I feel a little like George Constanza on this one. It’s almost as if I’m coming up with a witty retort days after I needed it. I thought I’d finish this rant about Tiger Woods I started last week, however, because it’s about more than a golfer and his admissions. The media’s decision to agree to Tiger’s terms on his press conference demonstrates how journalism is shooting itself in the foot to get what it thinks are the big stories.
My friend and colleague Jeremy Littau made this same point a few weeks ago when Sarah Palin was on her no-I’m-not-running-for-president-wink-wink-nudge-nudge book tour. He said the media were enabling Palin to use them to stoke her campaign prospects.
I couldn’t help but wonder if Tiger Woods was doing the exact same thing. His emotionless apology seemed like nothing more to me than the sorries I force out of my children when they bop each other. They don’t really mean it. They are just saying it to get me off their backs.
By hand-picking the media representatives who could attend and forbidding them from asking any questions, Tiger was hoping for the same result, and the media bought it whole hog. Since when does Tiger Woods merit presidential treatment? How does an athlete get all four networks, plus ESPN to pre-empt regular coverage? This usually only happens for state-of-the-union speeches or car chases if you’re in the L.A.-area.
Second, if you are going to go to something like this live, make sure it’s something worth covering. Tiger set all the rules. He hand selected press representatives who could attend. ESPN reported the invites went to three wire service reporters and three others from the Golf Writers’ Association of America, who took the high ground and declined to attend.
What I don’t get is that even though they didn’t have a journalist in attendance, all three networks and ESPN covered it live. At any other organization for which I have worked, if you wanted this kind of all-holds-barred coverage, you’d have to pay for an ad. I wonder how much 15-minutes of network time would run.
The difference between reporting and an ad strikes at the heart of my point. The reason journalists cover events it not just to tell people what happened. Journalists put events in context. They ask questions the readers might have. The worst mistake a news report can make is leaving the audience with more questions than it answered. ESPN’s Jason Sobel suggests it barely answered any questions at all. I agree, and it doesn’t even matter if you believe Tiger was sincere or not.
In an age where earning credibility is getting harder and harder, news organizations need to stop giving the little bit of control of information they have left back to sources, and Tiger would have been a good place to start. From the beginning, he has successfully controlled the story. It’s embarrassing when the news organizations pushing the envelope the most are TMZ and the National Enquirer.
If Tiger Woods or others like him want to make their private statements, let them do it on their own sites. You can always report on it later, and when you do, make sure you exercise your journalistic training. Question assumptions. Monitor the powerful. Seek the truth. Maintain an independence from those you cover.
PhotoCredit: A screen capture of TigerWoods.com (See, I’m not better than the rest of the media!)
Popularity: 14% [?]
Related posts:
- News can learn from WoW, but not TMZ News organizations should have learned long ago that people will...
Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.
I didn’t look at it from a jounalist point of view but after reading this, it makes sense. How on earth did he get what he did? Goes to show how much power even an athlete can have. What a powerful man. It is scary just how powerful we allow people to be. I think his apology was sincere though. I know many will call me crazy but what more could we have asked for with his statement? I think he gave enough information but not too much.
Thanks for the comment Jenn. I didn’t want to dwell too much on whether he was sincere or not in the post, but I guess it’s pretty obvious I had my doubts. I don’t think you are crazy. Much of what I’ve read is evenly divided. He has a lot of supporters. I tend to agree with what Bill Simmons on ESPN said. If he really was sincere, why didn’t he go on Oprah or Barbara Walters and at least allow some softball questions. Why did he feel he still needed to control the situation? I’m just fed up with people who portray themselves as family men publicly having feet of clay.
He’s not sincere. He’s angry he got caught and more angry he isn’t being left alone! Let him make all the press conferences he wants… it may get the press off his back, but the devil is still sitting on his shoulder