Comments on: What Tiger Woods’ crash means to mainsteam media and celebrity news

By: John Defoe

John Defoe — Thu, 04 Mar 2010 18:08:08 +0000

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

By: Skip Picasso

Skip Picasso — Mon, 07 Dec 2009 15:54:42 +0000

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.

By: JCH

JCH — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 23:17:37 +0000

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…

By: Chris

Chris — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 09:39:53 +0000

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?

By: jason

jason — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 21:03:19 +0000

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.

By: Larry Lough

Larry Lough — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 18:23:33 +0000

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.

By: Alicia Shepard

Alicia Shepard — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 17:40:16 +0000

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!

By: Thomas

Thomas — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 17:30:05 +0000

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.

By: Catalyst

Catalyst — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 17:26:34 +0000

Bravo, Mr. Deggans. Well put.

By: Baylink

Baylink — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 16:59:46 +0000

“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…