Saturday
Mar242007
"He can do "nice" if he wants to"
John Huggan on Vijay Singh:
Actually, not many media outlets print much of anything said by Singh, for the simple reason that he rarely says anything worth printing. Just this past week, your correspondent e-mailed one of America's most respected journalists to ask if Singh had ever commented publicly on the possibility of steroid use in golf. The response was short and to the point: "Has he ever commented publicly?"
He has, but not often. Two years ago, Singh was approached by a journalist - OK, me - on the practice ground at Pinehurst just prior to the US Open. He was asked to name his three favourite holes in Scotland, a subject that both surprised and intrigued him. Not only did he take a few minutes to ponder his decision, he was interested enough to ask what holes other players had offered up. It was, to my lasting shock, a pleasant little interlude.
So he can do "nice" if he wants to; it's just that Singh rarely seems to want to.
Saturday, March 24, 2007 at 07:55 PM
Reader Comments (27)
Why tell the press anything?
Where do you/would you get your information if the press isn't to be trusted? Or do you select which items to believe, and which to disregard?
4p
Credibility ratings for the major broadcast and cable television outlets have fallen somewhat in recent years, due in large part to increased cynicism toward the media on the part of Republicans and conservatives. CNN no longer enjoys the top spot as the most credible TV news source; it is now in a statistical tie with CBS's 60 Minutes.
From 1996 to 2002, CNN was viewed as the most believable broadcast or cable outlet, but its ratings have fallen gradually over time. Today 32% of those able to rate CNN say they can believe all or most of what they see on the cable network. This is down from 37% is 2002, 39% in 2000, and a high of 42% in 1998. Ratings for 60 Minutes have remained relatively stable over that period, and today 33% of those who can rate it find the TV news magazine highly credible.
Just as CNN's credibility ratings have fallen, ratings for the major broadcast networks have declined as well. NBC News, ABC News and CBS News are rated about equally in terms of believability by the public. Among those able to rate NBC News, 24% find the network highly credible, down from a high of 30% in 1998. ABC News has followed an similar pattern: 24% view it as highly believable, compared with 31% in 1996. And CBS News has moved from 32% who saw it as believable in 1996 to 24% today.
4P: have you ever noticed that Vijay wears a shirt with Fortsman Little as his sponsor? When was the last time you bought anything from Fortsman Little? Give the guy some credit, he's not a pretty boy and doesn't act like one.
Let's be clear -- Vijay Singh made a comment about Annika Sorenstam. No one claimed the comment was misquoted or taken out of context. A lot of people disagreed with the quote. Singh apparently now no longer talks to AP reporter Doug Ferguson because the quote was reported -- even though he doesn't deny saying it.
I guess it makes sense Vijay may not talk to the media -- but it doesn't have anything to do with the reliability of the medium.
P.S. Notice that Huggan's question, the one that provoked such a nice reply, referred to his European experiences?
I asked a legitimate question ... since some folks here imply all media is suspect, where then does one get trustworthy information upon which to base the opinions being expressed here? And in following, how valid, then, are those opinions? And are not those statements subject to challenge?
Lumping golfwriters into the same category as the "drive-by" national press corps is unfair. I also notice many who visit this blog claim to know more about the inner workings of my profession than I. Where does that keen insight originate?
Credibility ratings for the media, as cited above, have nothing to do with this topic and are a red herring argument. The topic here is Vijay and his relationship with the golf media. While it occured more than 20 years ago, he has never offered a full explanation of the Indonesia Incident, so it stays on the table. In the court of public opinion, his years of silence do not make him look innocent, do they?
He could use a good media advisor. I'll bet he'd do much better in the endorsement income dept. if he was portrayed more favorably in the press. But perhaps he does not care.
If you strip away all of the opinion, the remaining fact is Vijay is not bound by law to love the media. And the same in the opposite direction, too.
4p
Joel, putting aside their irrelevance to the topic, why do you believe those polls? Weren't they reported in the media? How do you know what the questions were, or how the representative sample was selected?
Unless you're attending tournaments every week, walking freely around the ranges, and have access to the clubhouse, what you know about pro golfers comes from the media in one way or other. Believe what you want and reject what you want, but don't pretend that "media" are inherently a bad thing. Without 'em, you don't know nuthin'.
And don't pretend that Vijay isn't very handsomely compensated for putting "Forstmann Little" on his shirt.
Does he get the benefit of the doubt from the media? Clearly not. But, does he deserve it? Was the incident in Indonesia "disputed?" I've not seen any denials from the individuals involved. Is it ancient history? Perhaps, but people still write about Watson calling out Gary Player at the Skins Game about a million years ago. And you won't see a retrospective look at Jane Blalock's career without a mention of the ball marking incident.
As for the "credibility" of the golf media, I rarely see anything in the major daily paper in my town from the golf writer which I haven't already ready either here or on golfobserver.com. My local golf news arrives in a free publication that I pick up at golf courses in the District. That doesn't mean I don't think Mr. Sherman lacks credibility. I just don't think he tries hard enough to be out front with the views on the news in golf.
Finally, any comparisons to media in the days of Hogan and today are irrelevant. The amount of coveage which exists today dwarfs anything Ben or Byron ever had to deal with.
regarding that "disputed incident" over 20 years ago, golfworld (or golfdigest) did a panel discussion with four golf writers at the end of 2004 when Vijay won nine times. Can't remember who the four were (I think Doug Ferguson was one of them) but anyway, their consensus seemed to be that if Vijay went completely clear with the story he would be vindicated. I recall reading a while back from John Hawkins that he did a lengthy though off the record interview with Vijay and Hawkins seemed to come to the same conclusion. Seems to me Vijay has talked about the incident off the record.
One, the media today too often becomes the story. I wonder why that is. Are they not just supposed to report? I often think the media have become their own darlings. They compete with their subjects for the limelight. We see them injecting themselves into the story. Why is VJ's poor relationship with the media a "story"?
Secondly, we see a vindictiveness when athletes do not cooperate with the media. For instance, if VJ does not grant them time or is rude, we see stories that take shots and dare the athlete to publicly correct them. The mentioning of "misunderstandings" over the Asia Tour and Annika incidents that would be cleared up if only he would allow an interview. This theme is particularly umseemly.
One interesting element about the Asian Tour story I have yet to understand is why he was suspended for something that usually gets you DQed. Who made these decisions and why? Who has sought those people out to talk about that?
I get concerned when I see studies that seem to reflect declining trust in media reporting and opinion. The press reaction I often witness certainly is not reflective. Their seems to be a problem and they are determined to blame everyone else.
All this trust and mistrust reminds me of the great line in "Clear and Present Danger" when Jack Ryan confronts Ernesto Escobedo and tells him that his Security Chief (Cortez) is plotting to undermine his cartel. Cortez tells Ernesto "You can't trust this man (Ryan), he is in Intelligence (aka The CIA)", Ernesto replies to Cortez "YOU are in Intelligence ... " and then whacks him with a baseball bat ...
Kerry, reporting the news is one part of the media's job. Another part is interpreting the news it covers via opinion pieces, and that's why there is an editorial page and so many columnists. That's a columnists' job -- op ed. Don't confuse stupid opinions from attention-grabbing guys like Woody Paige, Skip Bayless, Jay Mariotti et al. for "shaping" news to fit an agenda. THEY are the ones who can't resist inserting themselves into a column -- Bayless has been doing this with arrogance for years.
But as has been asked before, where do you get the facts to base your opinions here if the majority of media does such a poor and inaccurate job of reporting? You seem to be fairly well informed. Why does your info come from, if not from an untrustworthy and self-serving media?
We also live in a time where media figures are being given awards for going to jail for not naming sources in outing an undercover government or quoting illegally leaked grand jury testimony. This is all acceptable because the First Amendment is much more important than national security or the justice system.
On another note, did anybody catch the brief shot of Steve Williams removing debris in Tiger's line on 16 yesterday? It was real quick but I believe he was (perhaps inadvertently) using the putter cover to do so.
Sorry, NRH, but this is an example of "Cum hoc ergo propter hoc" and "Non Sequitur" reasoning -- you have a nice combo of two types of fallacious logic.
The Amendments to the Constitution weren't written as options... but as jneu said, this isn't the place to argue Constitutional issues and political opinions.
And please stop trying to sell the concept Vijay and Annika got killed by the press for speaking their minds. They were toasted for what they said, and not because they spoke out.
Or would you have the media sit silent, like a group of Bobble-head dolls, while a-holes like John Rocker use the media to offend people? Everyone -- both sides -- is to be held accountable for their words. Period.
4p
Vijay said what he said about Annika and he meant it. The trouble is that reporters and columnists are dependant on athletes saying what they actualy think, yet when they do, what too often follows is a grand loud "Gotcha!" instead of more thoughtful follow-up. This was true with Vijay, and it was true with Tom Pernice last fall; the best way to deal with their comments is to quietly talk to people and get a sense of whether they're just speaking for themselves or if they're expressing a common opinion, instead of painting it as "A who's-he is calling out Tiger!!!" The latter is a very good way to make sure nobody says anything interesting (or true) ever again.
I am not selling anything, getting political (the basic framework of the Plame & Bonds cases are non partisan) or arguing; merely stating my opinion on the topic. My decision to do so was made somewhere between the second and third time the question was of how we would gather our information from without the media.
This is like paying homage to the guy who invented the toilet. Fine, I'll say it: "I take advantage of your contribution to society every single day and realize that life would be so much different without you. Thanks for everything."
However, the true answer to the question is that the paperboy is the one who makes it all possible. Or should I say paperman with the broken muffler on his '84 Civic?
I forgot that Rocker sought out Jeff Perlman for that interview. I wonder if he thanked the guy who put the phonebook together to get in touch with him. Wait, what...Pearlman sought out rocker? The same Pearlman who was three years removed from writing about food and fashion in Tennessee (huh?) and chose to publish words words that many people think but are afraid to say (hello Vijay) and watch the sh*t hit the fan? The same Pearlman who parlayed the Rocker story into two book deals (hey there Fainaru-Wada/Williams, you guys are here too)? Did you say your profits were going to charity? No? What a country. Yup, that Jeff Pearlman.
The Latin use is quite impressive, is there free wi-fi in Vatican City?
It's always a pleasure to read your posts. I love the last Latin quote.
Keep up the great work out there.
Pesonally, I'm in Smolmania's camp. I've tried to like the guyk but just can't be convinced.
Either way, thanks for displaying the professional integrity you've been harping about.
Your biggest problem is you falsely think you are clever and therefore can demean others who have differing opinions, even those who have a greater awareness than you.
I have read many of your postings here and that is your modus operandi -- to ridicule others by being condescending. You know what I do for a living -- so let me ask: are you one of those professional know-it-alls, or as an outsider are you so jealous you must bust balls?
Funny how you can dish it out, Bub -- but obviously, you can't take it.
I cited a few examples on the topic at hand and you come back with "kiss my ass" as a rebuttal? Greater awareness of what, the role of the press? Jealous of a golf writer? Only if your name is Dan Jenkins.
An outsider to what - the hallowed ground inside Tour ropes? Or the industry as a whole, which if you have read my posts you would know that is not the case?