Another round in the Matter of Tiger Woods’ Privacy
Photo of the Woods family released to the press
Tiger Woods continues to argue for privacy around his Thanksgiving night collision with a fire hydrant. I argued yesterday that, as a high profile athlete who has reaped over a billion dollars in advertising deals, he’s not entitled to privacy. I also disagreed with Conor Friedersdorf’s argument that the personal lives of athletes are better left untouched for the sake of sports fandom. Conor was not convinced by my argument:
Woods’ brand is inseparable from his stature as the best golfer in the world, and ultimately separable from his personal life. (How many people didn’t even know until this weekend that he is married?).
The people arguing that by accepting endorsement deals, Tiger Woods cedes any right to be upset about violations of his privacy have chosen a particularly poor example for their argument, because Mr. Woods never had any choice about being a celebrity. The kid played golf since before he can even remember. As the first black man to make it to the top of a lily white sport, jumping from a stellar amateur career to early majors victories, he was always going to be a household name, even if he never signed a single endorsement deal. Put another way, so long as he wanted to play the sport that has defined his life since he was a toddler, he had to give up much of his privacy, and who among us, put in his position, wouldn’t accept millions of dollars of extra monetary compensation in exchange? Would we then be giving up whatever privacy we had left? Given how much Tiger Woods makes from golf alone, it is quite plausible to me that if he could, he’d trade all the endorsement checks for the ability to dine in a restaurant or take his kids to Disneyland without being mobbed.
But he didn’t. He accepted over a billion dollars in endorsement deals, and not just for sports equipment. He helped sell watches (for Tag Heuer), razors & shaving cream (for Gillette), and consulting services (for Accenture). He extended his “brand” beyond sports and thus opened the door to other parts of his life.
He has not zealously guarded his privacy, even if that is what he named his yacht. Conor argues that most people probably didn’t know Woods was married until this weekend. Well, they would if they read celebrity gossip media. They would also know the two have children, since they have repeatedly released (or sold) photos of the family to the media.
Loss of privacy occurs for anyone — celebrity or not — who gets into accidents or runs afoul of the law. Police reports are public records. Celebrities who wish to maintain their privacy should avoid brushes with the po-po.
Conor also disagreed with me in the need to factor an athlete’s personal life into the way he or she plays the game. But Woods himself has broached his personal life in order to explain his athletic performance, such as during a speech at Obama’s inauguration:
As for my comeback to the PGA Tour, a lot depends on the baby, which is due pretty soon. That takes precedent over anything I do golf-wise. Elin, Sam and I are very excited for the new baby to arrive, although that’s when the real lack of sleep begins. But I must admit, I am also excited about returning to competition. Early on, I didn’t miss golf because I enjoyed staying home with Elin and Sam, and I knew I wasn’t physically able to play. The truth is, I would have embarrassed myself. Now, I’m getting my feel and practice back. It’s just a matter of playing more on the course.
More than an entitlement to privacy though, Woods should think about whether privacy at this point is wise. His silence is fueling endless speculation and further gossiping. At this point, his privacy would — ironically — be better served by coming clean, as wisely suggested by US Magazine.*
But fellow athletes urge Woods — who has blown off three meetings with authorities — to come clean.
“I just hope he tells his side of the story about what happened,” his pal, ex-NBA star Charles Barkley, tells the New York Post. “You’ve got to face the music, because it is what it is. Not talking about it can make it worse.”
PR experts also caution that Woods should avoid the appearance of lying or covering up what happened.
via News – Athletes to Tiger Woods: Come Clean! – Celebrity News – UsMagazine.com.
Privacy is tenuous. By seeking out a life in the spotlight — on the green and in the pages of magazines, advertising and otherwise — Woods drove his away.
* “[A]s wisely suggested by US Magazine.” — I never thought I would write a statement like that in my life.
Post Your Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment
T/S Members
Log in with your True/Slant account.
I think you evade responding to my primary argument: that by virtue of being a supremely talented golfer who wins major tournaments more regularly than anyone else — and by being the first black golfer to reach the elite level in a lily white sport — Tiger Woods didn’t have any choice about being a celebrity whose life is scrutinized, whether or not he took endorsement deals.
You also say that by selling watches and shaving cream he “extended his ‘brand’ beyond sports and thus opened the door to other parts of his life.” But I don’t think that is right. He was chosen to endorse shaving cream not because he is expert at wielding a razor, or has amazingly smooth skin, but because he is the best golfer in the world.
Out of curiosity, why exactly do you think that endorsing products matters in an argument about whether someone deserves privacy?
(crossposted in Metablog comments section)
I agree with your primary argument, “that by virtue of being a supremely talented golfer who wins major tournaments more regularly than anyone else — and by being the first black golfer to reach the elite level in a lily white sport — Tiger Woods didn’t have any choice about being a celebrity whose life is scrutinized, whether or not he took endorsement deals.”
We both agree that Woods is a celebrity. As you write, there are many golfers who are completely obscure. Woods was never destined for obscurity, but he could have chosen greater obscurity by not accepting endorsement deals from across the spectrum of products. By appearing in ads for companies ranging from Buick to American Express, he ensured exposure to a great swath of society. Those endorsements helped him achieve and expand his celebrity status among non-golf-aficionados.
Where we perhaps disagree is the extent to which celebrities are entitled to privacy.
In response to another comment. See in context »Anyone who consciously chooses to accept money or publicity for his/her comportment that is visible to the public-at-large, can not dispute that he or she has willingly agreed to public scrutiny. Lest we forget, there was a time when Woods sought to see his name in “lights.”
In response to another comment. See in context »By willingly taking his life into the public sphere, by making his whole personality a brand, Tiger Woods earned the right to be scrutinized. If we can scrutinize Buick, Colgate and Nordstrom as brands, why can’t we do the same to the Tiger Woods brand? Because that’s what he has knowingly and cunningly built over the years. Woods might have been pushed into golf by his father, but he’s long past the point where it can be argued he’s some sort of unwitting victim of Earl Woods’ dreams. Anyway, Tiger knows (or should know) better than anyone that the days when reporters turned a blind eye to Babe Ruth’s whoring and binging are long over. It’s kind of hard to ignore when there’s a publicly available police report involved.
Interestingly, Charles Barkley, who is begging his friend Tiger to come clean, knowingly and cunningly built his own anti-brand from day one. So when Barkley got popped for a DUI and was revealed to have enormous gambling debts, eh, it was Charles being Charles. When you’ve built an aspirational brand like Michael Jordan or Tiger Woods has, any chink in the armor can hurt. On the other hand, Jordan’s gambling, womanizing, Space Jamming and incompetent general managing didn’t hurt him all that much, so in the end Woods will have a little embarrassment, and that’s about it.
I think it depends slightly on what we mean by “coming clean.” Right now, this is on the verge of becoming a criminal matter. The only thing for Tiger to do right now is keep his mouth shut. He has to, I’m sure his lawyer is begging him to. Nothing good comes from talking right now. And the worse thing people (be they celebrities or just regular folks) do for themselves in these situations is saying anything to the cops or anybody else. Never, ever, talk to the cops unless your lawyer has passed off on every single thing you are going to say.
Tiger’s lawyer is telling him to shut up because it is the only smart thing to do. If the cops decide not to peruse this any further I’m sure Tiger will have a lot to say.
You sound like a mob memeber out of “White Heat.”
In response to another comment. See in context »Why do so many people exclaim that we have a right to privacy? We have a right to expect privacy within the confines of our property. The question is: Did Woods own the fire hydrant that he hit?
If there’s any possibility of self-incrimination (and avoiding it) involved, he’s right to keep his mouth shut. However, does the involvement of someone like Gloria Allred — who you know is going to be dining out on this one on the morning shows if there’s a sniff of any kind of relationship between Woods and Rachel Uchitel — force his hand? Or will it make him retreat all the more into the “give me my privacy” argument? And even from a strictly crisis management standpoint, the privacy demand seems a stretch.
Kashmir,
I’m going to side with Connor on this one. You seem to think that the sheer amount of advertising Woods has taken on automatically disqualifies him from a right to privacy. No doubt his skill as a golfer and his business acumen as a pitchman have made him a celebrity whose private life will forever be scrutinized, but that’s different than saying he can’t simply shut up when he feels like it.
Either we have these rights, or we don’t. And Tiger Woods is certainly within his legal rights to keep the details of his private life from the police and his fans in this case.
David,
I do agree that Woods has a right to be silent about it. My argument is that we have a right to be curious, given how exposed we have been to him over the last 10 or so years.
Conor argues that our curiosity about Woods should not extend beyond golf, as that is his primary profession and what made him famous. Following the logic of this argument means that the personal lives of professionals should never be explored, whether they be film stars or businessmen. Yet, our personal lives inform who we are and how we achieve success or suffer failure in the world. To declare this realm of journalistic inquiry off limits would result in some incredibly dull news.
I agree that the privacy of those in the public eye is limited. They have looser standards when it comes to libel and slander than a “normal” citizen. It is also the case that speculation over the nature of the incident will persist… for a while. I think that there is still a limited amount of privacy that Tiger and his family can, and should hold on to. This story will eventually fade away, other extrememly famous athletes have had much more severe brushes with the law only to survive and continue their lives (Kobe Bryant and Michael Jordan come to mind).
Of course journalists have a right to be curious, just like Tiger has a right to not give in to those curiosities. It’s not off-limits, its just gossip. And I don’t feel that gossip rates too highly on the spectrum or worth-while journalism… but that is just one man’s opinion.
In response to another comment. See in context »