Tiger IS RIGHT about the media

[PEZGolf]

In the great interview in Time magazine, Tiger says that many reporters are too lazy and do not walk the course to see firsthand what is happening. The exception he cites is Ian Baker Finch. Here are two other exceptions: 1. Dottie Pepper:  I know Dottie through Joe The Pro Merendo, the pro at Amsterdam Muni. In 2006, I went to the women's US Open in Newport, RI with my son. I was covering the tournament for my magazine "The Golf News".  During Wednesday's practice round, we ran into Dottie out on the course. We talked to her briefly, and then she said she had to leave to finish checking out the course.  A few minutes later, we saw her talking with Laura Diaz and her group.*******2.  In 1989, I covered the Nabisco Tournament at Harbour Town. On all four days,  I walked the course, following mainly Payne and Wayne Levi. After Saturday's round, I asked him in the press tent  about his second shot, out of the bunker, on #17. It had come out low, and left him with a 30' puttt for par. "I hit a bad shot; I almost shanked it," he said. "But," he said with a wink,  "I made that putt!

Reporters need to be out on the course to do their job correctly!

 

[MSchott]

Can you provide some context for your post? I'm a bit confused. Are we talking about golf columnists, writers or TV analysts?

[caniac6]

Golf writers in the media center can watch the broadcast, and watch multiple groups on multiple holes. If they are on the course, they can only watch one hole at a time, and could miss something very important happening on another hole. I don't agree with Tiger.

[nevets88]

13 minutes ago, caniac6 said:

Golf writers in the media center can watch the broadcast, and watch multiple groups on multiple holes. If they are on the course, they can only watch one hole at a time, and could miss something very important happening on another hole. I don't agree with Tiger.

Context. Woods is talking about the tournament before contenders are playing.

Quote

It’s just, some of the announcers, they don’t even go on the golf course. And they look at a pin sheet from the booth, but they’ve never surveyed the golf course, even though the television coverage doesn’t come on until the afternoon. You have all that time to go walk the golf course, to see some of the early rounds, see what guys are doing, how they’re hitting it, how’s the course playing, is the wind coming up? All those different things that you could do. The only one who does that is Finchy [golf broadcaster and former PGA Tour pro Ian Baker-Finch].

http://time.com/tiger/

[Patch]

I don't know if Woody is correct or not. Don't really care either. What I do know that when I do watch TV golf (3 majors) there is way to much "talking head" time televised than the actual golf being played. I dont mind the on course reporting so much, but those guys in the booth get way too much "on the air" time. They are why I am a " golf should be played. Not watched" kind of guy. 

[PEZGolf]

1 hour ago, MSchott said:

Can you provide some context for your post? I'm a bit confused. Are we talking about golf columnists, writers or TV analysts?

All of the above. I know some famous columnists and reporters who spent the whole day in the press tent. They ate, drank beer and watched the tournament on TV. they waited for the players to come to them upon completion of their rounds.

[Pendragon]

2 hours ago, PEZGolf said:

All of the above. I know some famous columnists and reporters who spent the whole day in the press tent. They ate, drank beer and watched the tournament on TV. they waited for the players to come to them upon completion of their rounds.

I think you're making a mountain out of a mole hill here. Tiger Woods has always treated the media as a necessary evil at best. He'd be ecstatic if he never had to talk to any of them, and most of what he does say is rarely anything but a canned response.

As for those famous columnists and reporters who "spend all day eating and drinking beer", would you like to share any names? How many would most of us have ever heard of? 

2 hours ago, caniac6 said:

Golf writers in the media center can watch the broadcast, and watch multiple groups on multiple holes. If they are on the course, they can only watch one hole at a time, and could miss something very important happening on another hole. I don't agree with Tiger.

What you're saying makes a lot of sense. Tiger has always felt that the media is out to get him, and his comments above illustrate that. 

[minitour]

Feinstein doesn't look like he's ever missed a meal in the media center.

[iacas]

9 hours ago, Pendragon said:

I think you're making a mountain out of a mole hill here. Tiger Woods has always treated the media as a necessary evil at best. He'd be ecstatic if he never had to talk to any of them, and most of what he does say is rarely anything but a canned response.

Tiger was also interviewed after nearly every round he ever played.

Phil would have a bad round and skip out on post-round interviews. It happened somewhat regularly. Yet he never caught any flack for it, at all.

Totally a massive double standard.

[Pendragon]

12 hours ago, iacas said:

Tiger was also interviewed after nearly every round he ever played.

Phil would have a bad round and skip out on post-round interviews. It happened somewhat regularly. Yet he never caught any flack for it, at all.

Totally a massive double standard.

You're entitled to your opinion. From some of your other posts, it's clear that you're a Tiger fan and will pretty much support him no matter what. Are you saying that Tiger has never skipped out on post-round interviews? Of course he has. A double standard? Not even close.

 

[iacas]

32 minutes ago, Pendragon said:

You're entitled to your opinion. From some of your other posts, it's clear that you're a Tiger fan and will pretty much support him no matter what. Are you saying that Tiger has never skipped out on post-round interviews? Of course he has. A double standard? Not even close.

Yes, a double standard. You're ignorant to the facts if you don't think there was one. Phil could skip out on them whenever he wanted.

No, I didn't say he never skipped  he didn't for a stretch of years, though. After every round, good or bad, he made himself available. Phil skipped when he had a bad round. Other players weren't even asked all that often. That's a clear double standard - nobody cared what Kyle Stanley had to say after a third-round 73 that left him T27.

I'm a fan of Tiger's play for a number of years, but it's disingenuous of you to assume that means I'm biased about other things. Sorry. Weak argument.

I could say it's clear you're not a fan. It doesn't change the facts here. Facts of which you seem ignorant.

[Fourputt]

I agree with the OP's premise that a golf reporter should study the course before the tournament just like the players do in the practice rounds, and he should know enough about the game to know what he's looking at.  If you are going to be making editorial statements, then do the research first.  Both TV and news service reporters make stupid comments all the time through ignorance of the course or even of the game itself.  Too often they have the gall to question the decisions of a top player in a difficult situation when they really don't have a  clue.  

Like so many so-called news sources any more, too many sports reporters are in the business to see their words in print or see themselves on TV.  The quality of their reporting seems to take a back seat to publicity.  I sympathize with any sports figure for disliking the media.  How often can you answer the same stupid post game or post round questions before you reach a saturation point?

[Pendragon]

1 hour ago, iacas said:

Yes, a double standard. You're ignorant to the facts if you don't think there was one. Phil could skip out on them whenever he wanted.

No, I didn't say he never skipped  he didn't for a stretch of years, though. After every round, good or bad, he made himself available. Phil skipped when he had a bad round. Other players weren't even asked all that often. That's a clear double standard - nobody cared what Kyle Stanley had to say after a third-round 73 that left him T27.

I'm a fan of Tiger's play for a number of years, but it's disingenuous of you to assume that means I'm biased about other things. Sorry. Weak argument.

I could say it's clear you're not a fan. It doesn't change the facts here. Facts of which you seem ignorant.

Here we go again. For someone who's an administrator on this site, you don't set much of an example for others here. Twice in this most recent post you refer to me as "ignorant" because I disagree with you. Is name calling a behavior that you want to encourage here? Really?

You've criticized me before for presenting my opinions as fact, but now you're doing the same. Now there's a double standard! 

[iacas]

31 minutes ago, Pendragon said:

Here we go again. For someone who's an administrator on this site, you don't set much of an example for others here.

Today's a slow day until this evening, so what the heck, let's play around with this a bit.

In what way am I setting a bad example? By having an opinion? By expressing that opinion? No, I suspect you care about the fact that I said you're ignorant of the facts, but that's also my opinion, and one with a fairly solid foundation.

31 minutes ago, Pendragon said:

Twice in this most recent post you refer to me as "ignorant" because I disagree with you.

Incorrect. I referred to you as ignorant about this particular topic because you do not seem to be aware of the simple facts being discussed here: that there is a double-standard, that Tiger submitted to more post-round interviews than anyone else you can name, even after poor rounds, and that when he would occasionally miss (far, far less frequently than anyone else, including Phil Mickelson) he'd be roasted a bit for it, while Phil missed many, many more and yet almost nobody ever said anything about it. It has nothing to do with whether you disagree with me or not. Zero.

31 minutes ago, Pendragon said:

Is name calling a behavior that you want to encourage here? Really?

I didn't call you a name. I did not call you an ignoramus, or call you stupid. I said you were ignorant of these facts. You do not know them. I'm ignorant of politics - I do not know much about them.

There's a difference between "that's a stupid thing to say" and "you're stupid."

31 minutes ago, Pendragon said:

You've criticized me before for presenting my opinions as fact, but now you're doing the same. Now there's a double standard! 

That's incorrect. I've not presented my opinions as fact. I maintain that these are facts:

• Tiger Woods went several years without missing a post-round interview. After every round.
• Phil Mickelson regularly skips them, particularly after a bad round, and even then he's not asked nearly as often as Tiger (again, Tiger is asked after every round he plays).
• Phil gets a pass most of the time, Tiger does not. That's a double standard.

Again:

Quote

Uh-huh. I went through a stretch, I think it was eight years ago, where I never missed a post-round interview. And the first time I did, they crucified me. I said, Realize I’ve done this for almost a decade. No matter what I shot, I always did a post-round interview. I did that for like eight years in a row, every round I played in, and when I don’t do it, they just killed me for it. I go, O.K., guys, put it in perspective here. How many guys get a pass for shooting a bad round?

I'm calling those facts, and so it's not my opinion.

Now, here's the other thing you don't seem to realize: I don't really care if you disagree. But stop attacking me about it. I shared what I felt was a double-standard, based on the facts available to us, and you said (paraphrasing) "yeah well you're just a Tiger fan and so you'll just support him no matter what."

I am not supporting him "no matter what." I'm supporting the idea that there's a double standard because it appears to be the facts.

If anyone is doing something because of their opinions on something else, I submit that it's you: you're doing the opposite of supporting Tiger because you don't seem to like the guy.

Again, if you think I actually care that you don't like Tiger Woods, cool. I couldn't care less. But I hate, hate lousy arguments.

[Phil McGleno]

@Pendragon, so you try to call out @iacas, he in turn calls you out, and now you come on here to whine about it and say that he is a bad person for calling you names?

You said his entire opinion was based on his being a Tiger fan-But your opinion can not be based on being a Tiger hater?

Boy you need a thicker skin or something.-What did he say that was factually wrong?

[Pendragon]

4 minutes ago, iacas said:

Today's a slow day until this evening, so what the heck, let's play around with this a bit.

In what way am I setting a bad example? By having an opinion? By expressing that opinion? No, I suspect you care about the fact that I said you're ignorant of the facts, but that's also my opinion, and one with a fairly solid foundation.

Incorrect. I referred to you as ignorant about this particular topic because you do not seem to be aware of the simple facts being discussed here: that there is a double-standard, that Tiger submitted to more post-round interviews than anyone else you can name, even after poor rounds, and that when he would occasionally miss (far, far less frequently than anyone else, including Phil Mickelson) he'd be roasted a bit for it, while Phil missed many, many more and yet almost nobody ever said anything about it. It has nothing to do with whether you disagree with me or not. Zero.

I didn't call you a name. I did not call you an ignoramus, or call you stupid. I said you were ignorant of these facts. You do not know them. I'm ignorant of politics - I do not know much about them.

There's a difference between "that's a stupid thing to say" and "you're stupid."

That's incorrect. I've not presented my opinions as fact. I maintain that these are facts:

• Tiger Woods went several years without missing a post-round interview. After every round.
• Phil Mickelson regularly skips them, particularly after a bad round, and even then he's not asked nearly as often as Tiger (again, Tiger is asked after every round he plays).
• Phil gets a pass most of the time, Tiger does not. That's a double standard.

Again:

I'm calling those facts, and so it's not my opinion.

Your calling something a fact doesn't make it so. If you want to say they're facts, knock yourself out, but they're still your opinions. 

[iacas]

Just now, Pendragon said:

Your calling something a fact doesn't make it so. If you want to say they're facts, knock yourself out, but they're still your opinions.

Please look up the definition of "fact," then share with me what opinions I've presented as fact. Because, from where I'm sitting, these are facts that can be proven or disproven:

• Tiger Woods submitted to eight years of post-round interviews without missing any.
• Tiger Woods has given more post-round interviews than any other golfer, ever.
• Tiger Woods is asked for a post-round interview after every round he played between the years 1997-2015.
• Phil Mickelson is not asked for post-round interviews nearly as often.
• Phil MIckelson skips a higher percentage of post-round interviews, particularly after poor rounds, than TW.
• Phil Mickelson is treated better by the press than Tiger on the occasions that either of them skip a post-round interview.

Stick to the discussion at hand.

[Pendragon]

15 minutes ago, Phil McGleno said:

@Pendragon, so you try to call out @iacas, he in turn calls you out, and now you come on here to whine about it and say that he is a bad person for calling you names?

You said his entire opinion was based on his being a Tiger fan-But your opinion can not be based on being a Tiger hater?

Boy you need a thicker skin or something.-What did he say that was factually wrong?

He could have said several things that were factually wrong. Let's take one...how would anyone know if Mickelson skips a higher percentage of post-tound interviews than Tiger does? Why would we care? How did Phil even get injected into this? This is just silly.

This whole thing began with the question as to whether Tiger is treated fairly by the media. I'm not the only one who said that he is. Obviously iacas feels quite strongly that the media is not fair to Tiger, and he's entitled to have that opinion. But, as an administrator here, it's just not professional for him to state that others are ignorant because they hold a differing viewpoint.