[Brent Boardman]

Just out of curiosity, how many (if any - my apologies in advance; I'm not familiar with many people on this board) members here are of African American descent, or other backgroud(s) considered minority?  I would be more interested in hearing what they think about the issue.  No offense, because I strongly value each and every one of your opinions, but I'd like to listen to the reaction of someone not predominantly white.

edit: sorry, I should have read Tommy's statement first as well

[Paul Stephenson]

As I said on the announcer thread, in my opinion this is worse than the original incident because it was a conscience decision made by Golfweek.

What really gets me is where are Sharpton and Jackson now?  Why do they not comment on the cover?

[Cory Lewis]

They did it to sell magazines and get there own name in the headlines, they are talking about it on ESPN right now.  Somebody on ESPN called it tabloid journalism and I would have to agree.

[Sam Morrow]

They did it to sell magazines and get there own name in the headlines, they are talking about it on ESPN right now.  Somebody on ESPN called it tabloid journalism and I would have to agree.

There is really nothing else to call it.

[George Pazin]

I'll say this much: NO ONE at Golfweek better criticise anyone again - ever - for what he or she might choose to do for a buck. The term prostitute springs to mind.

Eric, was pathetic one of your descriptives?  If not, you can add it. Good for you for cancelling.

[ANTHONYPIOPPI]

The best piece I've read so far on the subject, and I can't remember who wrote it, pointed out that Tiger could have used the opportunity to confront the racism that still exists in the United States, in no way implying Tilghman is racist. Instead, being Tiger and worried about his marketability, he released a written statement, not even taking the time to comment in public. It would be nice if Golfweek had the nuts to point that out, but that won't happen.

Anthony

[Jim Franklin]

Tiger and Kelly are friends. This was not said as a racist comment. I see no reason why Tiger should come out and blast her in public. He accepted her apology so the subject should be dropped.

[David Lott]

Tasteless. Inflammatory. Stupid. Childish. Thoughtless. Banal. Churlish. Unnecessary. Ignorant. I could go on, but won't.

A sport with such a racist past should hope for a little more discretion from one of its top publications.

[Gary Daughters]

SI says editor fired.

[HamiltonBHearst]

Seems like comped rounds for Golfweek raters are going to be a lot more difficult to justify.

Don't even mention the "sells magazines" rational becuase that could have also been used in regard to the original comments by Tilghman.

[ANTHONYPIOPPI]

Golfweek's percentage of non-subscription sales ("impulse purchase") is so small compared to the their subscription sale that the "sell magazines" rational makes no sense. The same with newspapers. Anytime you hears, "the did it to sell newspapers," that is someone who has no understanding of the business.

Anthony

[Tom Huckaby]

The "sells magazines" rational is obviously wrong, for exactly the reasons Anthony states.

However, wouldn't it be correct to say that this whole thing put Golfweek on the map, for good or bad?  That many many many people who had never heard of Golfweek before now have?

So the goal would not be any immediate gain in impulse sales, as such are tiny anyway.

But the goal might have been long-term sales due to increased exposure, no?

And of course even if that was the goal it's likely failed miserably now given all the negative press.

I'm just trying to get a grip on why the magazine would run that cover... it seems so completely stupid, and I assume those who run it are not stupid, so the way I look at it there has to have been a reason.

Caveat:  I am about as removed from the magazine business as I am from East Mongolian paving work.  I'm not even a Golfweek subscriber.  But I do read a lot of magazines and I once played a publisher on TV and last weekend I stayed at a Holiday Inn Express.  

[JSlonis]

Just read online that the Editor/VP was fired for this.

Apparently a lot of people had the same reaction as I first did, I thought this horrible cover was even a worse offense than Tilghman's original remark.

Now that this has all played out...Do you think both punishments regarding this issue fit the crime, or were both results an overreaction?

[J_ Crisham]

Firing the edoitor sure seems to be an overreaction-admittedly not the smartest decision to chose the now infamous noose. Does a lapse in judgement warrant the response of termination? Seems like the punishment is beyond the crime.

[ANTHONYPIOPPI]

Tom:

I understand your thinking but how many people would see that cover, read the stories and then think, "Man, this is a great magazine that delves into the serious issues, I need to buy it?" I don't think the accompanying articles raise an serious issues that have not already been brought up. In fact, I was disappointed at the pablum Jeff Rude put out in the backpage column. I expected more from him.

Golfweek did it, I'm assuming, to kick up sh*t. There is an inferiority complex that runs through the magazine as a result of their place next to Golf Digest and Golf World. They just want to be noticed. Rather than be comfortable with their place in the industry, Golfweek looks at themselves in relation to Golf Digest.  Even when I was at Golfweek Superintendent News - before being fired in 2002 - there was this desire to create controversy where none existed. Now there is some real controversy.

Anthony

[Tom Huckaby]

Anthony:  many thanks, that helps a lot.

But you see, "kicking up shit" is exactly what I was talking about.  That's exactly what I saw as the purpose of the cover.  I've just explained it poorly.

But what is the goal behind kicking up shit?  Doesn't it have to be to make money somehow?

That's what I'm wondering.  I just can't imagine any business kicking up shit just because they feel inferior.  Wouldn't they kick up shit to try and NOT BE inferior any more?

Oh well... it's intriguing to me, but as I say, I'm just a consumer.  

TH

[Phil McDade]

Huck:

Working journalists are an odd lot; they probably care less about the business success of their enterprise than almost all other workers in almost any other enterprise you can imagine. In fact, many journalists I've worked with over the years take great pride in doing just the opposite -- not caring a whit about the enterprise, and instead guiding their work on their notions of public service, watchdog, what have you. In that vein, I think Anthony's correct about Golfweek's desire to "kick up some ...." Journalists get that way; it's a profession that at some level has a certain degree of taking an issue or a story and over-simplifying it, or overly dramatizing it, or making mountains out of molehills -- not in an effort at the bottom line, or sell more product, but just because it's kind of in their DNA.

[tlavin]

They weren't kicking up shit; they were trying to find a controversial image to accompany a controversial story.  They overdid it.  When this story is finally reported fully, I'm sure that we'll learn that this decision (to use the cover) was the result of a lot of deliberation.  All decisions are subject to the merciful or merciless court of public opinion and a good man's head has rolled.

[Tom Huckaby]

Phil:

Picture the lightbulb going off.  Got it!  Many thanks.

I guess my failing was considering this as a business like any other... and it's really not.

By the way... does anyone dare ask the question Hammy alluded to?  We have so many Golfweek rating panelists as regular participants in this forum... and we talk about the whole course rating thing so darn much... well....

I can't ask it, too much history, too close to the subject.  But I do wonder how my friends are feeling about doing any course ratings any time soon.

TH

[tlavin]

Phil:

I can't ask it, too much history, too close to the subject.  But I do wonder how my friends are feeling about doing any course ratings any time soon.

TH

Do you mean that they might demur because they are so offended by the noose?

Or that they'll rally behind the publication because somebody swung the axe?

My guess is that most raters won't change their behavior one little bit because they're a bunch of access mavens above all else; conscience probably doesn't much matter in this context.

[Tom Huckaby]

Terry:

I meant the former for the most part.  And well, I don't fully agree with your last take.  I know these guys as honorable men who most definitely do have consciences.

Thus the question.

TH

[tlavin]

Huck,

I'm sure they have "conciences"; I just said that conscience doesn't factor in here vis a vis getting on courses for free or for reduced rates that they otherwise couldn't play.  I'm saying that "conscience" can be put off to the side.

Let me put it bluntly:  We've heard a lot of bluff and bluster about canceling subscriptions, as if that's an act of conscientious objecting, which it probably would be.  I'll bet you a beer that we won't read any raters' posts that say they're dropping out.

[Mike Benham]

My guess is that most raters won't change their behavior one little bit because they're a bunch of access mavens above all else; conscience probably doesn't much matter in this context.

But will the courses change their acceptance of Golfweek raters?  Will they remove their past Golfweek rankings from the advertising and marketing pieces?

[Tom Huckaby]

Terry:

Damn good questions, but I think we're getting too personal here now.  Remember I do consider many of these guys to be friends.  Whatever they do about this is a very personal choice, one I'm sure JakaB will jump all over once he sees this thread.

To that end, I regret bringing it up.

So let's assume though that most do stay on as raters, for whatever reason.  Fair assumption.

Mike's questions are great ones... and part of what I was thinking about too.  Might some courses not now WELCOME those raters who press on?

TH

[ANTHONYPIOPPI]

Phil:

That's an interesting view of journalism but, for the most part, wrong. I say that with 20 years of writing and 13 years of daily newspaper work under my belt. Most reporters don't care about the bottom line because that is not germane to their efforts. Their job is to cover the story and not worry about ramifications to the bottom line. Any independent newspaper I worked for understood that. Publicly owned papers do not.

To generalize what the goal of reporters and editors are does an injustice to the profession. The reporters and editors who have “a notion of public service,” are invariably the best at what they do because they are concerned with the greater good, which puts them in conflict with reporters and editors who over-simplify, over-dramatize or make mountains out of molehills.

I give a talk to superintendent associations entitled, “How to make the Media Work for You.” One of my first points is to warn them against generalizing about journalism because it is precisely generalization that has caused the public to view golf courses as toxic waste dumps. Your description of what journalists do and what motivates them will make a wonderful addition to the presentation.

Anthony

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()