What Tiger Woods’ crash means to mainsteam media and celebrity news
Eric Deggans |
Dec. 1, 2009 9:01 a.m.
 |
Not the way media outlets are tripping over themselves to speculate about a possible sordid side to one of sports’ most successful, least-forthcoming athletes.
Not the way sports broadcasts usually devoted to excavating the latest Browns loss or Favre win have dug into the kerfluffle, like relatives salivating at a well-cooked holiday meal.
I’m fretting instead about two things: First, that this story feels like a bit of a turning point; the moment when we accept that today’s sped-up, always-on media environment virtually guarantees that controversial, confusing stories like Woods’ car accident will be misreported in the early hours and corrected as time goes on.
Second, it may be the final body blow to mainstream media’s attempts to pursue such celebrity-drenched news with even a modicum of restraint and ethics – mostly because the gossip outlets have totally owned this story almost from the first report.
Judging by the popularity of the term “Tiger Woods” on Google and Twitter, you likely already know the salient details:
Woods, golf’s most successful player and the sports world’s highest-earning athlete, got into a car crash in front of his home near Orlando that took out a fire hydrant, dented a tree, left the golf legend briefly unconscious and earned injuries police initially called “serious.”
Unfortunately for Woods, the elements of a media feeding frenzy were all there, ready to warp the newsgathering process like a haze of smog on a hot Los Angeles day. Or perhaps a better metaphor would be a loaded gun – pointed right at the heart of Woods’ famously private nature.
The initial police report of serious injuries sustained in a 2:25 a.m. accident ensured all media would be all in – sports jockeys, mainstream news outlets and gossip sheets alike (it seems now that the term “serious” was overstated; police say they always call injuries serious when someone is taken to a hospital and Woods’ representatives insist his injuries were minor).
The fact that it happened over Thanksgiving weekend when traditional news is molasses slow, lent kindling to the fire.
And gossip outlets blew the sparks into a flame, first with the National Enquirer’s reporting a few days ago that Woods may have had an affair, to gossip Web site TMZ.com reporting that an argument between Woods and his wife Elin Nordegren led to the crash.
Indeed, after the initial reporting of the crash, where quoting the police report led to mistakes, TMZ has seemingly owned the Woods story – from reports that police are trying to assemble enough material to request a warrant for Woods’ medical records to an eyewitness account of the crash filled with details on what the athlete was wearing and how paramedics tried to revive him.
But sources are not cited in most of TMZ’s biggest scoops, leaving open the question of how they were obtained and how accurate they may be. Left with few other on-the-record sources, many media outlets were forced to quote TMZ in their early reporting Monday, lending a force to their scoops media hasn’t seen since the site first broke news of Michael Jackson’s death in June.
Still, in Jackson’s death, more traditional media outlets, particularly the Los Angeles Times, worked hard to develop their own reporting and scoops. TMZ seems so far ahead on this one, the only scoop left is the one that either confirms or debunks what they’ve already reported.
(The Boston Herald, for example, posted a story online Monday afternoon quoting a Florida Highway Patrol officer denying that the department is seeking a warrant for Wood’s medical records.)
Which makes you wonder: What happens to coverage of celebrity athletes when the controversial personal stuff is outsourced to the TMZs and Enquirers on the world?
TIME magazine TV critic James Poniewozik pointed out artfully Monday that mainstream news outlets often fumble these stories, torn between a new audience that expects instant information on such events and a traditional audience that disdains such reporting on a guy famous for hitting a golf ball better than anyone else.
But I’d say there’s another reason why traditional news outlets don’t cover these stories well; they don’t necessarily have the same freedom to grant anonymity to sources or reward them as the tabloid outlets. So its small wonder TMZ can get the kind of eyewitness account the local newspaper cannot.
I’ve argued for years that these personal scandals are so intertwined with news that they cannot be ignored. Much as some sports commentators wanted to shrug off the Tiger feeding frenzy, questions about sponsorship, fan affection, his charity golf outing later this week, police treatment of certain sports celebrities and the possibility of a dark inner life most sports media missed made this a real news story in too many ways.
That’s also, by the way, why Woods’ own cryptic statement trying to take responsibility for the crash will not even slow the media melee (he said, for example, that his wife was the first to try and help him but didn’t address whether she also helped cause the accident). There are now too many legitimate questions left to dodge or stonewall – though by pulling out of his Thursday charity golf tournament and declaring no new events for 2009, he may buy himself some time.
Right now, however, Wood’s accident is a real news story with worldwide interest led by outlets with the least traditional reporting standards.
And that may be the scariest eventuality of all.
Eric Deggans is TV and Media Critic for the St. Petersburg Times and a 1990 graduate of the Indiana University School of Journalism. His work has also appeared in the Washington Post, Village Voice, VIBE magazine, Chicago Tribune, Detroit Free Press, Chicago Sun-Times and many other publications. He also writes a blog on media, The Feed, at blogs.tampabay.com/media.
My biggest concern is the blurring of tabloid and credible mainstream media. When the latter references the former in any story, we enter a scary place in what was once a 4-to-6 source way of life.
Today all media outlets are in competition with one another, and those that *try* to hold themselves to strict journalistic standards often find themselves racing from behind to report a story, while a lesser more sensationalized ones get the clicks.
Tiger’s story is more than a celebrity gossip story. There’s interest that begins in the sports world and extends to people who have simply tuned into see his magnificent play.
It’s doesn’t bode well for us when we spend so much time seeking the TMZ aspect of this story that it removes us from the important things in life. I say the same thing, and my stomach turns, when the likes of Brittany Spears, makes the evening news.
“Traditional media” is at much at fault as the changing process itself. When traditional media like the TODAY Show are giving interviews to the Salahis and Heenes – people only interested in creating tabloid news – then traditional media is in a way creating its own demise. The Tiger Woods saga is a clear depiction of where we’re headed in terms of reporting the news. But along the way, traditional media has at times been the willing passenger in the vehicle. I’m not saying traditional media can’t survive in a social media world; but you can’t play both sides of the game and then cry foul.
“Least traditional”? Or “lowest”?
These things tend to go in cycles, and we seem to be cycling back down into Walter Winchell territory these days…
Bravo, Mr. Deggans. Well put.
Good points … but surely Tiger Woods isn’t blameless in stoking the fire. It seems he’s failed to meet the police on three occasions and his press communications have been scant and limited.
Surely the best policy is to resolve the issue as soon as possible by being honest and upfront, dealing with the issues as a priority and putting it behind him.
Whether he’s done anything wrong or not, the rumour mongers will be churning up more stories the longer he doesn’t end the speculation.
Eric — This behavior is no different than it was w/ any breaking news. It’s always report what we know, and keep adding details as they come in. It’s imperfect. It creates the opportunity for lots of wrong information to get out -but i doubt it was any different than say when kennedy was assasinated. Just now there’s lots more air time to fill. But really, in any fast-breaking, big story that involves a famous person, when have you seen restraint and ethics?
All the Internet has done has made it so that many more poeple can be confused!
As Dogbert said recently, “Go buy some vinyl records, grandpa.” The definition of “news” is now something somebody else reported, without regard to verification (which, by the way, is for wimps). Information is quotable if someone said it, without regard to his credibility (which, by the way, is wa-a-a-y overrated). It’s the Wild, Wild West, Eric. Shoot first. Ask questions? Yeah, whatever. Not if it means missing my hourly deadline.
I really do disagree. This is not a turning point. This has been going on for awhile now, even to the point where celebrities are rumored to be dead and that hits Google hot trends and people write about it, including some reputable news sources. In the rush to get the story in and on time, research and fact checking have fallen by the wayside.
Also, these words of yours: “Right now, however, Wood’s accident is a real news story with worldwide interest led by outlets with the least traditional reporting standards.” This story has been covered in both major and minor outlets. What indication is there that it is led by outlets with the least traditional reporting standards? Where is the data to support that?
Although the word ” transparency” evokes all sorts of reactions these days, I think people jumped on this story because of Tiger Woods making a statement about “being human” and “not perfect”.
Saying nothing would have been preferable to vague statements like that, ones that indicate (to some) a degree of fault. And yes, the public will come to conclusions. They will ask: if there is nothing here but a car accident, why not say so?
Does the public have a right to know what happened? Not necessarily. The legal system will go through its own protocol. But Tiger Woods ought to know by now that the public will want the story and that this unwillingness to come forward will continue to fuel the fires.
Traditional news outlets are having a tough time coming to terms with the fact that a growing majority of ‘news’ consumers are comfortable with the style of reporting that TMZ and others practice. Report first, develop and hammer out the details later. Give it to me now and update often….
Problem is, this goes against the grain of what traditional journalists hold closest to their hearts — credibility.
Do you get in the game and sacrifice the sacred cow? Or do you let others get it first and then be the one to get it right?
Deggans is right on in this piece. This is such a ridiculous story that each day I’m perplexed and shocked how it still has legs. Even if it was a domestic dispute, who cares?! Just when you think our tabloid culture can’t get any worse, it does…
The problem is not that tabloid-style rags have jumped into the lead on these types of stories. The problem, in this case especially, is that mainstream sports journalists didn’t do their jobs. When Tiger’s on-course behavior became a little bit more erratic, I wondered whether anyone would look deeper into the causes. No one ever did. This whole thing could have come to light so much differently had a single sports “journalist” NOT thought “Well, I’d better not look too closely at Tiger Woods, he might give me a 5 minute interview someday.” Blaming the tabloid media for the failings of “real” journalists, big business sponsors, the PGA, and Tiger Woods himself probably makes you feel better about yourself but it completely misses the point. This IS a story and it was there for you to cover all along–and you could have done it in a way that left fewer desiccated carcasses on the cart path. Face it, these tawdry outlets are handing you your lunch.
Isn’t the story with media always the same?! Tiger’s story was just one in the sea of tons of other, ‘forced’ stories. The only difference between Tiger’s story and other ones is that Tiger’s one was actually real and attachable for reporters (read: paparazzis). World is obviously hungry of other’s lifes, probably their own is not too interesting. My 2 cents only…
John