In defense of Jan Stephenson

[JohnV]

Patrick, the media printed her first comments.  While I haven't seen the article, I believe it wasn't done in a way that was critical of her comments, just her comments.  So, she had her say in the media and now others are having their say.

As for Koreans being bland and stoical, go see Christina Kim.  The kid is fun to watch and very outgoing.  There are others like her out there.

To blindly assail all people of one race or nationality is a stupid thing to do and deserves criticism.

And as for her comments about good looking lesbians on tour, there are definitely some very good looking lesbians out there and to say that they would make lesbianism more acceptable to the general public is stupid and offensive

Jan stuck her foot in her mouth and others just are pointing that out to her.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jeff Goldman,

I never said that the media speaks as one voice, but when an element of the media set their sights on a target, especially an individual, who has the resources, the time and money to counter the perspective they present ?

And, through what medium will you be given an equal opportunity to present either the facts refuting their claim or your side of the story ?

"Absence of Malice" seemed to provide a good example of the above.

John V,

The media gives life, or a life of its own, to a given topic, and like a magician, they can also make it disappear from view.

The substance of an issue should keep a "story" in the limelight, not a decision by executives to present their interpretation or slant on what they want you to see.

With respect to Jan's comments, I referenced stupidity in an earlier post.  And, if another individual wants to counter her position, that should be reported, but news organizations shouldn't be the ones putting forth their views in reporting to the masses, except on the editorial page, where you clearly understand where they're coming from.  
All other pages should be opinion neutral

I know it's utopian, but impartiality should be the direction we're heading toward, not away from.

[Bill Gayne]

Golf Magazine probably should get someone else doing these interviews. Yes, Jan Stephenson has a right to her views and to express them. However, the interviewer needs to step up and challenge her or at least ask her to explain. A Bill O'Reilly or 60 Minutes style interogation is not necessary. But to let these comments pass by without challenge is disappointing. I guess Golf Magazine prefers the cream puff interviews so they continue to get tour player to answer their questions.

[SL_Solow]

Interestingly enough, the first amendment prohibits Congress from passing legislation abridging the freedom of speech.  Equally important is the same amendments guarantee of the freedom of the press.  Our founders knew what they were doing when they tried to create an open marketplace of ideas.  King George thought the media to be too powerful and unrestricted when Tom Paine published his pamphlets. His reach may have been smaller, but so was society.  Just as Edmund Burke wrote in opposition to Paine, so does the conservative media, perhaps exemplified by Limbaugh or Fox News, counter the liberal media which appears to be a target in this post.  Let both sides have their say and let the people decide.  Each side claims that the other is unfair in its attempts to manipulate the news and maybe they're both right but so long as no one is restricted from having their say we will retain our opportunity to choose.  This is the foundation of our constitutional system and we should be very careful in suggesting that it be tampered with, even indirectly.

[Patrick_Mucci]

SL Solow,

That's the problem, there is no independent news reporting, it's either left or right, and the media has become proactive, fostering their agendas, and not reporting the news without their imput or spin.

The media can protect us from abuses by the government and business, but how do we get protected from abuses by the media ?

[Dan Herrmann]

But the central issue does remain.  Does the huge percentage of foreign players (who have earned their way onto the tour) affect the marketability of the LPGA?

Yep - I think it does.  

[david h. carroll]

not if they're good looking

[Dan Kelly]

... there is no independent news reporting, it's either left or right, and the media has become proactive, fostering their agendas, and not reporting the news without their imput or spin.

Patrick --

You forgot to add: "But, of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong."

[A.G._Crockett]

Patrick,
When I was a MUCH younger man, my father was the Sports Editor of the newspaper that covers Duke and UNC athletics, arguably the most intense rivalry in college sports.  I was constantly asked by fans of each school if my dad wasn't really, deep down, a fan of the other school!  He considered that to be the highest praise for his work, especially since he was a U.VA. alum, which nobody in the Triangle area knew.
(I might add that I was under strict orders when I was at a game with him to show absolutely no favoritism whatsoever, regardless of whom I wanted to win.)

That's the way people tend to view the media; if the media prints/says what you agree with it's just factual news reporting; if you don't agree, it's more proof of a vast conspiracy from the other side.  I think that the vast majority of "media" people, especially in print journalism, are really, really happy if they can get a good product in your driveway EVERY SINGLE DAY, day after day, without worrying about advancing some point of view.  Largely, media bias is in the ear or eye of the beholder.  (Editorials, commentaries, and talk radio are, of course, excepted.)

Just my opinion; I could be wrong!

[Boreum_Hill]

But the central issue does remain.  Does the huge percentage of foreign players (who have earned their way onto the tour) affect the marketability of the LPGA?

Yep - I think it does.  

I think boring players affect the marketability.

In golf, that's hardly the exclusive domain of the LPGA.

Tricky proposition.  Obviously we're talking about the biggest stage in women's golf (arguably, all of women's sports).  It doesn't make sense to have anything other than the best of the best, wherever they were born or live.

Similar situation in tennis.  This year was a fantastic US Open.  However, the big story for most of the media was who was not there: the Williams sisters and Pete Sampras.

Wonder what the ratings were for the Germany-Sweden final in Sunday's World Cup?  A lot lower than if the USA had made it, no doubt

Is it possible to market foreign players in an ethnocentric society?  Is the solution exclusion?  

No, but there are no easy answers on how to draw more people into a second tier sporting event.

[W.H. Cosgrove]

Semantics being what they are......ever changing.

From the AMERICAN HERITAGE DICTIONARY OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE

NOUN: often Oriental Often Offensive An Asian.  
OTHER FORMS: ori·ental·ly —ADVERB
 
USAGE NOTE: Asian is now strongly preferred in place of Oriental for persons native to Asia or descended from an Asian people. The usual objection to Oriental—meaning “eastern”—is that it identifies Asian countries and peoples in terms of their location relative to Europe. However, this objection is not generally made of other Eurocentric terms such as Near and Middle Eastern. The real problem with Oriental is more likely its connotations stemming from an earlier era when Europeans viewed the regions east of the Mediterranean as exotic lands full of romance and intrigue, the home of despotic empires and inscrutable customs. At the least these associations can give Oriental a dated feel, and as a noun in contemporary contexts (as in the first Oriental to be elected from the district) it is now widely taken to be offensive. However, Oriental should not be thought of as an ethnic slur to be avoided in all situations. As with Asiatic, its use other than as an ethnonym, in phrases such as Oriental cuisine or Oriental medicine, is not usually considered objectionable.  

This disagreement over the usage of certain words is integral to Stephenson's remarks and the first ammendment.  Words acceptable in one venue are not advised in others.

Jan blew her chance at making a valid point.  Golf is in danger of going the way of Tennis and other sports because the automatons playing the game are boring to watch.  Just because she lacks a broader understanding of the problem she obviously sees.  

[George Pazin]

I didn't realize the PC movement was now affecting the dictionary. Me, I'm more of a "rose by any other name would smell as sweet" kind of person.

I don't have a problem with anyone attacking Ms. Stephenson's opinion, but I would prefer they rebutt her points rather than simply label her a racist. To me, that's what is missing in most of today's dialogue. They have a right to call her a racist, sure, but I don't think that furthers the discussion at all. Maybe she's just wrong - that doesn't make her a racist.

[Dan Herrmann]

Golf is in danger of going the way of Tennis and other sports because the automatons playing the game are boring to watch.  Just because she lacks a broader understanding of the problem she obviously sees.  

You're so right.  Now that Tiger has become another automatron, what's left to watch?  John D. having difficulties?

I know - it's all IMG's fault!

[A.G._Crockett]

BTW, I may be the only person on this site (if not in the known universe) still in possession of the 1986 Dunlop Jan Stephenson Calendar.

My particular favorite is the Nov.-Dec. shot of her in a tub, wearing only a lot of DDH's.

Life was simple then...

[Patrick_Mucci]

SL Solow,

I suspect that the literacy rate, combined with the limited access to the news in 1776, eliminated all but a narrow band of consumers of the news.

Today, everyone is a consumer of the news provided by the major media outlets.

Dan Kelly,

Could you tell me which one of the major news stations, or major newspapers are totally independent in their views when reporting ?

AGCrockett,

If you read the New York Times during the Iraq war, you would have thought that we were losing.

And, for the first time in a long time, it seemed that other media outlets were critical of another media outlet, by criticizing the Los Angeles Times, and their Chief Editor, for the pursuit of their interests during the California recall campaign.

In the Kobe Bryant case,
How proper is it for the media to interview individuals whose identity is hidden, that claim to be the friend of the victim, who put forth their perspective on what transpired ?
Will that taint the jury pool in a small town ?
Will that taint the jury pool in a larger, nearby city ?

How proper is it to reveal that Kobe Bryant had previously sought consultation with a divorce lawyer.

And, a good deal of this type of information is only provided because the news media pays the informant a bounty for it.
That's not an independent media reporting the news, that's an interested party paying for and creating the news.

How proper is that ?

But, this deviates from my point.

My issue is that no individual can take on the "organized" media, no one has the resources or outlets to put them on an equal footing.  And as such, the media can make or break almost anyone.

[A.G._Crockett]

Patrick,
You are still assuming a monolithic, organized media that has a point of view to advance.  Other than your own interpretation of the news you hear or read, what is your evidence for this?

Related question:  Whom exactly has the "organized" media made or broken, and how did they accomplish this?  Who formulated and coordinated the plans for these activities?  How come we can't get these people to run for office if they're that damn good at organizing stuff?

[Dan Kelly]

Dan Kelly,

Could you tell me which one of the major news stations, or major newspapers are totally independent in their views when reporting ?

I really don't mean what you mean by "independent," Patrick. Independent of ... what?

If what you mean is "factual" and "unbiased," my answer is: no. Because, like it or not, this monolithic beast you imagine -- The Media -- is made up of individual editors and writers ... some of whom are admirably fair-minded and diligent, some of whom are hopelessly biased and lazy. I would guess that every major news station and every major newspaper has some of both on staff.

In my earlier comment, I was merely attempting to question the ridiculous breadth of your accusation ("there is no independent news reporting, it's either left or right"). If anyone made such a sweeping condemnation of everyone in whatever line of work you're in, I suspect you'd object, too.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Dan Kelly,

If what you mean is "factual" and "unbiased," my answer is: no.

Thanks, that's what I thought.

[Dan Kelly]

Dan Kelly,

If what you mean is "factual" and "unbiased," my answer is: no.

Thanks, that's what I thought.

Patrick,

I suppose we all aspire to be the epitome of something.

And you've done it! You, sir, are the epitome of incorrigibility. Congratulations!

I try to give you a reasoned answer -- and you come back with that. Pitiful.

(But, hey, beautiful use of the out-of-context quotation! You could have some kind of big future in The Media! We -- every last one of us -- LOVE to quote people out of context, to twist the true intent of their words, to make them seem to agree with us! And, of course, it goes without saying that all of us agree on everything!)

Just let the record show: You and I do not agree on this. What I think is not what you thought -- or, at least, not what you said. Only you know what you really think.

There's a news flash.

Finis.

[George Pazin]

Well, I got my Golf Magazine yesterday & had a chance to read the interview in question.

First of all, what Golf did regarding quoting Ms. Stephenson in part without putting in the "..." to indicate separate statements borders on being libelous (or slanderous, whichever one it is). When I read the bold exerpt, my first thought was that statement was much worse than what was indicated over the weekend & there is indeed no defense for her. But after reading the full comment, I understand the point she was trying to make - I don't agree with it at all, but I understand it.

If you read the entire interview, you will note a couple things: 1) Ms. Stephenson has a lot of views that are strong & maybe even a little outlandish and 2) She seemed to be intentionally looking to stir things up, I guess for publicity sake, since she's trying to get a women's senior tour off the ground. She succeeded in stirring things up, but not in the way she wanted, I'm sure.

I do think she was right in saying the tour needed a marketing person in charge & not a lawyer and I think she was somewhat right in her stance re: Votaw & Sophie (she said if the sponsors think it's wrong, it's wrong).

[SL_Solow]

Pat;  I am trying to discern where your argument is headed.  Assume you are correct and that the media is not "unbiased."  What is the "solution."  Censorship?  By whom?  Public funding of unbiased reporting?  That is the beauty of a marketplace of ideas; the variety of opinion that competes.  Certainly those with money have an advantage in disseminating their views but that is the price of a capitalist system that allows the accumulation of private wealth and the right to use it to influence opinion.  Far better that than any form of government control.  With respect to your literacy argument, it has been a few years since I engaged in a detailed study of American history but it is my distinct recollection that the fairly recent availability of universal public education has increased the literacy rate considerably, even when you account for the fact that in many colonies and early states, sufferage was restricted to male landowners.  However, I will concede that the intellectual capacity of the politicians at the time the Constitution was being drafted was far superior to the current crop.

[Boreum_Hill]

In very general terms....

The most popular and influential newspapers tend to have a moderately liberal slant; overall, the various news magazines seem to be fairly equal in their bias.

To a somewhat lesser extent, the 3 network news divisions have a moderately liberal slant.

Of the 3 major cable news channels, 2 are moderately liberal, and 1 is blatantly conservative.

The most popular talk radio shows all are very conservative.

Does that achieve an overall balance?

[Patrick_Mucci]

SL Solow,

I don't know the answer.

But, I do know that to solve a problem you must first recognize its existance, which usuallly evolves from transitioning from the denial phase to the acceptance phase.

I wonder, if the media were like utilities, would the public be better served ?  Is commercializing the news part of the problem ?  Or, is the power and scale of the media's influence in determining political outcomes part of the problem.

As I said, I don't know the answer, but I think I see the problem.

But, since this is now far from the topic of golf, I'd rather abandon it, or go IM.

Dan Kelly,

I didn't quote you out of context,
I just eliminated all of your beating around the bush rhetoric and quoted your only direct answer to the question I asked.

[HamiltonBHearst]

SL solow- i too do not know the answer but I do get a kick out of one of your solutions "public funding of unbiased reporting".  I would hope i was paying for this with NPR but I think I know where that organizations politics are.

I can take solace in knowing according to Bourum Hill that only Fox and some radio staions are blatently conservative.  I love a biased critic looking for bias.  I guess only "fox news nuts" call CNN "clinton news network" which for a long time was run by a no-class arrogant abusive biased anti catholic man married to a women who is beneath contempt.

[Boreum_Hill]

HamiltonBHearst

If you disagree, change the labels to left wing nuthouse and blatantly bleeding hearts if that suits your purpose.

No agenda there; merely pointing out that both viewpoints seem to be expressed fairly evenly, though perhaps not within the same medium.

Can't say that I see either the liberal bias or the vast right wing conspiracy, but then again, I'm not looking for it.