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

[k-troop]

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.

I agree with you, and it's very likely that Brandel's paragraph probably influenced a marginal number of people.  So, that means Brandel's unsupported opinion (for argument's sake) has wrongly convinced a few handfuls of people that Tiger cheated.  That is by definition "diminished standing" and therefor an injury to Tiger, however slight.

But I simply do not care.  I do not care for the drone-like consumers of opinio-journalism who simply take whatever BS they get from the blogosphere and regurgitate it to their web-pals.  People who want to judge Tiger, and be taken seriously, can view the evidence for themselves.  And whatever marginal number of morons who are going to take Brandel's conclusions in this piece at face value do not make up Tiger's "standing" or "reputation" in the golf world.

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.

But now you seem to be contradicting yourself.  I think you're saying that under these facts, we'll never really know what Tiger was thinking when he pulled on that twig.  But, if a majority of people think that he cheated, then it doesn't really matter whether he actually cheated or not.  In that case, I 100% agree--but Brandel's paragraph is not going to contribute to that consensus in any meaningful way.

[bobsuruncle]

Yes, no one is calling for Tiger to be banned or suspended yet. But calling him a cheat diminishes his track record. It implies he may have won one or all of his majors or other pga and worldwide tourneys by cheating. It implies he won the Masters by 12 strokes or a US Open by 15 strokes through dishonest means. If not checked now, it plants a seed of doubt in some people's minds. That seed can grow and soon a lie becomes the "truth". Watch the movie Wag the Dog or Iraq's supposed WMD. If tiger doesn't stop BC's nonsense now, it can take a life of its own.

[Phil McGleno]

Not a contradiction-Just clarifying that whether Tiger cheated or not is not a FACT based on whether people think he did or didn't-I.E. Voting. Just as a man can be found guilty by a jury not changing the fact that he is truthfully innocent-Or Vice Versa. Brandel gets to have his opinion but he went too far in the golf world by using the "cheater" word in a position of influence-outside his own mind or quiet grill room conversations with buddies.-Just as Ive seen saying all along.[quote name="k-troop" url="/t/70622/brandel-gives-tiger-an-f-tigers-agent-hints-at-legal-action-against-chamblee/702#post_918547"]

But now you seem to be contradicting yourself.  I think you're saying that under these facts, we'll never really know what Tiger was thinking when he pulled on that twig.  But, if a majority of people think that he cheated, then it doesn't really matter whether he actually cheated or not.  In that case, I 100% agree--but Brandel's paragraph is not going to contribute to that consensus in any meaningful way.

[/quote]

[birlyshirly]

Yes, no one is calling for Tiger to be banned or suspended yet. But calling him a cheat diminishes his track record. It implies he may have won one or all of his majors or other pga and worldwide tourneys by cheating. It implies he won the Masters by 12 strokes or a US Open by 15 strokes through dishonest means. If not checked now, it plants a seed of doubt in some people's minds. That seed can grow and soon a lie becomes the "truth". Watch the movie Wag the Dog or Iraq's supposed WMD. If tiger doesn't stop BC's nonsense now, it can take a life of its own.

No. Nobody's implied, or stated, anything about any historic wins. Whether or not you agree with their conclusions, the people who've called foul on Tiger this year have based their arguments on video evidence. There's no video evidence to support the wilder sorts of accusations that you're worrying about. On the other hand, if this time next year we're reviewing a similar number of 2014 rules incidents - then people might start to draw conclusions even in the absence of a single smoking gun. But I don't think you could "blame" that on BC.

[k-troop]

But calling him a cheat diminishes his track record. It implies he may have won one or all of his majors or other pga and worldwide tourneys by cheating. It implies he won the Masters by 12 strokes or a US Open by 15 strokes through dishonest means. If not checked now, it plants a seed of doubt in some people's minds. That seed can grow and soon a lie becomes the "truth". Watch the movie Wag the Dog or Iraq's supposed WMD. If tiger doesn't stop BC's nonsense now, it can take a life of its own.

Well then this is where we disagree.  I think that is a very, very extreme view.  No intelligent person is going to take Brandel's piece and extrapolate from it that Tiger cheated at the '97 Masters.  And Twig-gate isn't even remotely on par with the intelligence and reporting failures associated with Iraq WMD.

But, the Iraq WMD example (though wildly inapplicable to Twig-gate) does give us an interesting lesson on censorship.  Amb. Joseph Wilson was asked to go to North Africa to confirm reports that Iraq was seeking weaponizable uranium yellow cake from Niger.  He published an op-ed in the NYT about how he found no such thing.  His op-ed ran a few months after the Iraq invasion, and basically said that the primary WMD justification for Iraq was a sham, and he told the Bush administration as much prior to the war.  The Bush administration then leaked information about Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame's, association with the CIA in an effort to discredit him.  That little scandal resulted in Scooter Libby being sentenced to prison.  And Wilson's op-ed was 100% true, even though at the time a majority of Americans still believed that Iraq had WMD.

The lesson is that op-ed has value.  Discussion and discourse has value.  The "discussion" that follows scandalous opinion--i.e. the process of people finding out the truth--is valuable.  And it's often a piece that people consider scandalous, unsupported allegation that prompts such discussion.

[bobsuruncle]

My key point on this issue is that Tiger must not let "sleeping dogs lie". He must call out BC. As you rightly point out, once something scandalous / titillating hits the media /Internet it gets repeated over and over again, arguments rage, facts gets twisted and soon no one can tell truth from fiction. This was the "discourse" that BC was hoping to generate. It's disgraceful to start a discourse with a blatant untruth.

[k-troop]

My key point on this issue is that Tiger must not let "sleeping dogs lie". He must call out BC. As you rightly point out, once something scandalous / titillating hits the media /Internet it gets repeated over and over again, arguments rage, facts gets twisted and soon no one can tell truth from fiction. This was the "discourse" that BC was hoping to generate. It's disgraceful to start a discourse with a blatant untruth.

Sent from my GT-N7105 using Tapatalk

But what can also happen--what happened during the Plame Affair--is that the issue gets thrust to the forefront of public discourse and the real truth comes out.  In addition, we find out very valuable information about those involved in the discourse who are willing to go to any length to cover, obfuscate, or suppress the truth (i.e. the Office of the Vice President in the case of the Plame Affair).

I'll give you two more examples that quickly come to mind.  "Obama is a Muslim" and "Obama is not a citizen."  These scantily supported allegations have been brought out so many times through so many outlets that they could reach the point of "fact by saturation" as you describe.  But, what really happened is that these allegations were made so many times by obviously partisan players, without ever bringing forth any real factual support, that the informed consensus is that they're BS.  And the course of that debate tells us good information about the people who continue to make such allegations.  Every time Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, Sarah Palin, or Donald Trump raises one of these ridiculous issues to make a political point we learn a great deal about their personal biases and their commitment to the truth.

Brandel's paragraph might have helped ignite a debate on the facts about Tiger's commitment to the rules.  More opinions are coming forward--opinions that might have remained suppressed if Brandel hadn't come out first.  I don't have a personal stake in whether Tiger cheated, but as a golf fan I certainly want to know the truth. And if Tiger has never cheated, he should not be afraid of the truth.

[newtogolf]

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.

You nor I have any idea if or to what level Tiger has been financially damaged.  Organizations could have considered him to represent their product and decided against it after the BC article.  Fellow golfers on Tour may think differently of Tiger because he was called out.  The point is, BC has a responsibility as a journalist to not cross the line and he did, just as Dan Rather did with Bush.

[k-troop]

You nor I have any idea if or to what level Tiger has been financially damaged.  Organizations could have considered him to represent their product and decided against it after the BC article.  Fellow golfers on Tour may think differently of Tiger because he was called out.  The point is, BC has a responsibility as a journalist to not cross the line and he did, just as Dan Rather did with Bush.

But you have no more evidence to claim that Tiger has been financially damaged then Brandel did to conclude that Tiger cheated.  Actually, you have less evidence.  You're just saying it's possible that Brandel's article could have hurt Tiger financially.  In Brandel's case, he had video evidence of Tiger pulling on a twig and then stopping when the ball started to move.

And saying that Dan Rather's broadcast was based on some personal agenda against Bush is a little off IMO.  Rather was one of the most respected journalists of all time.  There was a legitimate issue surrounding Bush's guard service, and there were witnesses who claimed personal knowledge of some of the events (specifically how Bush got an appointment to the TANG during Vietnam when they were supposedly not accepting appointments, and whether Bush actually completed the flight training he was credited for in 1972-73).  Rather though he had the hard, documentary evidence to settle that question, but the evidence turned out to be inauthentic.  The backlash against the documents ended up killing the issue, but factually the issue about Bush's TANG service is far from settled.

[Golfingdad]

But what can also happen--what happened during the Plame Affair--is that the issue gets thrust to the forefront of public discourse and the real truth comes out.  In addition, we find out very valuable information about those involved in the discourse who are willing to go to any length to cover, obfuscate, or suppress the truth (i.e. the Office of the Vice President in the case of the Plame Affair).

I'll give you two more examples that quickly come to mind.  "Obama is a Muslim" and "Obama is not a citizen."  These scantily supported allegations have been brought out so many times through so many outlets that they could reach the point of "fact by saturation" as you describe.  But, what really happened is that these allegations were made so many times by obviously partisan players, without ever bringing forth any real factual support, that the informed consensus is that they're BS.  And the course of that debate tells us good information about the people who continue to make such allegations.  Every time Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, Sarah Palin, or Donald Trump raises one of these ridiculous issues to make a political point we learn a great deal about their personal biases and their commitment to the truth.

Brandel's paragraph might have helped ignite a debate on the facts about Tiger's commitment to the rules.  More opinions are coming forward--opinions that might have remained suppressed if Brandel hadn't come out first.  I don't have a personal stake in whether Tiger cheated, but as a golf fan I certainly want to know the truth. And if Tiger has never cheated, he should not be afraid of the truth.

This is a pretty good analogy, I'd say.  When people make unsubstantiated claims, it is our responsibility to take them for what they're worth - which is to say nothing - until the claims become proven or disproven.

I think that I've even said this before ... I believe that people who are of the opinion that Tiger cheated feel that way because they are interpreting the evidence as such, not simply because Brandel told them so.  Let's not give him too much credit.

[newtogolf]

This is a pretty good analogy, I'd say.  When people make unsubstantiated claims, it is our responsibility to take them for what they're worth - which is to say nothing - until the claims become proven or disproven.

I think that I've even said this before ... I believe that people who are of the opinion that Tiger cheated feel that way because they are interpreting the evidence as such, not simply because Brandel told them so.  Let's not give him too much credit.

That assumes some one cares enough to do the research and not just accept BC opinion as fact.  My father who hates golf and Tiger heard a report from some of the fallout on the BC article and called me up to ask, "What's up with Tiger first he cheats on his wife now in golf?"

[Golfingdad]

That assumes some one cares enough to do the research and not just accept BC opinion as fact.  My father who hates golf and Tiger heard a report from some of the fallout on the BC article and called me up to ask, "What's up with Tiger first he cheats on his wife now in golf?"

Yup.  My wife, her friends, and a lot of others will do the same thing.

But those people all have one thing in common.  They're not golf fans.  People who don't follow golf or in your fathers case, who "hate golf" aren't going to be affecting Tigers bottom line one way or the other no matter what or who they believe.  They aren't a factor.

Brandel could make up a story tomorrow saying that Tiger rescued 1000 baby seals from poachers and all of the people in that same crowd aren't going to say "Wow, that Tiger is an amazing guy ... now I love golf and I'm going to start watching it and buying only Nike clothes!!"

[k-troop]

That assumes some one cares enough to do the research and not just accept BC opinion as fact.  My father who hates golf and Tiger heard a report from some of the fallout on the BC article and called me up to ask, "What's up with Tiger first he cheats on his wife now in golf?"

But those people all have one thing in common.  They're not golf fans.  People who don't follow golf or in your fathers case, who "hate golf" aren't going to be affecting Tigers bottom line one way or the other no matter what or who they believe.  They aren't a factor.

And I'll just add that I think this confirms a point I made about 30 pages ago in this thread:  Brandel's article didn't "decrease Tiger's stature or reputation" in that case.  I would guess that a lot of folks who took Chamblee's paragraph as truth are the same people who already thought Tiger was a scumbag because of the events of 2011.  That's not taking someone who had a positive opinion of Tiger and turning them negative, it's simply affirming in their minds that he has poor character.

[Lihu]

Yes, no one is calling for Tiger to be banned or suspended yet. But calling him a cheat diminishes his track record. It implies he may have won one or all of his majors or other pga and worldwide tourneys by cheating. It implies he won the Masters by 12 strokes or a US Open by 15 strokes through dishonest means.

Yes, all 12 or 15 strokes were gained without anyone seeing his cheating

The choice is clear, who's future career do you support?

Since Brandel is the one who made the cavalier remarks about Tiger, I would choose Tiger's future over Brandel's.

Tiger didn't say that Brandel was a cheating journalist who publishes things to improve his lies.

[Phil McGleno]

Prove the bold line.-The fact that they know about Tiger is proof enough that he means something to them. They know enough to comment on it.-When he was cheating they said it affected his branding. Do you think Lance Armstrong's image was affected by more than just biking fans or do you think he had an image to those who dont care about bike racing? Tiger likewise has an image even to those who dont play or like golf.-That image is why Gillette sponsors him, or Gatorade, etc.-If those companies wer eonly marketing to golf fans theyd spend a LOT LESS MONEY.-Tigers image is a worldwide image, and you could argue it matters LESS to golfers than to the casual fan or the non-golf fan.[quote name="Golfingdad" url="/t/70622/brandel-gives-tiger-an-f-tigers-agent-hints-at-legal-action-against-chamblee/702#post_918649"]Yup.  My wife, her friends, and a lot of others will do the same thing. But those people all have one thing in common.  They're not golf fans. People who don't follow golf or in your fathers case, who "hate golf" aren't going to be affecting Tigers bottom line one way or the other no matter what or who they believe. They aren't a factor. Brandel could make up a story tomorrow saying that Tiger rescued 1000 baby seals from poachers and all of the people in that same crowd aren't going to say "Wow, that Tiger is an amazing guy ... now I love golf and I'm going to start watching it and buying only Nike clothes!!" [/quote]

[Spitfisher]

Good posts, interesting how it correlates to the WWW, Main stream news and blogosphere.

I think we are losing sight of the fact that BC never called Tiger a "cheater" the word was never used. As most of us know instead he derived his reasoning for the grade of F due to his own "cheating" on a test in fourth grade.  He linked the 2 by referencing Tiger as  "rather cavalier with the rules".  Insinuating that he was less than truthful and in some circles that he cheated. One could also find his own "F"as a teacher assigning it to BC by simple knowing, a hunch, a high probability of his own cheating. BC never really lets us know how exactly the teacher knew.

Readers unfamiliar with BC and perhaps reading it for the first time with reasonable intelligence had to understand it was opinion. The style of writing makes this pretty clear. I would venture to say a large majority of these casual fans had certain judgments & assumptions based on what they have already read and  seen on the mainstream media. Tigers cheating ,lying, adultery etc. ( it is not my intention to raise this back up in a discussion)  this will be a portion of  his legacy.  It was not that long ago and lets face it was on all media outlets including the 6:30 National news as well as every late night talk show.

I don't believe BCs editorial changed many casual golf fans impression of TW, some have forgiven and yet others have not. I think he is still on somewhat shaky ground compared to what his image was before the hydrant. One only has to see market surveys of women perception of him is far behind Men's and has not deviated much since that Thanksgiving. Did the editorial hurt him financially? I doubt it very much, most of the damage he feels today was conducted years ago by himself,  People may forgive but they generally don't forget.

[Golfingdad]

Prove the bold line.

People who don't follow golf or in your fathers case, who "hate golf" aren't going to be affecting Tigers bottom line one way or the other no matter what or who they believe.

No can do, my friend. Probably should have said "It's my belief that people ... etc etc."

The fact that they know about Tiger is proof enough that he means something to them. They know enough to comment on it.-When he was cheating they said it affected his branding. Do you think Lance Armstrong's image was affected by more than just biking fans or do you think he had an image to those who dont care about bike racing? Tiger likewise has an image even to those who dont play or like golf.-That image is why Gillette sponsors him, or Gatorade, etc.-If those companies wer eonly marketing to golf fans theyd spend a LOT LESS MONEY.-Tigers image is a worldwide image, and you could argue it matters LESS to golfers than to the casual fan or the non-golf fan.

As far as Lance Armstrong is concerned, I see your point.  If I, as a non-cycling fan, heard about a story written by Joe Bicycle-Man in "Two Wheels - No Engine" Magazine, where he called Lance a cheater because he believed some grainy video footage showed him shoving a stick into his opponents spokes, helping him to win one race, I might be more inclined to believe it than actual cycling fans.  Not because I'm gullible or stupid, but because I just couldn't give a rats ass, and am not going to do any due dilligence to confirm or deny it.  And, maybe, just maybe, when I'm in the airport and my son sees a "Livestrong" bracelet on a shelf in the Hudson News store, and really wants it because yellow is his favorite color, then I may recall that "Lance Armstrong is a cheater" and tell him he can't have it.**

I just don't see how this will affect Tiger in any tangible way.  I do think that Brandel crossed a line he shouldn't have, but I don't think it's nearly as big of a deal as we think.

**This assumes we have just arrived somewhere.  If we are about to get on the plane, then I don't care if there is a story of Lance Armstrong murdering all of his opponents during a race, even with HD video, he's getting that bracelet, if it means he'll be quiet and happy for the flight. ;)

[Spitfisher]

That assumes some one cares enough to do the research and not just accept BC opinion as fact.  My father who hates golf and Tiger heard a report from some of the fallout on the BC article and called me up to ask, "What's up with Tiger first he cheats on his wife now in golf?"

Your father, with all do respect is not on Tigers marketing radar, (or anyone's for that matter) he is a nothing, he is less than 1% of the 1% his camp does not cares about. Sorry not trying to be spiteful but his opinion does count and who ever he mentions it to, will not be impacted. Like you for example may have had the idea that Dads wrong. I'm assuming you clarified it with him.