for the debate.

Agreed. But neither is allowing them to put down roots in the dark.

Be glad that you have been spared viewing Chamblee over in the birthplace of golf.  I feel that you would find him as equally pompous as I do.

[birlyshirly]

Not everything that's wrong to say is libel or illegal-That doesnt make it the right thing to say.-You keep hammering on that point

I'd think it should be pretty clear from:

I've never said that he deserves immunity. I'm in favour of the application of libel law as it stands. I've also said that I think it would be appropriate, if it's feasible, for the PGA to look at his conduct as a member and representative of their profession. And if GC or golf.com or any other media outlet decided that he's too loose of a cannon to claim a salary, well that's fair game too.

that I'm talking about something wider than the legal rights and wrongs. I also asked, much earlier in the thread, what the consequences for BC should be. I don't think there were many responses, which seems strange for all the outrage and indignation that's been stirred

[...] the debate is actually over whether Brandel is a tool or not-Not about Tiger. Thats what the debate is about, so good for you girlyshirly you got your debate-But its about thew rong guy.

It would be an odd debate that crucified Brandel without first exonerating Tiger - so I think you're wrong there.

Be glad that you have been spared viewing Chamblee over in the birthplace of golf.  I feel that you would find him as equally pompous as I do.

There's every chance. Then again, I've been listening to Peter Alliss all my golfing life, so my frame of reference may be skewed.

[iacas]

Please format your responses properly. Your formatting in the last post is so screwed up nobody can quote it properly. It took several minutes to "fix" your post.

[Phil McGleno]

Oh spare me-The debate has been about whether Brandel went too far-Not about whether Tiger is actually a cheater. Only the people who hate TIger-Like you- think that is still a legitimate line of talk, but even you are mostly talking about Brandel and trying to justify his right tpublish crap-That nobody else disputes his RIGHT to do it just whether it was smart to do it. And dont play both sides-You keep talking about the legal rights as a straw man of sorts when nobody else is talking aobut it as if it helps your case at all... no way. Seriously-When is the last time in this thread that there was any serious talk about whethr Tiger actually "cheated"??? Probably twenty pages ago.[quote name="birlyshirly" url="/t/70622/brandel-gives-tiger-an-f-tigers-agent-hints-at-legal-action-against-chamblee/540#post_916285"] I'd think it should be pretty clear from: that I'm talking about something wider than the legal rights and wrongs. I also asked, much earlier in the thread, what the consequences for BC should be. I don't think there were many responses, which seems strange for all the outrage and indignation that's been stirred It would be an odd debate that crucified Brandel without first exonerating Tiger - so I think you're wrong there.   There's every chance. Then again, I've been listening to Peter Alliss all my golfing life, so my frame of reference may be skewed. [/quote]

[ghalfaire]

Here is what I believe a shame about Brandel's article.  I have said several times he was over the line with the implication that Tiger may have cheated.  But the shame is in what Brandel's  son told him and in that we are discussing Brandel and not discussing whether Tiger was "caviler with the rules" or not.  So Brandel's article was a failure in achieving what he wanted and so I give Brandel an F.  But having said that, I still don't understand why Tiger didn't call a RO to make a ruling in any of those three cases (or even in the case he turned out to have properly dropped).  Seems caviler to me (and I don't believe caviler requires intent, just an attitude).  So while you can explain away any of the single "rules events" I believe that is missing the forest for the trees.  I personally would have expected with what is at stake, that like many have done before him, Tiger would have asked for a RO and a ruling to ensure he would be exempt to further penalty after the ruling.  Well just my opinion that Tiger was careless, caviler if you will,  and that isn't what I'd have expected from the #1 player on tour although I wouldn't personally give him a F for year.  Nor would I give him an A because of that failure.

[Phil McGleno]

@birlyshirly I can support this woman's right to dress up like this for Halloween while also supporting the right of her employer to FIRE HER ASS.-Just because you have the right to do something doesnt mean it is right to do it.-DID this woman bring up debate-Or invite controversy? YES. Still makes her decision a BAD and WRONG one. http://media.mlive.com/saginawnews_impact/photo/boston-bombing-costume-26f8ade0398ea96d.jpg

[birlyshirly]

Oh spare me-The debate has been about whether Brandel went too far-Not about whether Tiger is actually a cheater. Only the people who hate TIger-Like you- think that is still a legitimate line of talk, but even you are mostly talking about Brandel and trying to justify his right tpublish crap-That nobody else disputes his RIGHT to do it just whether it was smart to do it. And dont play both sides-You keep talking about the legal rights as a straw man of sorts when nobody else is talking aobut it as if it helps your case at all... no way.

Seriously-When is the last time in this thread that there was any serious talk about whethr Tiger actually "cheated"??? Probably twenty pages ago.

I think the debate about whether Tiger cheated ended because each side could see that the other wasn't going to change its view.

You'd be getting upset if we were still raking over those coals, so don't get upset just because we let it die.

BC's right to publish? I don't know when I last made a point about the strict legality of it. You need to go back a page to post 531, then you'll see that I'm talking about a point raised by K-troop and disputed by Iacas - and it has nothing to do with legal process. Carrying on with your "nobody disputes his RIGHT to do it" - is just your own version of a straw man. I'm well past any interest in dragging that out.

@birlyshirly I can support this woman's right to dress up like this for Halloween while also supporting the right of her employer to FIRE HER ASS.-Just because you have the right to do something doesnt mean it is right to do it.-DID this woman bring up debate-Or invite controversy? YES. Still makes her decision a BAD and WRONG one.

As above - go back to post 531. You're confusing dressing up with commentary. Well off-topic IMO.