I don't know if this is where this discussion was going, but I do find it interesting that with the "renaissance" of golf architecture and relevance of sites and discussion groups like GCA, the golf magazines (Golf and GD at least) seem to still recommend the same venues and resorts in their travel articles.
Yes, many of the recent great courses built are private, but why wouldn't they try to explore a few untested or remote regions like Montana, Edmonton/Calgary, or Maine? They could focus on an older course that presents solid design values as opposed to the resort courses with water carries and flower beds.
Most golf travelers are looking for quick hit golf vacations, long weekends with the boys to break up a long stretch at work, etc... it's the key to Myrtle's success. There are many towns in this country of ours (and Canada) that have three or four courses worth playing, and I get disappointed when I open a new golf mag. and the travel article covers Tampa, Orlando, Scottsdale and Vegas for the thousandth time. I also cannot consider a new upscale public that no doubt has gotten at least some good regional press a "hidden gem." At least Links and some of the local magazines (Golf Boston for me) are starting to express alternate ideas.
The caveat is that your average golfer might just want to hit Orlando, Vegas or Scottdale, as opposed to a more golf-centric long weekend without Mickey or casinos, but I'm sure they'd be open when told the hotel and golf would probably be cheaper in some of these more remote locales......