Comments on: Another round in the Matter of Tiger Woods’ Privacy

By: isulax2

isulax2 — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 19:37:33 +0000

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.

By: Kashmir Hill

Kashmir Hill — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 14:24:19 +0000

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.

By: David Knowles

David Knowles — Mon, 30 Nov 2009 20:55:03 +0000

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.

By: Lisa Todorovich

Lisa Todorovich — Mon, 30 Nov 2009 20:52:38 +0000

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.

By: palavering

palavering — Mon, 30 Nov 2009 20:49:35 +0000

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?

By: palavering

palavering — Mon, 30 Nov 2009 18:44:36 +0000

You sound like a mob memeber out of “White Heat.”

By: Elie Mystal

Elie Mystal — Mon, 30 Nov 2009 18:42:47 +0000

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.

By: palavering

palavering — Mon, 30 Nov 2009 17:36:37 +0000

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.”

By: Kashmir Hill

Kashmir Hill — Mon, 30 Nov 2009 17:35:11 +0000

(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.

By: Bob Cook

Bob Cook — Mon, 30 Nov 2009 16:43:18 +0000

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.