Thoughts on the latest Golfweek cover?

« **on:** January 17, 2008, 01:39:55 PM »

What does the treehouse think of the recent cover with the noose? I think the story is TOTALLY blown out of proportion. Tiger and Kelly are friends, she meant no harm, he has forgiven her so move on. If we stop and do this everytime someone says something a little non-PC then this country will NEVER get over the racial divide.

« **Reply #1 on:** January 17, 2008, 01:45:18 PM »

I'd say it's a hell of a success... I don't know the proper term for it, but the recognition factor for Golfweek had to go up 500% already.

It's a top story right now on ESPN.com.

It's a business, isn't it, Jim?

TH

« **Reply #2 on:** January 17, 2008, 01:48:17 PM »

I say screw Golfweek. Why are they involved in such trash?

« **Reply #3 on:** January 17, 2008, 01:48:28 PM »

It is a business and this stuff does sell. I always tell my clients that the media is not their friend and this certainly is helping my point. Allthe magazines, newspapers, and TVcare about is ratings. If the truth falls in line somewhere so be it.

« **Reply #4 on:** January 17, 2008, 01:48:43 PM »

Its a perfect example of the press making press. Taking a slow month and turning it into a huge issue that is blown totally out of proporation.

The fact is nobody (except the press and Al Sharpton) gives a shit. If you saw the clip, its so minor it doesn't deserve coverage.

« **Reply #5 on:** January 17, 2008, 01:51:42 PM »

I'm not crazy about the image of a noose, that's for sure. Beyond the already scary lynching correlation, there are countless suicides by hanging every year and it's a disturbing image to see. I'm in agreement that this story has metastasized to a ridiculous degree already, but journalists have to cover the news and I don't think that it's possible for a golf magazine to "blow this issue out of proportion", since it's already in that realm. The story has become one of those crazy stories with "legs", probably because it has been fueled by those people who have a vested interest in keeping racial issues in the public eye and by people in the blogosphere who are fanning the flames for their own purposes. Right or wrong, there's no doubt that this is a story that continues to percolate and Golfweek and the other golf publications have a duty to cover it, even if it means it's on the cover in some fashion.

« **Reply #6 on:** January 17, 2008, 01:53:07 PM »

Golfweek showed incredibly poor taste.

« **Reply #7 on:** January 17, 2008, 01:53:24 PM »

Terry:

I agree. However, was the noose image necessary in their coverage of the story?

Cynicism is not my thing, but it's tough to avoid it here.

TH

« **Reply #8 on:** January 17, 2008, 01:55:04 PM »

Quote from: Tom Huckaby on January 17, 2008, 01:53:24 PM

Terry:

I agree. However, was the noose image necessary in their coverage of the story?

Cynicism is not my thing, but it's tough to avoid it here.

TH

No, the noose is certainly not necessary and in the context of a sports magazine, I think they would have been better advised to go with a more neutral image. I know that they debated this issue internally and other, even scarier, images were considered. One thing's for certain, it is a controversian image and a cover that won't be soon forgotten.

« **Reply #9 on:** January 17, 2008, 01:56:27 PM »

I am not sure that I have the words to describe the cover. Inappropriate. Wrong. Stupid. Idiotic. Arrogant. Insensitive. Asinine.

« **Reply #10 on:** January 17, 2008, 01:57:32 PM »

Quote from: Eric Olsen on January 17, 2008, 01:56:27 PM

I am not sure that I have the words to describe the cover. Inappropriate. Wrong. Stupid. Idiotic. Arrogant. Insensitive. Asinine.

That's a good start.

« **Reply #11 on:** January 17, 2008, 01:58:16 PM »

Agreed 100% again, Terry. Thus I'd say in the context of the magazine business this is a huge success (as I wrote before).

The ethics, responsibility and taste of the matter remain in question. But one can't deny that it has put Golfweek more on the map than it ever has been... can one? (I ask because I really don't know how "on the map" Golfweek was prior to this).

TH

« **Reply #12 on:** January 17, 2008, 01:58:58 PM »

Jim,

I must have been thinking the same thing as you after seeing this cover.

I apologize I didn't see your thread already started on this subject when I posted mine.

Golfweek,

What were you thinking? Why pile on after the fact? The image on the cover is just plain CLASSLESS and unnecessary.

I understand that this magazine reports on issues in golf, but with such a hot button topic, shouldn't there have been more care and thought put into the coverage of this. Tilghman's comment and subsequent suspension would've eased their way out of the spotlight soon enough. The coverage was extensive already without this photo/article likely to further fan the flames.

I find the use of the image on the cover to be more reprehensible than the original comment itself.

**I've asked for my similar thread to be deleted.**

« **Reply #13 on:** January 17, 2008, 01:59:29 PM »

It goes on my cancel my subscription list...How's that for business?

« **Reply #14 on:** January 17, 2008, 02:00:32 PM »

Quote from: Eric Olsen on January 17, 2008, 01:56:27 PM

I am not sure that I have the words to describe the cover. Inappropriate. Wrong. Stupid. Idiotic. Arrogant. Insensitive. Asinine.

Tit for tat, I suppose, but hyperbolic is one way to describe your reaction, but to each his/her own.

« **Reply #15 on:** January 17, 2008, 02:02:04 PM »

Quote from: JSlonis on January 17, 2008, 01:58:58 PM

Jim,

I must have been thinking the same thing as you after seeing this cover.

I apologize I didn't see your thread already started on this subject when I posted mine.

I was surprised that the topic was not raised earlier. No need to apologize, but Golfweek...that's another story.

« **Reply #16 on:** January 17, 2008, 02:04:10 PM »

Quote from: Terry Lavin on January 17, 2008, 02:00:32 PM

Quote from: Eric Olsen on January 17, 2008, 01:56:27 PM
I am not sure that I have the words to describe the cover. Inappropriate. Wrong. Stupid. Idiotic. Arrogant. Insensitive. Asinine.

Tit for tat, I suppose, but hyperbolic is one way to describe your reaction, but to each his/her own.

Hypberbolic. That's funny, as I really felt I was being understated.

« **Reply #17 on:** January 17, 2008, 02:09:44 PM »

Finchmen said it best, why inflame a story that was running its course, and coming to it's own conclusion?

Golfweek claims they did it because this issue needs more dialog...hey, why not a little dialog on how the golf industry continues to turn its back on private clubs that perpetuate sexism and racism through their memberships?

« **Reply #18 on:** January 17, 2008, 02:13:00 PM »

Preferred by Serious Golfers???

Not this one anymore.

« **Reply #19 on:** January 17, 2008, 02:15:07 PM »

As an avid reader of inumerable distasteful publications, I am neither easily offended nor an arbiter of good taste. However, the cover (and the intent behind it) seems even less defensible than the unfortunate remark that started this whole contraversy.

« **Reply #20 on:** January 17, 2008, 02:16:48 PM »

I think it's a bad cover but their goal is to sell magazines and get people talking about Golfweek, I guess they've done that.

« **Reply #21 on:** January 17, 2008, 02:19:03 PM »

"Their goal is to sell magazines and get people talking about Golfweek..."

Hmmmm...I wonder if that comes right from their Mission Statement"?

« **Reply #22 on:** January 17, 2008, 02:25:14 PM »

Quote from: Craig Sweet on January 17, 2008, 02:19:03 PM

"Their goal is to sell magazines and get people talking about Golfweek..."

Hmmmm...I wonder if that comes right from their Mission Statement"?

Again, I think the cover is not good but when was the last time they were on the front page of ESPN?

« **Reply #23 on:** January 17, 2008, 02:25:56 PM »

I think it is in poor taste - and this is why they did it - everyone is mentioning the publication by name.

http://sports.espn.go.com/golf/news/story?id=3201070

« **Reply #24 on:** January 17, 2008, 02:29:33 PM »

The noose is an appalling image. There is no good reason to place such a prominent a picture of one on the cover. Kelly's remarks were insensitive and obviously not well thought out. They snuck out before she could think. The editor's of Golfweek did have time to think and went for sensationalism. I checked with some of my African/American friends and they are more sickened by the Golfweek image than Kelly's misstatement.

News:

Jim Franklin

Tom Huckaby

Garland Bayley

Jim Franklin

Joel_Stewart

tlavin

Phil Benedict

Tom Huckaby

tlavin

Eric Olsen

Jim Franklin

Tom Huckaby

JSlonis

Eric Olsen

tlavin

Jim Franklin

Eric Olsen

Craig Sweet

Allan Long

Jeff Spittel

Sam Morrow

Craig Sweet

Sam Morrow

Ian Andrew

Tommy Williamsen