[George Pazin]

So no critics can actually get involved in their field of expertise? Seems a bit extreme to me.

As long as the positions are open, and the critic isn't "reviewing" the end product under the guise of an independent review, I don't see the problem.

[Dan Kelly]

So no critics can actually get involved in their field of expertise? Seems a bit extreme to me.

As long as the positions are open, and the critic isn't "reviewing" the end product under the guise of an independent review, I don't see the problem.

George --

Are you replying to me?

Because if you are, you're paraphrasing me incorrectly.

What I said was: A critic can't get involved in the business he's criticizing without creating for himself a conflict of interest.

I'll leave it to others to decide if it's an unacceptable conflict.

Dan

[Rick Shefchik]

How do you explain the fact that the NY Times Book Review uses authors to review other authors?

George -- I'll field this one. Authors asked by newspapers to review other books are clearly labled as non-staff contributers. They don't make their living as book reviewers (though, come to think of John Updike probably took in almost as much from book reviews as he did from royalties in some years); they are, for lack of a better term, guest columnists, invited by the paper to express an opinion on their field of expertise.

That's a much different arrangement than a staff critic making money on the side in the same field he's criticizing -- and it's also different, to my way of thinking, because an author can't expect to influence his own book sales by criticizing another author. The writing marketplace is simply to big for that.

But the main point is that there's nothing hidden from the reader under that kind of a publishing arrangement. You know that the author writing the review makes his living as an author, and his comments about another author are relevant to that extent. In the case of a theater critic producing a play or an architecture critic designing a golf course, the public is generally not aware that the critic has a financial stake in the success or failure of the people he's writing about.

And the entire question is based on the publication's credibility, much more so than the critic's. It's the magazine or newspaper that will suffer if and when the public realizes that the journalism it is running might have been produced for motives other than simply presenting information.

Just ask CBS.

[T_MacWood]

Dan
Does Matt Ward have a conflict of interest criticizing a fellow editor (Ron Whitten) of a competing golf magazine (GD)?

Do you have a conflict of intertest criticising another magazine or newspaper editor (Ron Whitten)?

If Tom Fazio disagrees with Ron Whitten's assessment or finds fault with the article, he can respond to it (there are numberous forums he could do so in). RW should be held accountable for his views, if he is wrong or reasoning is not sound, make your case (TFazio) why he is wrong...don't tell him can't be critical now that he moonlights.

There will be very little learned if we do not allow intelligent give and take from competing professionals....thank God Simpson, Behr, MacKenzie and Travis were not paralyzed by our current politcal correctness. I want my most intelligent, passionate and experienced golf architectural minds designing and anaylzing, not choosing one or the other.

"- The critic's interest as a critic is to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth about his opinions of the golf courses he sees and plays, and about his opinions of the architects of those golf courses. (Never mind that it rarely works out that way.)"

That sounds like a description of a witness under oath, not a critic. A critic is simply giving his expert opinion--and an opinion is not the truth, its one man's opinion. If Tom Fazio or CB Macdonald or Tom Doak or Ron Whitten, does not like or agree with the critics assessment, he is free to disagree and explain why...that way we all benefit. What is wrong with intelligent discourse? Let the best argument take the day.

"-- The critic's interest as a designer/co-designer/consultant is to get additional designer/co-designer/consultant jobs down the line."

The same passion and expertise that drives and guides the critic, making him successful, is the same passion and expertise that will make him a successful designer/consultant. In both cases he is still open to criticism (he doesn't offer critique or design in a vacuum). If you don't like what he writes or what he designs, criticize him. No need to stiffle his passion or expertise by making him choose one or the other...most people are honest and guided by principle...those who are not, will be exposed becasue their arguement will not hold water.

[T_MacWood]

Rick
Golf architecture has its own precedence to guide them, I would not advise them to use modern newspapers or network news shows as their model. Politics and politcal correctness is not what is needed in analyzing an artistic endeavor like golf architecture.

Golf architecture need only to look at Hutchinson, Tillinghast, Travis and Behr as their guide, and the open and intelligent discourse they produced.

[Jeff_Brauer]

This may have been noted, as I haven't read the entire thread, but I saw Ron Friday.  He not only gave Fazio a chance to respond, but read him the entire article over the phone to be sure he thought it was fair.  He doesn't have to do that as an author, but did want to give Tom a fair shake to air his rebuttle.  We have to presume Fazio was okay with the article.

I think the difference in critiquing a golf course of a fellow professional vs. a work of art or literature is that stand alone works of art all start in the same place - the author/artists mind and do only one thing - read well or look good.  As a gca, I would prefer any others critiquing my work to at least know all the conditions that affected the final design of the golf course.  It may not matter to the average golfer.

I shy away from any deep critiques of others work.  The few times I have even hinted at some other ways to do things, it comes across badly.  And, face it, its hard for gca types not to start, create and end a critique with "It's not exactly the way I would have done it."  On par, I think critiquing a course well is one job, designing one well is another.  Sort of like pro golfers being designers - just because you the skill to hit a ball, most think you should have design skill, but it isn't always the case.

[Dan Kelly]

Does Matt Ward have a conflict of interest criticizing a fellow editor (Ron Whitten) of a competing golf magazine (GD)?

Even granting you your ludicrous premise (that The Jersey Golfer and Golf Digest are "competing golf magazines"): No. What conflict of interest do you see?

Do you have a conflict of intertest criticising another magazine or newspaper editor (Ron Whitten)?

Ditto. (And just for the record: I have not criticized Ron Whitten in this thread, and don't intend to.)

RW should be held accountable for his views, if he is wrong or reasoning is not sound, make your case (TFazio) why he is wrong...don't tell him can't be critical now that he moonlights.

I didn't tell him he can't be critical now that he moonlights.

I didn't tell him he can't moonlight.

ALL I SAID is that he has a conflict of interest in being both a critic and a producer of golf-course designs. It's not up to me to JUDGE that conflict; it's up to Mr. Whitten's employer.

There will be very little learned if we do not allow intelligent give and take from competing professionals....thank God Simpson, Behr, MacKenzie and Travis were not paralyzed by our current politcal correctness. I want my most intelligent, passionate and experienced golf architectural minds designing and anaylzing, not choosing one or the other.

Good. That's your opinion. You've decided that the benefits of the conflict of interest are greater than its costs. You might be right; I, for one, certainly haven't said you're wrong.

I can't see that this has ANYTHING to do with "political correctness."

"- The critic's interest as a critic is to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth about his opinions of the golf courses he sees and plays, and about his opinions of the architects of those golf courses. (Never mind that it rarely works out that way.)"

That sounds like a description of a witness under oath, not a critic. A critic is simply giving his expert opinion--and an opinion is not the truth, its one man's opinion.

Please reread what I wrote. I wrote: "The critic's interest as a critic is to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth about his opinions of the golf courses he sees and plays, and about his opinions of the architects of those golf courses."

I said the critic's job was to tell the truth ABOUT HIS OPINIONS (emphasis added, because apparently I must).

It is my OPINION that a critic engaged in the business will have an EVEN HARDER TIME expressing his true opinions than he had as an independent critic.

If you don't like what he writes or what he designs, criticize him. No need to stiffle his passion or expertise by making him choose one or the other...most people are honest and guided by principle...those who are not, will be exposed becasue their arguement will not hold water.

I want to make it very, very clear that I am not talking about Ron Whitten now:

(1) Most people are honest and guided by principle? Do you really believe that? If you do, I understand why you take the position you do.

I, personally, believe that most people are as honest and guided by principle as they can afford to be.

(2) Imagine, for just a moment, that you're a golf-architecture critic. Imagine that you decide to branch out into the business -- with, say, some co-designer or consultant gigs. You take a consultant job with Architect A. You do the job. The course is finished. Naturally and properly, you recuse yourself from writing a review. Six months later, Architect A finishes another course. You go to play it. You think it's a pile of crap.

As honest and guided by principle as you (and many others) undoubtedly are, Tom MacWood: Wouldn't you find it difficult to say it's a pile of crap? Might you not be tempted to trim the sharp edges off your opinions of those with whom you're worked, and of those with whom you might someday work -- even as, even without meaning to, you sharpen the edges of your opinions of those with whom you've concluded you'll never work?

 


 

[Rick Shefchik]

Tom -- I'm all for GD, GW or G (or L or SI) hiring Tom Doak, Tom Fazio, Mike Strantz, Ben Crenshaw, Bill Coore, Gil Hanse, Jeff Brauer or Rees Jones to write guest pieces praising or bashing the hell out of each other, or simply analyzing each other's work with no thumbs-up or thumbs-down position taken. We'd all learn a lot, and the scholarship in the field of golf course architecture would be the better for it.

As editor of one of those magazines, however, I'd have to draw the line at one of my in-house reporter/critics dabbling in the field he covers, for pay. That's not political correctness. That's conflict of interest.

[Matt_Ward]

Dan:

Well said indeed.

The issue is one of being the "umpire" and "baseball player." You can't be both if you want to ensure the credibility of either.

Clearly, in your last sentences in your previous post -- you hit the nail squarely in the head. Once a person goes beyond his relationship with a person in one course what happens to future reviews when they are no longer involved? Does the person providing the review really provide their most candid assessments in all future projects connected to that architect. Do they simply recuse themselves and what happens if the recusals start piling up. What is the purpose then in having an architectural critic?

Or do they hold back? And, even if they do fire away freely, isn't it just as likely the people reading who know of the previous "consultancy" will stilll question the veracity of the person no matter how fair or unfair that might be?

Jeff B:

Well said -- it's best for those on the media side to understand their role and avoid the crossovers. Although, I would love to see an architect's survey for the 100 greatest courses. Be interesting to see what major differences exist and any reasoning that would be included.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Matt,

I may be wrong, but I think it was the ASGCA who pioneered the idea of the modern 100 with the USA today a dozen years ago, figuring more of our guys could make that list, and fewer could make one including old courses that are classics.  Brad can correct me.

However, within our group, the debates about what courses would make the list in house was hopeless.  It would have to be almost like an all star roster, where Jeff Brauer's of the group had to get at least one course on the list, even if it was not exactly worthy.

The whole process reminded me of an old Doonesbury cartoon strip where student delegates protesting the Vietnam war tried to settle on a resolution condemming the US involvement.  However, various groups actually favored the war, others has specific language concerns, etc.  In the end, they were able to resolve only that "War is bad."

We can't judge ourselves.  We can't really judge others in the biz, because in so doing, we are inadvertantly elevating ourselves or putting down others, perhaps without meaning to.  Best just to leave the turd on the sidewalk......

[T_MacWood]

New Jersey Golf and Golf Digest are competing golf magazines...if Ron Whitten has a conflictm of interest criticizing a competing architect (TFazio) then Matt Ward has conflict of interest in criticizing a competing editor/writer.

"ALL I SAID is that he has a conflict of interest in being both a critic and a producer of golf-course designs. It's not up to me to JUDGE that conflict; it's up to Mr. Whitten's employer."

Claiming someone has a conflict of interest is a criticism...you have criticized Whitten.

IMO a conflict of interest is something that should be proven...an appearance or the posibility of a conflict is not the same as a conflict in my view. Do you have proof that he misused his position to gain an unfair advantage? What about Travis, Behr or Hutchinson, any proof they misused their positions?

I don't believe Whitten has a conflict of interest. In my view his interest in analyze architecture and his interest in the creating architecture are not in conflict, just the opposite.

I don't believe anyone who passionately cares about a subject is truly independent or unbiased. My critieria for a successful critic would be knowledge, intelligence, honesty, the ability to express oneself and his ideas as well as an open mind....I give Whitten high marks on all counts.

"As honest and guided by principle as you (and many others) undoubtedly are, Tom MacWood: Wouldn't you find it difficult to say it's a pile of crap?"

No....but I wouldn't call anything a 'pile of crap'. I hope I would be able to weigh the criticisms with the positive attribites as well.

These cries of conflict of interest are an example of modern day political correctness...paranoid that the powerful (Whitten) will take advantage of the weak (Fazio). It is rediculous.

[T_MacWood]

Rick
So you would have prohibited writers Max Behr, CH Alison or Horace Hutchinson from design?

[Dan Kelly]

Tom MacWood --

I'll stand on my previous remarks and move on.

Dan

[Mike_Young]

Seems to me anyone can critique anything they wish but there will always be cases where the critique will create a conflict of interest.
If I remember the Fazio article correctly RW says he specified TF because he was the "foremost" at this time and for the last 20 years.  I don't see where RW compromised himself at all in this case.
I have always thought  to be a consultant one needed to be 25 miles from home and own a briefcase and that as for opinions, whether raters, consultants or architects, they are worth what you pay for them.  Having said this I sense that most  design consultants ( not technical consultants) raters and miscellaneous are just tools of the trade for publications and with that in mind architects and their projects are very careful to cater to them.   I don't mean for this to say that some raters may not have valid opinions but most people could care less....it is just necessary for a pub to say they have a panel.  People such as BK and RW or MW are paid to do what they do.....if it is a hobby or avocation it is no different than a magazine for heart surgeons asking a panel of heart surgery patients to tell them who is the best and why.   Therefore it seems to me much of the hullaballo would go away if magazines contained their architectural side to the comments and ratings of just their staff and in return the staff did nothing but the work of that magazine.  If they chose differently that would be fine but you could not work or the pub.  

[Rick Shefchik]

Tom -- I believe you are misusing the term "political correctness." That is absolutely not what this discussion is about. If I were to say that a critic should refrain from criticizing somebody else's work because it would make somebody feel bad, or because it's not nice to print negative opinions, that would be a form of political correctness, I guess.

"Conflict of interest" is a specific concept in the publishing world that simply -- and clearly -- says a reporter/critic should not cover a business in which he is also is employed, even as a sideline. This absolutely does not include guest experts such as Behr or Hutchinson.

Every editor I know or have worked for is vigilant about preventing the appearance of conflict, in order to safeguard the public's faith in the product. Often you have an appearance of conflict without any actual ethical lapse taking place, but editors are usually every bit as concerned, even if it's just an appearance.

It's like a ballplayer hanging around with gamblers. Chances are the player would never dream of giving the gamblers a tip, or dropped a fly ball on purpose. But if the public knows the player has gamblers for buddies, the public starts to wonder if the games are strictly on the up-and-up. The owner can't afford that suspicion to leak into the product, so the player is ordered to disassociate with the gamblers. Thats is NOT political correctness.

[T_MacWood]

" I believe you are misusing the term "political correctness." That is absolutely not what this discussion is about. If I were to say that a critic should refrain from criticizing somebody else's work because it would make somebody feel bad, or because it's not nice to print negative opinions, that would be a form of political correctness, I guess. ”

I don’t think so. When did conflict of interest become such a common cry? The 19th century? I don’t think so. The first half of the 20th C? I don’t think so. The 60’s…a little. The 70’s…yes, it began to grow. The 80’s, 90’s and 2000’s? Yes, big time. It is one of many ideas, expressions and behaviors, which are deemed politically unacceptable in this day and age.

" "Conflict of interest" is a specific concept in the publishing world that simply -- and clearly -- says a reporter/critic should not cover a business in which he is also is employed, even as a sideline. This absolutely does not include guest experts such as Behr or Hutchinson. "

Behr and Hutchinson were not guests. They were editors and writers, employed by Golf Illustrated and Country Life respectively.

There have been a number of famous writers/editors/critics: Ezra Pound, John Ruskin, Edgar Allan Poe, TS Eliot, William Hazlitt and George Bernard Shaw to name a few. Were they guilty of conflict of interest?

[George Pazin]

How much of a conflict could there really be when GD's own raters don't even seem to agree with what Ron writes?

[Paul Richards]

George:


>How much of a conflict could there really be when GD's own raters don't even seem to agree with what Ron writes?



What about turning that statement around?



How much of a conflict could there really be if Ron doesn't agree with GD's own raters?



 

[Paul Richards]

Tom:

>I don't believe Whitten has a conflict of interest. In my view his interest in analyze architecture and his interest in the creating architecture are not in conflict, just the opposite.



Good point.

[ForkaB]

Tom MacW

"Conflict of interest" is a concept which well precedes "political correctness."  Just off the top of my head I can think of the Glass-Steagal act of 1933 and its aftermath ("chinese walls", etc.).

My relatively limited but not insignificant readings of the golden oldies implies to me that they were tireless self-promoters, which often took the form of denigrating their competitors, sometimes with unseemly spite and bile.  Take MacKenzie's comments on Braid's Gleneagles (Kings), Please!

Whitten is on his way down a slippery slope if he chooses to be both a critic and an "artist."  As are Geoff S., Brad K. and others who follow this path, undeniably attractive as it may seem to be to us GCA groupies and wannabies.

[T_MacWood]

Rich
I'm not familiar with Glass-Stegal...did it have to do with criticism? Has any critic...literary, art, theater, architectural...been convicted of a crime related to conflict of interest?

Not one of the golden oldies could hold a candle to Tom Fazio as a self promoter. If you believe MacKenzie's criticism of Gleneagles are false, then I suppose you could characterize it as shameless self promotion. I don't see that way, I believe it was a well-reasoned and honest critique. He was not only one saying mean things about Gleneagles; Darwin was an outspoken critic of the course as well.

What you will find in the good old days is not a one-way critical analysis. It was critic vs critic, architect vs architect, critic vs architect. It was a dialogue, not unlike this site. If Tom Fazio feels strongly about his work, he should answer the criticism. Whitten was fair and civil IMO, now it is turn for a civil thoughtful reponse.

"Whitten is on his way down a slippery slope if he chooses to be both a critic and an "artist."  As are Geoff S., Brad K. and others who follow this path, undeniably attractive as it may seem to be to us GCA groupies and wannabies."

That slippery slope has worked pretty well in the past...golf is a gentlemen's sport...all the men mentioned (past and present) on this thread are talented, passionate, principled and honest....I see no evidence of a problem. To limit them would be a waste IMO.

[ForkaB]

Tom

Glass-Steagal separated commercial banking from investment banking.  It (somewhat) successfully stopped the practice of mingling buyers and sellers within single organisations to the detriment of consumers and the greater economy.  Read up on it, if you are interested.

I read the oldies as 1/2 artists, 1/2 snake oil salesmen.  Artists wouldn't advertise so blatantly as these guys did in the popular press.  BTW, I don;t blame them.  It was a tough business, and keeping oneself in champagne and caviar was not as easy then as it is now for GCAs.........

Quite frankly, in what I have read of the articles golden oldie GCAs wrote, I see more narrow-minded bitching than constructive criticism.  More of what did so-an-so do wrong, rather than what can we learn from what so-and-so did.  Quite a bit like GCA.com, now that I think about it.........

[TEPaul]

Conflict of interest if one critiques golf architecture and also creates it?

Hmmm!?

I don't have any problem with that at all but there's no denying that a lot of people do and plenty of interesting people in the business of creating architecture to boot.

But where does the actual conflict lie in either the Golden Age or today?

In the Golden Age there were a number of architects who wrote critiques about the architecture of others. Did they favorably critique there own, which seems to me is where the inherent conflict lies?

Well, yeah, in the Golden Age they sort of did. Tillinghast, Travis, Behr (I wouldn't really include a Hutchinson since he wasn't really a golf architect) etc did critique the architecture of others and often in the same publication they would sing the praises of their own architecture in one way or another. Is that a conflict of interest? Well, yeah!  

But the interesting thing about the way they all did it back then was they'd all really get into it---critiquing each other back and forth and in print. Look at some of the critizicing Tillinghast did of JH Taylor's critiques and vice versa. Or Behr and some of the English contingent. Travis too. And they'd get criticized back in print!! That to me is sort of a self-regulating mechanism and who benefits in the end? The reading public does!  

Today, however, the self regulating mechanism of this apparent conflict of interest doesn't even seem to benefit the reading public though, since the writer seems to steer completely clear of saying anything at all in print about architecture he does, and there seem to be so many in the architectural business today who holler "conflict of interest" about writers who do any architecture that it seems to almost mitigate anythng negative the writer may say negatively about someone else's architect.

I don't know whether there really is any conflict of interest in creating architecture and writing about the architecture of others or even your own but I liked it better in the old days when they seemed to do both and then really get into it with each other in print. That was not only entertaining it was interesting for those who only read and neither wrote nor created architecture!  

Back then if you wanted to know the opinions of the writer/architects of the architecture of others as well as their own you got those opinions and more---when the others then defended their opinions in print. Today that doesn't really happen anymore because the writer/architects rarely say anything about their own architecture and when they say something negative about the architecture of others all those others simply holler "conflict of interest" without ever answering in writing why they disagree with what the writer said about their architecture.

I say "conflict of interest" be damned and just let everyone write! Oh, I forgot, these magazine publishers today don't let that happen because they say no one really wants to read in-depth stuff about architecture anymore anyway!  

So whatta gonna do except blame it on the magazines and their publishers who appear to not want any of this stuff to happen anymore whether that's because of some new phenomenon of ultra political correctness (a new and refined sense and definition of "conflict of interest") or simply the bottom line?  

[TEPaul]

Maybe it doesn't even matter anymore whether these writer/architects don't write about each other or even their own anymore like they used to in formal publications because today we have the Internet and more importantly we have GOLFCLUBATLAS.com where writer/architects and architect/writers can come on here and get involved in our "barrroom brawl in Dodge City" ethos and mentality and go after each other in writing with a vengenance like they did in the old days in formal publications and before the Internet!    

[George Pazin]

Tom

Glass-Steagal separated commercial banking from investment banking.  It (somewhat) successfully stopped the practice of mingling buyers and sellers within single organisations to the detriment of consumers and the greater economy.  Read up on it, if you are interested.

I read the oldies as 1/2 artists, 1/2 snake oil salesmen.  Artists wouldn't advertise so blatantly as these guys did in the popular press.  BTW, I don;t blame them.  It was a tough business, and keeping oneself in champagne and caviar was not as easy then as it is now for GCAs.........

Quite frankly, in what I have read of the articles golden oldie GCAs wrote, I see more narrow-minded bitching than constructive criticism.  More of what did so-an-so do wrong, rather than what can we learn from what so-and-so did.  Quite a bit like GCA.com, now that I think about it.........

First of all, there are a lot of people who think that Glass Steagal was a very bad idea, many economists among them. The wonderful myriad of regulations about the banking and securities industries has done little been enrich a lot of lawyers and folks in NYC. Back when I was a scumbag investment banker in the late 80s/early 90s, it was assumed that the regulation would be overturned shortly. I don't honestly know if it has, as I have largely divorced myself from that life, but I do know that the regulations were being circumvented in most respects by clever lawyers and corporations. No such separation even existed in much of Europe, to the best of my knowledge; hell, most countries don't even outlaw insider trading.

Second, 1/2 snake oil salesmen? Blatant advertising? I'd love to see evidence of this. The ads I've seen were nothing if not understated, and as compared to today's advertisements in GD, Links, etc., were almost hypercritical self evaluations.

Conflict of interest ethics guidelines are much more important when someone actually has real power over something. Someone being a board member of Callaway and holding a post in the USGA I&B area, for instance. Or governors in Southern states engaging in real estate speculation in their own state while governor, as another example....

Critics give their opinion, they don't rule over anything.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()