Thoughts on the latest Golfweek cover?

[Jason Connor]

a) It annoys me that Golf Week even made a journalist a story. That seems self important.  Journalists tell the story, they aren't the story.

b) But if Tilghman's comments were insensitive, hurtful or brought up painful memories for a large portion of America, how do Golf Week's images not?

And I'd wager to say that more people saw the Golf Week cover than heard Tilghman's TGC passing comments.  

It seems this is silly adult "tattling" to me.  I picture a kid running to his mom, "Mommy, Jimmy said a bad word."

Perhaps Tilghman's comments were inappropriate and more importantly painful.  Assuming we as a society believe that, and I am willing to defer to the minority members of this board in believing they were, then other journalists repeating them over and over, even in quotes, is equally hurtful and therefore inappropriate.  Because the more the words are repeated, the more people hear them, and the more people are hurt by them.

So I suppose she should have silently been suspended and no other outlets should have reported the non-story.  That would seem to (a) give her the punishment she supposedly deserves (Im not saying whether I agree or not) but (b) also protects those potentially hurt by those words from hearing them again.

[Mike Mosely]

You're absolutely right, Jason.  I've heard from more casual golf fans about this than ever before.  People that don't follow golf were downright incensed and wondering what they were thinking - especially with Kelly's penalty so fresh in everyone's mind.

I think GW showed remarkably poor judgment in running that cover...it's almost like they wanted the bad press, but underestimated how much vitriol there would be, but that is no excuse.  Somebody there should have said that the idea lacked grace, tact and wisdom and instead GW traded those virtues for what appeared to some misguided people as a fast buck and name recognition.

They should have known that there would be a backlash and a serious one at that...if they just thought they could play the "it's journalism" card and get a free pass, then they really need someone else in the editor's chair who has the wisdom to know the difference.  

My only hope is that the actual person responsible for the idea took the fall.  If Dave was outvoted or somehow overruled, he should not have been fired and the person who came up with the idea should have taken the fall.  If Dave was responsible and pushed it forward, then he should go.

[Jason Connor]

And Kelly said something off the top of her head / unscripted at the end of a 4.5 hour long live telecast. All of which makes forgiveness far easier, IMO.

Golf Week's actions however were obviously well thought out, very calculated, and there was plenty of time and people who may have terminated this decision during the editorial process.  That makes their decision far worse.

[Kalen Braley]

One thing is for sure, GolfWeek must have known this would be controversial at the very least, and even offensive to many.

All this being said, couldn't they have sprung a little bit of cash to invest in a couple of focus groups first to see just how much?  Or did they really just fall asleep at the wheel?

[Matt_Ward]

Kalen:

Using your reasoning any critical subject covered by media  should float a Gallup poll to see what shakes out before running with it. That's truly mindboggling in your understandng (with all due respect lack thereof) of what a free and robust media should do.

I can name numerous news breaking stories that were clearly important but would not have been acceptable when first reported.

[tlavin]

The title of this thread is "thoughts", not "rants".  Let's remain grounded in reality and let's not swim in a hypocrite's pool.  As a previous poster alluded to, there isn't one objectionable WORD in the entire Golfweek issue.  They used bad cover art, offensive cover art, stupid cover art, but the journalism inside the cover is top notch.  Seanor was a sacrificial lamb.  Too many here seem to enjoy the sight of his blood.  Read his editorial and tell me if he had any ill will in his heart.

[tlavin]

And, come to think of it, the last person to so prominently use the word lynch[ing] is now a member of the Supreme Court of the United states.  It's okay for Clarence Thomas to use the race/victim card and say his hearing was a high tech lynching.  Hell, yes, give him the top law job in the land, but fire an editor who used a picture of a noose.  What a country!

[JESII]

Can we walk through the Clarence Thomas thing? I am too young to remember the deal...

Was his use of the term strategically designed to guilt people into backing off the Anita Hill(?) story? Or was clumsily stating his opinion of the events taking place?

[tlavin]

When the media firestorm erupted after Anita Hill's testimony before Congress, Thomas angrily lashed out at the "high tech lynching" that he was receiving in Congress and in the media.  His use of the combo race/victim card was ingenious and transparently inappropriate to everybody who knows anything about law because Thomas's creed is to basically have nothing to do with affirmative action even though he went to Yale as a result of affirmative action and he earned pretty much every position he occupied as a form of affirmative action combined with a dab of merit.  The polticians and the media were too afraid to take on a black man who was accusing them of a technological lynching, so everybody backed down and now we have this half wit on the Supreme Court for the rest of his natural life.

[JESII]

Terry,

Did he really get into Yale as a result of affirmative action?

[tlavin]

I'm sure that's debatable.  What's not debatable is that he received various federal appointments because of his race.  His chief sponsor John Danforth, Republican from Missouri is on record about that.

My main reason for bringing up this unfortunate jurist is just to highlight a glaring double standard that undeniably exists.  This is akin to Chris Rock being able to say something that gets Don Imus fired, but the Clarence Thomas incident is even more evocative: we have people fairly applauding the firing of a man who stupidly used a photo of a noose to illustrate his magazine's very fair reporting of a misstatement that somebody else made, and this happens in a country where a black man invokes the word lynching to get a job on the supreme court.  Go figure.

[JESII]

Is it possible that Clarence Thomas simply had a better pulse on the sensitivities to racial discourse in the public than Don Imus, Kelly Tilghman, and Dave Seanor?

If that is possible, why do you think that is? Could it be that he is the only one that is black?

[Jason McNamara]

JES, Thomas did graduate from Holy Cross with Latin honors, so Terry's use of "half-wit" is a bit of hyperbole here.  Maybe Terry's a bit cranky because the recent Stoneridge decision is going to keep a lot of money out of trial lawyer pockets.

Kalen, there probably wasn't any time to focus group the cover - not that I think they should have.

Otherwise, what Jason Connor said.  GW's move was willful and beyond stupid.

[tlavin]

JES, Thomas did graduate from Holy Cross with Latin honors, so Terry's use of "half-wit" is a bit of hyperbole here.  Maybe Terry's a bit cranky because the recent Stoneridge decision is going to keep a lot of money out of trial lawyer pockets.

Outed as a hyperbolic poster!  Bottom line, Thomas certainly has academic street cred, but his spot on the supreme court is another example of the cynical Bush building on the court:  the republican party can boast that it put a black man on the court, but when it comes to his judicial decisions, Thomas is no friend of blacks or other minorities.

Despite being hostile to the legal predicaments of minority groups, Thomas has always been willing to play the race/victim card.  His most recent blather in this regard was his book where he whined incessantly about being a victim of racism.  He angrily defended himself on 60 minutes.

So is he smart?  Sure, he's smart.  I'm just a little fender bender lawyer and he's a high and mighty supreme court justice, but he got there through the type of favoritism that he routinely slams in his decisions and in his writing.  That is hypocrisy, plain and simple.

There's no doubting the fact he is a survivor.  He made it to the high court despite his life of sorrows and he survived a lynching, albeit an invented, high-tech media lynching.

[Jason McNamara]

when it comes to his judicial decisions, Thomas is no friend of blacks or other minorities.

Friendship (or animus) towards one group or another would be a really lousy reason for picking a SC judge, don't you think?

Thomas has always been willing to play the race/victim card. His most recent blather in this regard was his book where he whined incessantly about being a victim of racism.

I don't have the book, but it sounds like you do - could you provide some specific (incessant) examples?

I'm just a little fender bender lawyer

Aw shucks.  Next you'll tell us your dad was a millworker in South Carolina.  

but he got [to the SC] through the type of favoritism that he routinely slams in his decisions and in his writing.  That is hypocrisy, plain and simple.

The ironic thing is that after Yale, he apparently had trouble finding a job because of -others'- perceptions about affirmative action.  Sure he got that initial job with John Danforth because of affirmative action, just not in the way most people think.

Anyway, add what you like, and this thread can go away.