O.T. Phil Mickelson on International Politics and Human Rights

[Niall C]

I wonder what the preamble was to Phil's phone call ? He clearly didn't just randomly pick a journalist to pick up a phone to to have a chat. The journalist had previously made approaches to Phil regarding the bio he was writing and I wonder what promises he might have made about quoting him ? Regardless of that, what is the etiquette for journalists in reporting private conversations ?


Niall

[Jim_Coleman]

   I believe the etiquette is: unless otherwise specifically stated, everything is on the record. Whether the subject appreciates this is another question. I don’t think it is common practice for the journalist to read the subject his rights.

[A.G._Crockett]

I wonder what the preamble was to Phil's phone call ? He clearly didn't just randomly pick a journalist to pick up a phone to to have a chat. The journalist had previously made approaches to Phil regarding the bio he was writing and I wonder what promises he might have made about quoting him ? Regardless of that, what is the etiquette for journalists in reporting private conversations ?


Niall

Here are the pertinent excerpts from Shipnuck's comments after Mickelson made the claim that the conversation was off the record. 

“He knew I was working on a book about him and asked to speak, saying he wanted to discuss media rights and his grievances with the PGA Tour, both of which inevitably lead back to Saudi Arabia. If the subject of a biography phones the author, the content of that conversation is always going to inform the book, unless it is expressly agreed otherwise."

“Not once in our texts or when we got on the phone did Mickelson request to go off-the-record and I never consented to it; if he had asked, I would have pushed back hard, as this was obviously material I wanted for the book,” Shipnuck wrote. “Mickelson simply called me up and opened a vein. To claim now that the comments were off-the-record is false and duplicitous.”

[Niall C]

   I believe the etiquette is: unless otherwise specifically stated, everything is on the record. Whether the subject appreciates this is another question. I don’t think it is common practice for the journalist to read the subject his rights.

Thanks AG


Jim


That was what I was basically getting at. So the onus is on Phil Mickelson to look after himself rather than the journalist having any professional duty of care as they might in other professions. Not sure if that is the appropriate phrase but hopefully you know what I mean.


Niall

[JohnVDB]

Too many "authorized" biographies are just hagiographies that don't reveal anything about the subject except what he or she wants to push out there.

[John Kavanaugh]

What will leak now to keep interest up? Will MJ be exposed? Cuckle doodle do, we have a best seller.

[Kalen Braley]

What will leak now to keep interest up? Will MJ be exposed? Cuckle doodle do, we have a best seller.

Barney,

Its hard to predict, but assuredly there is always something next...the machine must be fed.

P.S.  Jim Coleman had it exactly right a few posts back.  If "authorized" biographies or reporting are all we got, then Lord help us all....which is sadly more acutely evident now than ever.

[Wayne_Kozun]

I dislike the Saudis and I refused to go to Saudi Arabia when I had the chance, but all of the sponsors cancelling contracts with Phil seems a bit excessive to me.  What about all of the guys that have gone over to Saudi to play in tournaments?  Are they not just as culpable as Mickelson in turning a blind eye to a murderous regime to line their pockets.  That includes DJ, Justin Rose, Finau, Reed, Poulter, Dechambeau, Garcia, Bubba, Harold Varner III, etc.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

That was what I was basically getting at. So the onus is on Phil Mickelson to look after himself rather than the journalist having any professional duty of care as they might in other professions. Not sure if that is the appropriate phrase but hopefully you know what I mean.

His "duty of care" is to the audience, his readers, not the subject here. It's not like Phil is a victim of something here (rape, whatever) and AS is outing him. He reported what the subject said when the subject called him of his own volition.

[A.G._Crockett]

I dislike the Saudis and I refused to go to Saudi Arabia when I had the chance, but all of the sponsors cancelling contracts with Phil seems a bit excessive to me.  What about all of the guys that have gone over to Saudi to play in tournaments?  Are they not just as culpable as Mickelson in turning a blind eye to a murderous regime to line their pockets.  That includes DJ, Justin Rose, Finau, Reed, Poulter, Dechambeau, Garcia, Bubba, Harold Varner III, etc.

Wayne, I take your point, and I’m always disturbed by what seem to be situational ethics. But I think we overcomplicate this if we look at what the various sponsors have done as anything other than simple business decisions. Really, this is not very much about the Saudis at all.


To me, there seems to me to be a clear difference for companies who want an ongoing sponsorship presence on the PGA Tour between guys that have simply gone there to play vs a guy who is admittedly involved in organizing a tour in competition with the PGA Tour.  One way or the other, Mickelson will be leaving the scene on the PGA Tour, whether it’s because he’s 51, or because the Tour boots him. His former sponsors are just getting out in front of that; it’s a business decision.


Palmer and Nicklaus, among others, remained marketable as elder statesmen and ambassadors of the game and thr Tour; it appears Phil will not.


Actions have consequences, even if you’re Phil Mickelson. I have ZERO idea what he was thinking, or what he thought would come of it, but I don’t find the decisions of the companies that have dropped him to be hard to understand, or in any way conflicted.


Mickelson screwed up in a big way, and he’s paying a big price.  It’s just business.

[Niall C]

That was what I was basically getting at. So the onus is on Phil Mickelson to look after himself rather than the journalist having any professional duty of care as they might in other professions. Not sure if that is the appropriate phrase but hopefully you know what I mean.

His "duty of care" is to the audience, his readers, not the subject here. It's not like Phil is a victim of something here (rape, whatever) and AS is outing him. He reported what the subject said when the subject called him of his own volition.

Erik


In my experience most professions these days have tightened up on ethics and wondered whether journalism had any guidelines but then not sure if it is regulated they way other professionals are. I wouldn't be surprised if there weren't any such rules/regulations/guidelines but if there were I wonder what a duty of care to the reader/listener might comprise ? I'm assuming it doesn't actually exist but is something you probably think should happen. Would that be wrong ?


Niall 

[A.G._Crockett]

Thinking about this overnight, I was imagining Callaway equipment ads featuring Mickelson airing during PGA Tour events. 


Sort of hard to picture, isn’t it? 

[Niall C]

I dislike the Saudis and I refused to go to Saudi Arabia when I had the chance, but all of the sponsors cancelling contracts with Phil seems a bit excessive to me.  What about all of the guys that have gone over to Saudi to play in tournaments?  Are they not just as culpable as Mickelson in turning a blind eye to a murderous regime to line their pockets.  That includes DJ, Justin Rose, Finau, Reed, Poulter, Dechambeau, Garcia, Bubba, Harold Varner III, etc.

Wayne, I take your point, and I’m always disturbed by what seem to be situational ethics. But I think we overcomplicate this if we look at what the various sponsors have done as anything other than simple business decisions. Really, this is not very much about the Saudis at all.


To me, there seems to me to be a clear difference for companies who want an ongoing sponsorship presence on the PGA Tour between guys that have simply gone there to play vs a guy who is admittedly involved in organizing a tour in competition with the PGA Tour.  One way or the other, Mickelson will be leaving the scene on the PGA Tour, whether it’s because he’s 51, or because the Tour boots him. His former sponsors are just getting out in front of that; it’s a business decision.

It is undoubtedly a business decision by the sponsors but no doubt one where they are happy to look as though they are taking the moral high-ground. If it really was to do with being associated with the Saudis then they would have stopped their sponsorship deals when he and others played in Saudi as Wayne says.


What is surprising to me, and perhaps I'm interpreting the phone conversation wrongly, is that everyone is criticising Phil for looking to set up a rival tour when from my reading of the situation he is actually looking to use the possibility of a rival tour to improve his position with the existing tour. It seems clear to me he is playing one off against the other with the intention of staying on the existing tour having improved the terms of his working arrangement. Basically he's using the Saudi's as leverage. That seems a pretty standard way of going about negotiating a business transaction.


In my view he and the other players are more morally wrong actually playing in Saudi than he is trying to use them as leverage in his negotiations with the tour. Bear in mind also that if successful he would have improved the lot of other players and not just him. I can't help but think that the negative reaction from other players towards Phil is more about an accumulation of things rather than this one situation.


Niall

[A.G._Crockett]

I dislike the Saudis and I refused to go to Saudi Arabia when I had the chance, but all of the sponsors cancelling contracts with Phil seems a bit excessive to me.  What about all of the guys that have gone over to Saudi to play in tournaments?  Are they not just as culpable as Mickelson in turning a blind eye to a murderous regime to line their pockets.  That includes DJ, Justin Rose, Finau, Reed, Poulter, Dechambeau, Garcia, Bubba, Harold Varner III, etc.

Wayne, I take your point, and I’m always disturbed by what seem to be situational ethics. But I think we overcomplicate this if we look at what the various sponsors have done as anything other than simple business decisions. Really, this is not very much about the Saudis at all.


To me, there seems to me to be a clear difference for companies who want an ongoing sponsorship presence on the PGA Tour between guys that have simply gone there to play vs a guy who is admittedly involved in organizing a tour in competition with the PGA Tour.  One way or the other, Mickelson will be leaving the scene on the PGA Tour, whether it’s because he’s 51, or because the Tour boots him. His former sponsors are just getting out in front of that; it’s a business decision.

It is undoubtedly a business decision by the sponsors but no doubt one where they are happy to look as though they are taking the moral high-ground. If it really was to do with being associated with the Saudis then they would have stopped their sponsorship deals when he and others played in Saudi as Wayne says.


What is surprising to me, and perhaps I'm interpreting the phone conversation wrongly, is that everyone is criticising Phil for looking to set up a rival tour when from my reading of the situation he is actually looking to use the possibility of a rival tour to improve his position with the existing tour. It seems clear to me he is playing one off against the other with the intention of staying on the existing tour having improved the terms of his working arrangement. Basically he's using the Saudi's as leverage. That seems a pretty standard way of going about negotiating a business transaction.


In my view he and the other players are more morally wrong actually playing in Saudi than he is trying to use them as leverage in his negotiations with the tour. Bear in mind also that if successful he would have improved the lot of other players and not just him. I can't help but think that the negative reaction from other players towards Phil is more about an accumulation of things rather than this one situation.


Niall

Niall, where have Phil's criticisms of the Tour over media rights and the rest been all these years?  Have you ever heard him even mention this before, ever?  Or anybody else mention it, for that matter?  Not only none of the current stars, but not Arnie, not Jack, and not Tiger, none of whom ever seemed averse to making money, and each of whom had far more to gain from "owning" their own media rights than Phil would.  Did you ever hear ANYBODY make these complaints about the Tour owning media rights?

Maybe the simplest reason is the actual reason for what Mickelson is doing; he wants big money.  That isn't a palatable thing for a guy who has earned nearly a billion dollars to say out loud, so the other stuff is the "sanitized" version that he hoped would play with the sponsors and the public. 

I've got to say that I find a guy who has made the kind of money Phil has made as a member of the PGA Tour claiming that he's doing this for "leverage" to be just absurd.  He has never lacked for the ability to say and do crazy stuff, but this takes the cake.

[Niall C]

AG


To be clear, I'm saying he is doing it for leverage, not Phil. But it does seem fairly clear to me that is what he is doing. In the phone conversation IIRC he says that he actually wants the Saudi tour to fail. He also talks about what he wants out of the PGA tour so his objectives seem clear to me.


Are his actions any different to that of an agent acting on behalf of a top footballer or basketball player ? For instance how much money did Michael Jordan make out of Nike or his team and did that stop his agent looking to exploit new angles and from trying to obtain the best deal they could ?


Niall

[JESII]

Niall, in attempting to organize and recruit for the Saudi Tour, he directly undermines the PGA Tour. Are you suggesting, had he been more successful in his recruiting efforts, that he would have gotten to the finish line and turned down a guaranteed payday from the Saudis to stay on the PGA Tour?


I don't think Phil would believe that if you laid it in front of him...

[Niall C]

Jim


Who knows what decision he would have ultimately made in that scenario but then would the tour be offering the additional money for moving the needle if it wasn't for the threat of a competing tour ?


As I think Lou said Phil is basically an independent operator who is trying to do the best for himself. My interpretation of his comments are that his preferred outcome was to get his wishes with the existing tour and for the Saudi tour to fail but who's to say that if the existing tour didn't back down and that the Saudi's got their tour up and running that he might have ended up playing there (along with any number of other players hanging onto his coat-tails)


Niall

[Erik J. Barzeski]

In my experience most professions these days have tightened up on ethics and wondered whether journalism had any guidelines but then not sure if it is regulated they way other professionals are.

Nothing Alan did here was "unethical." Implying such is a bad look.

I wouldn't be surprised if there weren't any such rules/regulations/guidelines but if there were I wonder what a duty of care to the reader/listener might comprise?

To tell the truth. To be honest. He says it himself: he had an obligation to the reader.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

What is surprising to me, and perhaps I'm interpreting the phone conversation wrongly, is that everyone is criticising Phil for looking to set up a rival tour when from my reading of the situation he is actually looking to use the possibility of a rival tour to improve his position with the existing tour. It seems clear to me he is playing one off against the other with the intention of staying on the existing tour having improved the terms of his working arrangement. Basically he's using the Saudi's as leverage. That seems a pretty standard way of going about negotiating a business transaction.

He went well above and beyond that, Niall.

AG, good take.

As I think Lou said Phil is basically an independent operator who is trying to do the best for himself. My interpretation of his comments are that his preferred outcome was to get his wishes with the existing tour and for the Saudi tour to fail but who's to say that if the existing tour didn't back down and that the Saudi's got their tour up and running that he might have ended up playing there (along with any number of other players hanging onto his coat-tails)

He was an independent contractor 10 years ago, and 20 years ago, too.

Now that his time on the PGA Tour is basically over, and his relevance is basically non-existent (I think Phil winning a few Champions Tour events and seeing how few people even seemed to notice or care hastened this too), he's trying to scoop up all the money he can.

He's desperate, and so he rationalized getting into bed with the Saudis (make no mistake: he's taken millions of dollars from them) and tries to SPIN it as "leverage." It's all bullshit. It's all spin. He made up bullshit numbers re: the PGA Tour's nest egg, their "digital asset worth," the % of revenue paid out to players, all of it.

It's all spin and BS.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Phil isn't who many thought he was:

https://firepitcollective.com/askalan-mickelson-edition-part-ii/

"For the smattering of Twitter trolls who have accused me of trying to “ruin” Mickelson, I will just say that I am in possession of some incredibly damaging information about Phil that I have elected not to put in the book because it is highly personal and would cause pain to too many people."

[Rob Marshall]

"relevance is basically non-existent (I think Phil winning a few Champions Tour events and seeing how few people even seemed to notice or care hastened this too), he's trying to scoop up all the money he can."

He is the defending PGA Champion, hes also not a good guy. That's never been a secret. The golly gee wiz act is and always has been an act. I'm surprised KPMG didn't dump him after he pled the 5th on insider trading.

[Tim Martin]

“I will just say that I am in possession of some incredibly damaging information about Phil that I have elected not to put in the book because it is highly personal and would cause pain to too many people."

What’s the point of Shipnuck’s statement above? I guess it’s to pile on and intimate that Mickelson is an even bigger dbag than he’s already suggested? I won’t argue that everything that’s out there so far is fair game but that sentence serves no other purpose than to stir things up even more.

[Peter Pallotta]

Phil isn't who many thought he was:

https://firepitcollective.com/askalan-mickelson-edition-part-ii/

"For the smattering of Twitter trolls who have accused me of trying to “ruin” Mickelson, I will just say that I am in possession of some incredibly damaging information about Phil that I have elected not to put in the book because it is highly personal and would cause pain to too many people."

What a rat-fink thing to say, and for what -- merely because "a smattering" of folks disagree with his 'narrative'? "Oh, I could tell you what insiders *really* think about Shipnuk, as a person and a so-called sports journalist, but I won't, as it would only be devastatingly hurtful to his wife and family". Ugh. He had his 'story' already -- one that just about anyone who matters has already fully embraced, no matter how smug, sanctimonious and self-serving it is; and PM is already pretty much being universally pilloried as a morally bankrupt fraud. You would've thought AS could've been a big enough man to now take a bit of the high road here instead of piling on with the malicious innuendo; but I suppose that's too much to ask in this thin-skinned world, where if you don't have PM's money you can still have his ego.

PS - just saw Tim's post, where he said it more clearly.

[Tim Martin]

Phil isn't who many thought he was:

https://firepitcollective.com/askalan-mickelson-edition-part-ii/

"For the smattering of Twitter trolls who have accused me of trying to “ruin” Mickelson, I will just say that I am in possession of some incredibly damaging information about Phil that I have elected not to put in the book because it is highly personal and would cause pain to too many people."

What a rat-fink thing to say, and for what -- merely because "a smattering" of folks disagree with his 'narrative'? "Oh, I could tell you what insiders *really* think about Shipnuk, as a person and a so-called sports journalist, but I won't, as it would only be devastatingly hurtful to his wife and family". Ugh. He had his 'story' already -- one that just about anyone who matters has already fully embraced, no matter how smug, sanctimonious and self-serving it is; and PM is already pretty much being universally pilloried as a morally bankrupt fraud. You would've thought AS could've been a big enough man to now take a bit of the high road here instead of piling on with the malicious innuendo; but I suppose that's too much to ask in this thin-skinned world, where if you don't have PM's money you can still have his ego.

PS - just saw Tim's post, where he said it more clearly.

Peter-You said it better than I did.

[Kalen Braley]

I'm still trying to understand the narrative of how Phil was allegedly trying to gain leverage.

If he had kept it all under wraps and worked behind the scenes to do recruiting and say "you got X amount of guys who are going to leave if you don't make changes" is one thing.  But to publicly criticize the Tour in often brutal fashion is sure-fire to make quick enemies and counter-productive to getting something done.

The one that does make sense is, Phil will be 52 in a few months, his PGA Tour reign is basically done. It was a massive cash grab as Normans foot soldier/right hand man, because sure as shit he'll never sniff anything like that with the PGA Tour.  He took a risk, it back-fired, and the piper is coming to collect.