When the Tiger broke free…
So, Tiger Woods has spoken up. Outrageously but not surprisingly, the media response to what he had to say at his press conference has been largely relegated to questions of his reputation’s fate, his failed strategy at addressing the PR crisis, and so on. No one is wondering if what he said, the position he took, was right or not.
Of course it was. Woods seethed that the media opted to stalk his family, “fabricate” elements of story out of whole cloth, speculate and decide his marital status for him, advise him to seek Jesus’s forgiveness, and generally ask and answer questions that are, in fact, nobody’s business excepts the Woods’.
He’s right. The media shouldn’t have even been in the proverbial room. It’s not as if he’s a governor spending tax dollars on prostitutes, or any such thing. He’s a billionaire athlete. Why anyone should assume he doesn’t have affairs, and would therefore be shocked, shocked when his wife takes out a car window with a golf club over a discovered infidelity, is a stupefying mystery. Athletes don’t serve the public, or, God knows, have an unwritten code of ethics they have to live by. They’ve sold dope, killed dogs, beat up wives, gunned down enemies, become politicians. Mostly, they throw or hit balls of varying shapes and sizes.
Whether or not Woods was some trollop’s backdoor man is not only none of our business, we shouldn’t want it to be. We, the public, and the media that reflects our concerns and informational needs, should have more substantial things to worry about. We do, in fact, have a teeming pile of more substantial things to worry about. We shouldn’t care about an athlete’s marital skirmishes. Even if we were a little curious, certainly the media, if it defines itself as anything but a pandering plague of bed lice, should’ve saved its page and air space for stories that actually matter.
But, this week, the media, from Murdoch’s Isengard to NPR, ignored Woods’ unambiguously furious press conference but covered it anyway, as the latest chapter in the pointless story they’d just been scolded for telling. The cognitive dissonce is practically comedy, an old SCTV or SNL skit. Woods should’ve added something to the effect, “Isn’t there real news for you guys to write about? Why are you wasting time following my kid to school, when your editorial budgets are crumbling like sand castles in a typhoon? Isn’t it a little pathetic?”
Or, a la William Shatner on SNL, “Get a life!”
Of course, he would’ve been talking to us all.
(Or, look again at SCTV’s timeless premier episode of “The Sammy Maudlin Show,” and consider that Catherine O’Hara is Woods.)
More on True/Slant Right Now
-
-
Related streams
Post Your Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment
T/S Members
Log in with your True/Slant account.
Tiger may have been better off reading his original speech/ http://bit.ly/90DZpq
In a perfect world I’d agree with you. But here’s the problem with your argument. Because he’s a brilliant golfer he’s been elevated to godhead status. Godhead status means viewing eyeballs, and viewing eyeballs means lots of cash for the networks and endorsements for Woods. So as I see it, he can’t have it both ways. If he makes his living as a public somebody and reaps the rewards thereof, then he is as subject to public scrutiny as any politician. “Privacy” is no longer a concept that Woods can expect given that he makes so much money because of public interest. If he really wants to keep his private life private, then he should leave the tour and use his Stanford education for a career in accounting.
To answer your question concerning the media interest in certain famous person’s virtue or lack thereof (and I assume you mean left-leaning since the right-wingnuts are beyond the pale): Schadenfreude, the pleasure derived from another’s misfortune, especially the Stars. Left-wing media, being marxist, therapeutic and nihilistic extols its own brand of virtue. It is reluctant to condemn victim group members – those not to be held accountable. Tiger Woods, being linked to Obama, should have gotten a pass. But envy is the primordial life force, the heroin, for left-wing media dealers and the Left in general. So, they succumb to schadenfreude in a terrible, cruel irony.
Further thoughts on Woods in a similar vein. The ancient Greeks believed in moderation as a means to the good life. Only the gods could drink ambrosia. If a mortal were to practice excess he would invite the gods’ jealousy and nemesis would result. Not good. Woods not only defied modernist and Christian precepts concerning envy and lust he also broke ancient laws possibly still in play. Eternal laws which were discovered at the very beginning of our civilization.
I’m with you all, and get the Schadenfreude argument, the anti-ambrosia argument, the ideal-world argument, etc. You’re all right. Except I wasn’t arguing that mankind doesn’t have reasons to dwell upon the downfall of the fortunate and blessed. (Nor was I protesting on behalf of Woods; I couldn’t care less about him or his privacy.) I was arguing that by now our base impulses shouldn’t control our public discussion — that we shouldn’t want them to. We should do better. We should want to do better, readers and writers and TV producers alike. Why don’t we all feel like crossbred idiot children when this kind of thing blossoms? Logically, we should take one look at the the way this media kerfuffle played out, and feel ashamed. Idealism, you bet. I’m still waiting for a reasonable world.
In response to another comment. See in context »Wow. And I thought I was idealistic. You could just as easily ask: Why doesn’t Goldman Sachs and its ilk do the right thing? Why don’t politicians turn down donations from corporations? How do Glenn Beck, Ann Coulter, and Rush Limbaugh sleep at night pedaling lies to promote a conservative agenda? The answer in all of these cases is–money talks. The only way to combat all of these things, including the Tiger Woods show, is for all of us to collectively turn our backs. No eyeballs, no hype, no money.
In response to another comment. See in context »Michael, thank you for a good article. You ask questions that are thought-provoking. Me, I think it might be a sign of moral health that he is brought down. We are still a free people who are capable of moral judgement based on, I think, a great tradition. The best in fact.
inmyhumbleopinion, Goldman Sachs. What is the right thing? Are they supposed to become communists? Greed to the capitalist is like envy to the Lefty. Heroin. What are you suggesting? We kill all the poppies? They’re so beautiful.
In response to another comment. See in context »Read Matt Taibbi’s latest article in Rolling Stone. GS, Morgan Stanley and all the rest are simply con men, not capitalists.
In response to another comment. See in context »Of course, inmyhumbleopinion is right, it’s money, but we’re not getting paid. In fact, we’re paying out. We should know better, shouldn’t we?
In response to another comment. See in context »