Thoughts on the latest Golfweek cover?

[Jim Franklin]

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.

[Tom Huckaby]

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

[Garland Bayley]

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

[Jim Franklin]

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.

[Joel_Stewart]

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.

[tlavin]

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.  

[Phil Benedict]

Golfweek showed incredibly poor taste.

[Tom Huckaby]

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

[tlavin]

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.

[Eric Olsen]

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

[Jim Franklin]

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.

[Tom Huckaby]

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

[JSlonis]

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.**

[Eric Olsen]

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

[tlavin]

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.

[Jim Franklin]

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.

[Eric Olsen]

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.

[Craig Sweet]

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?

[Allan Long]

Preferred by Serious Golfers???

Not this one anymore.

[Jeff Spittel]

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.  

[Sam Morrow]

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.

[Craig Sweet]

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

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

[Sam Morrow]

"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?

[Ian Andrew]

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

[Tommy Williamsen]

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.