[Mac Plumart]

I just saw this...

http://www.golfcoursearchitecture.net/Article/Doak-to-deliver-new-courses-guide/2502/Default.aspx

This idea isn't new news, Tom has been and is talking about it online.  Perhaps this link and information has already been posted, but just in case...here it is.

Oh yeah, I think we might recognize the name of the article's author.  

[Jim Colton]

Man, I just picked up an old version for $15 and soon it's going to be terribly out of date.

[Sam Morrow]

Scott Warren? I'm gonna do a background check on him, I think he's full of it.

[Tom_Doak]

I'm a bit bothered that this has been printed as "news" elsewhere, complete with quotes that are just cut and pasted off this web site, as though I was doing an interview or something.  At least I have been smart enough not to share too much of the juicy details.

At best the book will be out in two years, so a news article is a bit premature.  I guess it just goes to show how little there is to talk about in golf course architecture right now!

[Mac Plumart]

Huh?

I was under the impression you did an interview for that article.  My bad.  Maybe I shouldn't have posted it.

[John Kavanaugh]

For those in the know, what would Scott get paid for an article like this?  Are journalistic ethics being violated by not citing sources?

Who was the poster that use to put a disclaimer after every post to prevent this very thing?

[JR Potts]

I have to admit that I was taken a bit back by this article and the quotes as well.  I know there is at least one "journalist" who uses this site and the thoughts of others on this board as the basis for his articles but I thought that was an isolated event.  Troubling precedent.

[John Kavanaugh]

I have to admit that I was taken a bit back by this article and the quotes as well.  I now there is at least one "journalist" who uses this site and others thoughts as the basis for his articles but I thought that was an isolated event.  Troubling precedent.

JR,

I look for you to be quoted in the upcoming Ryder Cup coverage.

[JR Potts]

I have to admit that I was taken a bit back by this article and the quotes as well.  I now there is at least one "journalist" who uses this site and others thoughts as the basis for his articles but I thought that was an isolated event.  Troubling precedent.

JR,

I look for you to be quoted in the upcoming Ryder Cup coverage.

Hence the lack of information being posted.

Consider it a social experiment...I want to see how much these guys get wrong based upon 06 info.

BTW - JK, I see that you haven't played my place...that needs to change in 2013.

[Howard Riefs]

Indeed.  I read the article expecting to come across a sourcing of "Doak said on the Golf Club Atlas website, a popular destination for golf architecture discussion."

Then I re-read it in case I glanced over it on the first pass.

No such luck.  

[John Crowley]

Tom,
I just read the Warren article and I recognized every quote from your posts on the CG thread.
The author seemed to be writing in an " interview voice" but to readers of the thread it was obviously not.
This illustrates our new world - when you put something out in the ether there is no telling where it will end up or in what form.

It is what it is. There is no going back. Hope this doesn't inhibit your willingness to participate in GCA.
John

[Scott Warren]

Tom,

Don't be coy, we all know the fact you're working on this book is big news to those interested in and involved with the business of golf architecture.

As for the suggestion that the article paints your quotes as coming from an interview, any reader who draws that conclusion is projecting that themselves. The article makes no such suggestion.

And of course you didn't release all the juicy details up front -- building hype is all about drip feeding tidbits periodically, which of course you are exceptional at.

The fact of the matter is that Tom Doak announced publicly that he is working on an updated Confidential Guide and that information was reported. The method of releasing that information is really immeterial. As for the absence of a "said on GCA.com...", re-reporting from another journalist/publication's work is one thing, quoting an anouncement/release is entirely another.

It's great news for fans of golf architecture and -- buried within a thread listing Doak 9s and 10s -- there are a great deal of people who hadn't seen the announcement in the few days between Tom making it and my reporting it.

EDIT - http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,52854.msg1213957.html#msg1213957

[Mark Bourgeois]

Scott,

I disagree: the "method" never is immaterial. Unless you spoke directly with Doak, you are lifting quotes from someone purporting to be Doak but who could be an associate, flack, et al, posting under his name. Therefore the board and not Doak is the source.

Did you reach out directly to Doak to confirm or get the comments directly? There is no mention of this in the piece.

Doing a little legwork like that and adding detail such as how you sourced the comments would have provided the credibility to the piece, the reporter, and the publication. Without such, the piece diminishes credibility.

I'm both surprised and disappointed the editor let all this slip, too.

[Dan Herrmann]

Scott - I think you blew it with your quotes.  To me, it borders on being unethical.

If it were me, I'd ask that the article be removed from the website, and even issue an apology there.

[Tom_Doak]

Tom,

Don't be coy, we all know the fact you're working on this book is big news to those interested in and involved with the business of golf architecture.

As for the suggestion that the article paints your quotes as coming from an interview, any reader who draws that conclusion is projecting that themselves. The article makes no such suggestion.

And of course you didn't release all the juicy details up front -- building hype is all about drip feeding tidbits periodically, which of course you are exceptional at.

The fact of the matter is that Tom Doak announced publicly that he is working on an updated Confidential Guide and that information was reported. The method of releasing that information is really immeterial. As for the absence of a "said on GCA.com...", re-reporting from another journalist/publication's work is one thing, quoting an anouncement/release is entirely another.

It's great news for fans of golf architecture and -- buried within a thread listing Doak 9s and 10s -- there are a great deal of people who hadn't seen the announcement in the few days between Tom making it and my reporting it.

Scott:

Don't be coy?  Okay.  Cutting and pasting my posts from this web site and calling it "reporting" is bullshit.  You didn't bother to call me to actually ask any questions or to see if the posts were mine or if I cared that you were going to put them out there.  And including some controversial quotes from the original book is just trying to stir up trouble -- which you seem to spend a lot of your time here trying to do.

(Come to think of it, that's why a lot of people dislike reporters!)

I'm also surprised that Adam Lawrence posted the article.  He's on Golf Club Atlas enough to know that most of that stuff was just lifted from here, and as an editor he ought to be sure to credit the source.

[Scott Warren]

Tom,

They were out there. You put them out there. I simply reported them. And to be perfectly frank, I don't really care that you're claiming to be put out. You have been around long enough to realise that by announcing (at length) your plan to update the book, you would create interest and, potentially, discussion.

I included the quotes from the original versions to illustrate why it was considered a controversial book (which your own comments referred to).

The source was credited -- you were the source. If the information were sourced from one of Ran's course reviews or from a Golf Club Atlas IMO piece, I'd have been sure to cite that as the source. In this case you were personally the source, announcing your intention to re-release the book.

I should have checked that the posts were yours? How often do you allow other people log into this website under your username and post under the guise of it being you?

EDIT -- http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,52854.msg1213957.html#msg1213957

[PCCraig]

I have to admit that I was taken a bit back by this article and the quotes as well.  I know there is at least one "journalist" who uses this site and the thoughts of others on this board as the basis for his articles but I thought that was an isolated event.  Troubling precedent.

At least Scott didn't start a new thread with the sole purpose of driving traffic to the article on another site. That's an improvement.

[Tom_Doak]

So, let me be clear about this:  anything I say on this web site can be quoted by you in any context, without referring to where and how I said it?  If I critiqued someone's course here, you would just post that and say I was being critical of some architect directly as if you'd asked me about it for print?

You should work on political advertising.

[Scott Warren]

No, Tom, not "quoted in any context", quoted solely in the context in which it was provided.

As regards your "if I critiqued someone's course..." hypothetical, the context of that critique and any other relevant information that explained the situation would be necessary.

Do you feel that, in the example linked in the OP, your announcement was "taken out of context"? If so, how? What context was omitted?

[Rich Goodale]

Tom is completely right and rightfully aggrieved.  Let's hope the article is swiftly removed from the .net website and we can move on to more pleasant things.

Rich

[Carson Pilcher]

Wait for just a second!  Could you all please hold off for just a minute while I go get a bowl of popcorn?

[Tom Dunne]

Scott,

GCA.com should have been mentioned as the source at first-mention. That would do the trick. Your obligation is to the readers of Golf Course Architecture--saying "any reader who draws that conclusion is projecting that themselves" isn't nearly good enough. It's your job to eliminate gray areas whenever possible. Fortunately, the beauty of the Internet age is that the post can be amended, if desired.

That said, while it might make for a better or more accurate story, Scott is not (in my opinion) obliged to contact Tom Doak to find out if he typed those posts under his own name on this website. Traditionally, that would be the job of the publication's fact-checker. Absent one, which is common in these times (thanks again, Internet), it should be safe to assume that posts arriving on this site under Doak's name can be attributed to him. Scott also does not need Tom's permission to include those quotes in a story any more than Bill Simmons needs permission to quote a Chris Bosh tweet. This is a public forum.

[Scott Warren]

I considered an "announced on GCA.com" but ultimately decided it was unnecessary. Certainly understand those who think the article could have used it, but not those who claim the article itself was out of line. I've noted the dispute with GCA Magazine and the editor may well choose to alter the article if he thinks it necessary.

But it is almost midnight here and I'm putting the cue in the rack and heading to bed.

EDIT - http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,52854.msg1213957.html#msg1213957

[Ted Sturges]

That said, while it might make for a better or more accurate story, Scott is not (in my opinion) obliged to contact Tom Doak to find out if he typed those posts under his own name on this website. Traditionally, that would be the job of the publication's fact-checker. Absent one, which is common in these times (thanks again, Internet), it should be safe to assume that posts arriving on this site under Doak's name can be attributed to him. Scott also does not need Tom's permission to include those quotes in a story any more than Bill Simmons needs permission to quote a Chris Bosh tweet. This is a public forum.

But... all of what you mention above is what is wrong with journalism today. "Professional" journalists from yesteryear would never "quote a tweet" (NO WAY to know who has possession of someone's phone), or be so lazy as to insert quotes in an article that were taken from a website and not directly from the source.  It's unprofessional and it's lazy. The worst part is this sort of thing could cause Tom and others to stop participating in the discussion group on this site, which potentially hurts the site as well as all of us who participate.

TS

[Cliff Hamm]

GCA has lost many of its best posters.  If Tom Doak were to leave or decide he can never say anything with a modicum of controversy it would be a devastating loss.  No one should have to fear that their words will be lifted from Golf Club Atlas and be posted somewhere else.  It is simply wrong.  The article should be removed.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()