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

[iacas]

@Spitfisher , you've almost single-handedly taken away any of the gains made by @birlyshirly or others. They made those gains by being reasonable. You're not being reasonable.

[Spitfisher]

@Spitfisher , you've almost single-handedly taken away any of the gains made by @birlyshirly or others. They made those gains by being reasonable. You're not being reasonable.

Be all means explain, can't wait.

[boogielicious]

You say potato, I say po-tah-to

You say tomato, I say to-mah-to

You say "cheating" I say "Rules violation".

This thread has gone about 600 posts too many.  No one is convincing anyone else.

[iacas]

Be all means explain, can't wait.

"Violating the rules" doesn't make someone a "cheater." Hand pick as many definitions as you want, the connotation is there and it's strong.

Your arguments about how Brandel can write 99% of the article and nobody gets to complain about the 1%, or that he's a "beat writer" so his opinion doesn't matter are similarly as poor.

You're incredibly late to this party, too, and you've joined in from a bizarrely extreme point of view.

[Ernest Jones]

You say potato, I say po-tah-to You say tomato, I say to-mah-to

Tomato, to-mah-to Potato, po-tah-to Let's call the whole thing off,,, Ba dump bump bump.... Now I have Ella in my head! Thanks. :-D

[Spitfisher]

"Violating the rules" doesn't make someone a "cheater." Hand pick as many definitions as you want, the connotation is there and it's strong. Your arguments about how Brandel can write 99% of the article and nobody gets to complain about the 1%, or that he's a "beat writer" so his opinion doesn't matter are similarly as poor. You're incredibly late to this party, too, and you've joined in from a bizarrely extreme point of view.

I'm going to ignore your post, you need to go back and read what I wrote. Don't put words in my mouth, thank you

[iacas]

I'm going to ignore your post, you need to go back and read what I wrote. Don't put words in my mouth, thank you

@Spitfisher , keep up this kind of approach and we'll simply restrict you from the thread, because it's not contributing anything to the discussion.

You're late to the thread, don't seem to have read any of the previous posts, and you're coming in with an aggressive, extremist attitude with a bunch of holes in your logic (i.e. like "debating facts").

Fact: "Cheat" does not mean the same thing as "rules violation."

Fact: What Brandel Chamblee sats clearly matters to many people, or is cause for discussion, particularly those within the world of golf.

Not really debatable.

What is debatable: whether BC was justified in basically calling Tiger a cheater (without specifically doing so - everyone and their half-awake, half-drunk friend knows that's what he was doing).

[Lihu]

Tiger was unwise, Brandel was a cheater.

[Spitfisher]

Tiger was unwise, Brandel was a cheater.

But not like a fourth grader on a math test.....:-D

[Lihu]

But not like a fourth grader on a math test.....:-D

:-D Most of us do dumb stuff at some point or another.:-P

[Fourputt]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fourputt

So... you've never heard of the "power of the press"?  It's only one of the most powerful influences affecting the way that the average person forms his ideas about the world.  As such, it carries more weight in the public sector than Finchem, who most people outside of golf have never even heard of.

Have you ever heard of an editorial??? Because that's what it was, it was his opinion, do get that? There is a clear difference between FACT and OPINION? You can not debate opinion, you can only debate fact.

Chamblee's entire editorial was based on his own opinion this statement is fact.

Tim Fnchem or any governing body of any sport speaks volumes over a beat writer- regardless of popularity. His position and authority whe he speaks or makes an official announcement or ruling it is based on Fact, not opinion.

If anyone doesn't get this please go take a debate course.

Sorry, but the average person who connects a story with someone they see as a "journalist" or as an "expert commentator" is going to take him at his word.  That is how the world works.  Maybe you don't see it that way, but that's how it works.

[birlyshirly]

Sorry, but the average person who connects a story with someone they see as a "journalist" or as an "expert commentator" is going to take him at his word.  That is how the world works.  Maybe you don't see it that way, but that's how it works.

You hold a very low opinion of "the average person" then. I think that the average person is well aware that sports commentary carries a substantial chunk of bias - so much so that media bias is a staple of soccer discussions where I am. I wouldn't say that BC's opinion doesn't matter. But I think it was clearly expressed as an opinion . I happen to think that he had reasonable grounds for expressing that opinion - but let's not get too excited as to how much weight that opinion carries. After all, there's zero evidence on this thread of anyone, regardless of whether or not they agree with him, taking BC at his word. Maybe we're all above average here.

[Valleygolfer]

[QUOTE name="Phil McGleno" url="/t/70622/brandel-gives-tiger-an-f-tigers-agent-hints-at-legal-action-against-chamblee/648#post_918117"] So it would be okay for one of your local newspaper writers to publish an editorial that basically called you a child molester-Because its just opinion? And the person writing it is just a reporter? The writer could make it clear it was his own opinion-Surely thatd have no damaging effects at all,and youd be the first one to say its his right to do that.[/QUOTE] No.  Assuming that the reporter has absolutely no factual basis for making such a claim, that would be libel. The difference is that Tiger is a "public figure" at least with respect to golf, so he has to expect to be subjected to reporting, analysis, and commentary about his golf. And there was a factual basis for commenting on Tiger's compliance or noncompliance with the rules, and what that might mean about his intent to follow the rules. If Spitfisher was a Pop Warner football coach, and some parents found out that he insisted on showering with the kids after each practice, then that might be a different story.  That would be within the realm of a reporter or journalist sniffing out a story, gathering some facts, and presenting (at least one) option about what the facts might mean.  That's what journalists do.  They don't pull a name out of the phone book and write completely fictional stories about them for fun, and then publish them as opinion. Your analogy is trolling, BTW.  I should only hope that you understand the difference between what Brandel did and the example you gave.

He may be in the public but he has rights as much as every citizen to use laws to protect himself from damage. He is not a politician. Just because you are in the public eye doesn't mean every one gets to take pot shots.

[newtogolf]

You hold a very low opinion of "the average person" then. I think that the average person is well aware that sports commentary carries a substantial chunk of bias - so much so that media bias is a staple of soccer discussions where I am.

I wouldn't say that BC's opinion doesn't matter. But I think it was clearly expressed as an opinion. I happen to think that he had reasonable grounds for expressing that opinion - but let's not get too excited as to how much weight that opinion carries.

After all, there's zero evidence on this thread of anyone, regardless of whether or not they agree with him, taking BC at his word. Maybe we're all above average here.

BC can have an opinion, but when you publicly call or imply a professional golfer is a cheater, you're impacting his ability to earn an income and his standing within his profession.  While I fully support Freedom of Speech for journalists it comes with substantial responsibility and in this case BC overstepped the line.

Journalist, like BC can't use their forum to carry out vendettas.  Most of the comments I've seen and heard from BC about Tiger are negative, he sprinkles in his attacks with a few positive comments to give the appearance he's unbiased.   He knew the line, his editors at Golf.com knew the line, they even asked him to rewrite the last paragraph, he refused.  I've said it numerous times, had he stopped at saying Tiger was cavalier with the rules, we'd not have this discussion, but he didn't.

[bobsuruncle]

Journo or not, BC had crossed the line.  He should have been made to pay substantially for that mistake.  After all, it seems that some others would like TW to be punished by much more than the allocated 2 strokes for a rules infringement.  It's akin to saying that if Michael Jordon committed a "travel" offense he should be ejected from the game immediately.  That should then be followed by a NBA special committee meeting and the result should be that MJ be banned for life.

[k-troop]

BC can have an opinion, but when you publicly call or imply a professional golfer is a cheater, you're impacting his ability to earn an income and his standing within his profession.  While I fully support Freedom of Speech for journalists it comes with substantial responsibility and in this case BC overstepped the line.

You and some others keep saying this, but how has Brandel's paragraph impacted Tiger's ability to earn, or his standing?  Has Nike dumped him?  Has the PGA Tour censured or suspended him?  Did he not get his zillion dollar appearance fee to play in Turkey last week?  None of this has happened.  None of this will happen unless there is substantial evidence that Tiger actually cheated.  In that case, it wouldn't be Brandel's paragraph that doomed him, it would be his own behavior.

Journo or not, BC had crossed the line.  He should have been made to pay substantially for that mistake.  After all, it seems that some others would like TW to be punished by much more than the allocated 2 strokes for a rules infringement.  It's akin to saying that if Michael Jordon committed a "travel" offense he should be ejected from the game immediately.  That should then be followed by a NBA special committee meeting and the result should be that MJ be banned for life.

Again, who is saying that Tiger should be banned for life?  And I'm not sure who Michael Jordon is, but I've also never heard of any basketball player being ejected immediately or banned for life from the sport for traveling.

If Tiger cheated, then he should be assessed far worse than a 2-shot penalty for causing his ball to move and failing to replace it.  But so far there is no conclusive evidence of that--Brandel has simply written his opinion that Tiger's rules issues might be a little deeper than a few bad drops.  Until that is proven to be true, or there is a substantial consensus that it is true, then Brandel's paragraph is simply words on a page.

Y'all are refusing to recognize that there is no real harm to Tiger in Brandel's opinion unless it's true, or a majority of people believe it to be true.  If that were the case, any damage to Tiger wouldn't be Brandel's fault--it would be Tiger's.

[Phil McGleno]

WHy does it have to be a majority? If any people now think Tiger is a cheater that did not before that is damaging and, if he is not a cheater-Which is the overwhelming view of fans, peers, etc.-Then that is unjust. It does not have to be majority. And no I am not saying we determine whether he cheated by voting.-Only he knows if he truly cheated, but voting speaks to reality in as close a way as we can get, in Combination with available evidence.-Not much.[quote name="k-troop" url="/t/70622/brandel-gives-tiger-an-f-tigers-agent-hints-at-legal-action-against-chamblee/684#post_918542"] Y'all are refusing to recognize that there is no real harm to Tiger in Brandel's opinion unless it's true, or a majority of people believe it to be true.  If that were the case, any damage to Tiger wouldn't be Brandel's fault--it would be Tiger's. [/quote]

[birlyshirly]

BC can have an opinion, but when you publicly call or imply a professional golfer is a cheater, you're impacting his ability to earn an income and his standing within his profession.  While I fully support Freedom of Speech for journalists it comes with substantial responsibility and in this case BC overstepped the line.

I hear what you're saying - but I think you have to separate out Tiger's ability to earn an income into on-course income and off-course income. I don't think anyone is suggesting that his ability to earn prize money is compromised in any way by BC's article. Maybe this impacts his earning potential as a product endorser or otherwise as a general celebrity - but there I think you need to relax the rules for what constitutes responsible commentary. There has to be a fair degree of latitude allowed to make adverse commentary on a celebrity profile without being held responsible for loss of speculative earnings if the celebrity ends up less valued in the public eye. So long as you're talking about "celebrity money" rather than prize winnings, I'd put BC's comments right in line with "I hate Yoko One for breaking up the Beatles" and "Robert de Niro hasn't made a decent film since The Deer Hunter". [quote name="bobsuruncle" url="/t/70622/brandel-gives-tiger-an-f-tigers-agent-hints-at-legal-action-against-chamblee/684#post_918533"]Journo or not, BC had crossed the line.  He should have been made to pay substantially for that mistake.  After all, it seems that some others would like TW to be punished by much more than the allocated 2 strokes for a rules infringement.  It's akin to saying that if Michael Jordon committed a "travel" offense he should be ejected from the game immediately.  That should then be followed by a NBA special committee meeting and the result should be that MJ be banned for life.  [/quote] What's the right sanction for BC? He wrote his offending article for golf.com, and he's now relinquished that post. What else? I don't think anyone on this thread has said that TW should have been penalised any more than he has - and I haven't read anything proposing that any sort of ban or suspension is in any way appropriate. In the context of this thread at least, that's a massive red-herring.