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

[Peter Flory]

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.

Before he said that his duty was only to the truth and that he had no allegiance to Phil.  But now he's saying that he's protecting Phil and burying information that would be damaging. 

So according to him, the ethics of protecting a subject and others outweighs his obligation to the truth and the opportunity for profit. 

What would be a term for someone assembling damaging information on a person with a lot to lose, letting that person know that they have it, and then holding the information? 

[Mike_Trenham]

I don't understand why reporters are not pointing out that Phil's focus on Media Rights is due to the fact that over the next number of years this is his biggest potential source of additional income. 


Tripping the weekly purses will do little good for Phil based on his play since the PGA Championship and the historical winnings of players post age 50.


I wish I could find the article from around 1990 when Al Barkow pointed out it was all an act, he saw right through him.

[jeffwarne]

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.

I don't think it's about the Saudis at all.
Many/most of his sponsors do business there, as do many of his peers.
It's about bashing the hand that fed him for 30 lucrative years, and personally bashing its Commissioner, then turning around and bashing the tour/sponsoring country that you admit using for leverage against your own tour.
Regardless of his intentions, the sponsors came to the conclusion that their dollars might be spent better elsewhere.Quite an easy decision given that Phil gave them the option.
Phil gave them the option and they made a decision.

[Niall C]

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


I'm not implying but I am asking the question. And if implying isn't a good look then AS isn't looking too clever in that link you posted. From those comments you could argue he maybe doesn't quite live up to the lofty ideals that you espouse. Just look at his comments on the journalists and broadcasters who cover the Masters and I assume he is in that number.


BTW you didn't answer my question on whether your "duty of care" reference was your own ideal of what a duty of care would be or whether it was an agreed and recognised standard in the world of journalism. I'd be interested to know.


Niall

[cary lichtenstein]

I somehow think there is more to the story for all these long time sponsors to drop him so suddenly.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

What a rat-fink thing to say, and for what -- merely because "a smattering" of folks disagree with his 'narrative'?

Or maybe… because it's the truth?

and PM is already pretty much being universally pilloried as a morally bankrupt fraud.

That's not really true. Look at Twitter. Phil still has plenty of fans and supporters.

Before he said that his duty was only to the truth and that he had no allegiance to Phil.  But now he's saying that he's protecting Phil and burying information that would be damaging.

I read it as protecting others who aren't the public figure Phil is. If it was just going to be about and affect Phil, I think it'd have made it into the book.

For example, if something would damage the life of one of Phil's children, who didn't choose to be public figures, he'd weigh that quite differently than information about Phil.

From those comments you could argue he maybe doesn't quite live up to the lofty ideals that you espouse.

I haven't talked about "the ideals I espouse."

BTW you didn't answer my question on whether your "duty of care" reference was your own ideal of what a duty of care would be or whether it was an agreed and recognised standard in the world of journalism. I'd be interested to know.

I did. The "duty of care" is to the truth and the audience. Sometimes journalists will weigh that against other factors (brevity, how it affects people who aren't in the public eye, their own career goals and aspirations, etc.).

His "duty of care" to Phil Mickelson is to get the truth. And much of it is positive. Some of it is negative.

[Jim_Coleman]

  Totally agree, Eric. But I think Shipnuck would have been better off not saying anything about what isn’t in the book. Sort of trying to have it both ways.  I think he probably lost his temper a bit.

[Kalen Braley]

  Totally agree, Eric. But I think Shipnuck would have been better off not saying anything about what isn’t in the book. Sort of trying to have it both ways.  I think he probably lost his temper a bit.

Agreed Jim,

I'm guessing he said it because he's feeling counter-attacked and it'd be tough to show restraint and not lash back. And at this point I'd be far more liable to trust him over Phil anyways...

[Sean_A]

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.

The entire scenario is dirty business all round. So many mealy mouthed bastards with their snouts in the trough. The only thing separating Phil and the others is they keep their mouths shut. The idea of sport washing is a joke. The Olympics were just held in China! If we are getting serious about Saudi Arabia it's time to look in the mirror.

Ciao

[John Kavanaugh]

By leaking what not is in the book the value of the movie rights grow. The author has a hold card.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

  Totally agree, Eric. But I think Shipnuck would have been better off not saying anything about what isn’t in the book. Sort of trying to have it both ways.  I think he probably lost his temper a bit.

Yeah, hey, I don't love that little bit at all. If it's not in the book, don't talk about it.

He also said what's in the book is an 8.5 out of 10 in terms of "explosiveness." So… we'll find out in May.

[John Kavanaugh]

Now that Phil is a villain we can sleep more comfortably after reading about his personal demons. Can you imagine the joy of being seated in a plane and your seatmate has this same book? Fasten you seatbelts it's an 8.5 out of 10. It could be a water landing cause it's getting juicy. You wouldn't want the flight to end.

[Peter Pallotta]

Sean - thank you, for being the only one to get to the heart of this topic/issue/story.
With the p.r. coming from corporations and journalists and fellow tour pros being cast as a message from Mother Teresa rather than the voice of naked self-interest, I was starting to feel quite depressed; to me, there's a profound cynicism inherent in all the public grandstanding, and the scapegoating that goes with it.   

[Kalen Braley]

Sean,

It may just be coincidence, but US viewership for this years Olympics were the lowest in decades.  I didn't tune in for any events personally, but from what I read there were several embarrassing issues and problems that plagued it.  Ditto for the Saudi golf tournament, never tuned in, although I admit I saw the final winning putt on SportsCenter...

[V. Kmetz]

Perhaps FIGJAM has just been getting the jump on 2022's Player Impact Awards... it's a bitch that for all his bullshit, winning the PGA at 50, he STILL can't beat Woods in a leg cast...he can dry his tears on that 6 million, which it seems basically given for being a controversial asshole on/off the course...


https://www.pgatour.com/news/2022/03/02/tiger-woods-tops-player-impact-program-pip-phil-mickelson-finsihes-second.html

I invite you to read the entirety of the brief article... this program is exactly how we've lost the plot...in everything. Read the 7th graph...after the criteria...about how Woods was certain to lead in two of them, yet they were "surprised" that he had so much earned media (unique news articles...another lackey bullshit making machine, now just a fly dick above FB posts).

It's all puffery and bullshit... now quality of play and character is last and second to last...

[John Kavanaugh]

Perhaps FIGJAM has just been getting the jump on 2022's Player Impact Awards... it's a bitch that for all his bullshit, winning the PGA at 50, he STILL can't beat Woods in a leg cast...he can dry his tears on that 6 million, which it seems basically given for being a controversial asshole on/off the course...


https://www.pgatour.com/news/2022/03/02/tiger-woods-tops-player-impact-program-pip-phil-mickelson-finsihes-second.html

I invite you to read the entirety of the brief article... this program is exactly how we've lost the plot...in everything. Read the 7th graph...after the criteria...about how Woods was certain to lead in two of them, yet they were "surprised" that he had so much earned media (unique news articles...another lackey bullshit making machine, now just a fly dick above FB posts).

It's all puffery and bullshit... now quality of play and character is last and second to last...

I've been at your table buddy. Chew on that anger. Damn I miss it so.

[cary lichtenstein]

I still think there is more to this story than what I've read so far for all his sponsors to drop him like a hot potato. He was trying to set the table for a negotiation with the pga tour. Exactly what is done in many other sports by union officials on behalf of their players. He told the truth about the Saudi's. He told the truth about the pga. Look at the salaries in football and baseball, they are many times what pro golfers earn. He was just telling the truth of what many players think. What happened to free speech? The punishment doesn't fit this crime, in my humble opinion.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

He was trying to set the table for a negotiation with the pga tour.

Except he wasn't. He was trying to cash in and figured "I was just trying to make the PGA Tour better" sounded the best.

He told the truth about the pga.

No, he didn't. He got almost every bit of "data" he said about the PGA Tour wrong, often grossly so.

Look at the salaries in football and baseball, they are many times what pro golfers earn.

Those sports are significantly more popular/earn quite a bit more money than golf.

What happened to free speech?

He wasn't arrested for his free speech, and nobody impaired his right to it.

Free speech doesn't mean you can say whatever you want without consequences.

[A.G._Crockett]

I still think there is more to this story than what I've read so far for all his sponsors to drop him like a hot potato. He was trying to set the table for a negotiation with the pga tour. Exactly what is done in many other sports by union officials on behalf of their players. He told the truth about the Saudi's. He told the truth about the pga. Look at the salaries in football and baseball, they are many times what pro golfers earn. He was just telling the truth of what many players think. What happened to free speech? The punishment doesn't fit this crime, in my humble opinion.

Is Callaway supposed to run commercials featuring Mickelson during PGA Tour events? This seems to me to be a VERY simple business decision for the companies.


As has been pointed out, the constitutional right of free speech was/is intended primarily to protect political speech from government censorship or retribution.  This is NOT a free speech issue, but the simple fact is that Mickelson is in the stew because of unfettered free speech. What we say has consequences. Whether or not what Mickelson said is true isn’t even really the issue, though the consensus seems to be that much of it was not.


The issue, if there is even is one, is really whether or not companies who want a presence on the PGA Tour should give millions to a guy who is admittedly trying to organize a rival tour. Doing so, at least in my mind, would be a firing offense for a CEO or marketing VP.

[Niall C]

I still think there is more to this story than what I've read so far for all his sponsors to drop him like a hot potato. He was trying to set the table for a negotiation with the pga tour. Exactly what is done in many other sports by union officials on behalf of their players. He told the truth about the Saudi's. He told the truth about the pga. Look at the salaries in football and baseball, they are many times what pro golfers earn. He was just telling the truth of what many players think. What happened to free speech? The punishment doesn't fit this crime, in my humble opinion.

Cary


I see it pretty much the same way and have said as much. The only thing I'd quibble about is your comment regarding punishment fitting the crime. There is no crime and no-one, least of all Phil it seems, can compel the tour to do a deal. Ironically the tour have indirectly affected Phil's media and marketing potential which was one of the things he was angling to improve.


The other thing is, footballers and basketball players have salaries. Not sure you can say the same thing about golfers unless you are referring to their off-course earnings which brings us back to the media rights issue.


Niall

[Erik J. Barzeski]

The other thing is, footballers and basketball players have salaries. Not sure you can say the same thing about golfers unless you are referring to their off-course earnings which brings us back to the media rights issue.

They're also not independent to choose when and where they play. And their leagues, once again, make a tremendous amount more money than the PGA Tour. Golf is still not a "top five" sport.

[Niall C]

Erik


I'm not sure the relevance of what you are saying. Golf may not be as big as the other sports you refer to however surely the point is that in those other team sports the players are contracted and get a salary every week whereas golfers show up in the hope, or expectation in the case of the top players, that they might win something. They are guaranteed nothing.


Sponsorship and therefore control of their image surely count for more to a golfer than they do for another athlete who is contracted to a team. 


Niall

[JESII]

Niall, do you think every golfer would take on that gamble at the outset of their careers?


Surely the platform the Tour has built for the players, by the players counts for a great deal of their notoriety...

[Erik J. Barzeski]

They are guaranteed nothing.

Because they haven't signed a contract like players in other sports have: the players in other sports are guaranteed a payday because they're operating under a whole different premise. They're part of a union, they sign contracts. Golfers are mostly independent contractors, so they arguably give up some $ for some freedom. Freedom to make their own schedules, etc. AND their leagues make a heck of a lot more money than the PGA Tour.

The Saudi League would have made golfers more like players in other sports: contractually obligated to play, etc. Players have generally not wanted that.

Sponsorship and therefore control of their image surely count for more to a golfer than they do for another athlete who is contracted to a team.

Golfers can do a lot to control and sell "their image." They just don't have media rights to their competitive rounds… but neither do the players in the NBA, NFL, MLB, NHL, etc. And they didn't fund the TV crews, etc. The league, like every other league, negotiates the media deals as a whole, on behalf of all players.

[Kalen Braley]

Erik,

I agree with your comment in principle...but...PGA Tour players still have by-laws they must adhere too in terms of what they can wear, minimum # of events, interaction with other players and media, etc. 

I do think its a valid criticism of the PGATour that they benefit of having players be independent contractors and avoid paying out on travel expenses, costs, health care, training costs, etc,....and yet still able to implement aforementioned rules and regulations to govern them.

Seems long overdue that anyone who shows up to an event and misses the cut should get enough to at least cover costs of traveling, lodging, caddy costs, etc. and I'd bet the PIP money alone would be enough to cover most of this.