A Communications Summit Rebuttal
A golf writer offered this in response to feedback (here, here and here) from the PGA Tour's Communications Summit:
The idea that the players are more guarded because they've gotten burned? What rubbish. That is the agents speaking. Burned by whom, and in what way? Do they mean burned in that they're subjected to criticism occasionally? Virtually every print journalist I know carries a tape recorder, so they're not getting burned by being misquoted. Then there are the ubiquitous transcripts. Again, not misquoted. And what are we burning them on? We're only writing about a very small handful of players on a regular basis anyway. Who is that isn't getting a fair shake? That's complete nonsense. As is the idea that young players are more in tune with new media than old. I'm a fan of new media and realize that old media is endangered, but you've been around professional golfers -- they're not in tune with anything. I guarantee they haven't given a single thought to old media vs. new media. More nonsense is the statement that players think writers have become stale, and the content is not creative and innovative. Are you kidding me? If collectively they listened to themselves speak and be interviewed, how pray tell do you liven that up?
One more thing: How many players, other than Tiger Woods and Phil Mickelson, ever get 30 seconds, or 15 seconds, or 5 seconds of an interview on Sports Center? Seems to me they're better off getting 900 words in a newspaper or magazine than nothing on ESPN. Come on.
Tuesday, December 12, 2006 at 07:13 AM
Reader Comments (13)
Oh, really? Well, at least they're aware that god has given golfers a very good platform the last few years. Turn on, tune in, drop out!
As for me, I'll stick to obtaining my information from graffiti on bathroom walls and the internet -- long live Deadspin and this site (did you hear about FIGJAM's gambling debts?)
And of course to later read one or more reporters' story on the events of the day.
That combined experience is revelatory to me. For the most part, the live coverage shaws that the players appear to be smart and patient with many questions that are often mindless. The stories filed on deadline, in cotrast, leave a lot to be desired.
For every one stupid or ill-advised comment that I have heard from a player, I think there are about a dozen or two laughable and sometimes insulting questions from the Tour press corps.
There's no doubt that from time to time, players have done or said things that either require, or are beyond, explanation. But seeing the process live and unedited makes me think that for the most part, the players are far ahead of their questioners.
I also agree with others above; things like the Paul Casey kerfuffle told me more about a British tabloid press corps eager for a story and pumping their own agenda, than about anything important about golf or society or Anglo-American relations.
But let's add one more thing. It is not always the golfing press that butchers coverage of golf. The Ben Wright fiasco originated with a woman who had a one-week assignment to cover the tournament that happened to be in town. Not a golf writer. And the campaign to turn Vijay Singh into a vicious woman-hater following his Annika-at-Colonial comments didn't really come from the golfing press (who know Vijay to be one of the most decent guys on tour) but rather from the general press, eager to make a golf story transcend golf.
Again, I get a huge kick out of the live press conference coverage from TGC. Routinely, it is the questions, not the answers, that make me cringe.
Chuck's example of Dolts.
“My last Q-School, on the last hole I had a 20-foot putt to qualify. I lipped it out, walked off the green, and Jennifer Mills stuck a microphone in my face and asked me how I felt” --Brandel Chamblee
Of course the press did let Joe Oglivie's DUI go along with FIGJAM's illegitimate child. Great follow up questions avoided by the Dolts.
No, we're going to stick with asking stupid questions.
The only print persons who attend most NON-MAJOR Tour events are Doug Ferguson, Gary Van Sickle, John Garrity, Bob Verdi, Ron Sirak, Tim Rosaforte, Jeff Rude, Jeff Babineau, Jerry Potter and a few others. At most events, you may get two to five of the above.
The rest of the questions come from media based in the locale of the Tour event. Very, very few are experienced golf writers -- rather, a lot of questions come from radio and print guys who cover that one tournament each year, period.
And if there existed concrete evidence of any of the urban legends mentioned above (most of us have heard them all), somebody would have written it. But that's what anonymous blogs are for -- propagating and nurturing rumors. And until properly substantiated, they're only rumors and don't belong in print because they tend to attract lawsuits.
Of course, it's very easy to criticize from the other side of the fence...
How about the New York Times' golf-beat writer? What about all the major-market newspapapers' guys. The Atlanta Journal-Constituion has at least a couple of them. In Detroit, there is Vartan Kupelian. I don't know who it is for the Chicago Tribune or the LA Times, or a couple dozen other mid-major papers. All those guys seem to always be running datelines from wherever there is a tour event. Maybe not Hawaii, and certainly not Shanghai or New Zealand, but a lot of others...
As for "Doug Ferguson, Gary Van Sickle, John Garrity, Bob Verdi, Ron Sirak, Tim Rosaforte, Jeff Rude, Jeff Babineau, Jerry Potter and a few others," they are practically all on a first-name basis with eveybody on tour. Other than writing occasionally disagreeable things or the odd case of journalistic misjudgment, is there any big issue on either side about the job that those guys do? And Michael Bamberger is not in the Tour Press Corps?
As for Mr. Bamberger, seems to me he spends more time with a tape measure than a tape recorder.
OK, I'll humor you.
"Urban legends": Stories like the ones that a player had an illegitimate child or $10 million in gambling debts to a Las Vegas casino or beats up his wife have no grounding whatsoever in truth. In other words, the blogs have given birth to and kept these fairy tales alive, but no proof exists.
Yet somehow, anonymous bloggers claim authenticity and some of you guys accept them at their word and keep the stories alive. Except no one can cite an impeccable source so they remain locked in the "fairy tale" category. There's no good reason for any cover-ups, either -- breaking such a story would be a defining moment for any golf writer who got proof and then wrote the story.
"Conspiracy theory" that the PGA Tour only credentials writers who will go along with its propaganda. This is so ludicrous I refuse to address it.
The media doesn't "burn" players who make controversial statements. Most of the time, those statements are stupid enough to stand on their own, like Paul Casey's. Those comments were made in a public forum and Casey knew he would be widely quoted. Columists then gave their opinions on Casey's words because that is their job. There certainly was enough public outrage outside the media following those remarks -- Casey made them, and he has to live with them. Except you want to kill the messenger?
What you guys who watch from outside the ropes don't realize is that golf is no different from any other sport -- it has more than its share of "dumb jocks." The ability to play the game has absolutely no relationship to an ability to think clearly and be able to reason and speak with intellect.
And if what the golf media outputs is so "tainted" why do you bother to keep reading it?