December 11, 2009

Short Memory: Glamour Writer Hits at Public For Being ‘Disappointed’ in Woods

Filed under: MSM Biz/Other Bias,MSM Biz/Other Ignorance — Tom @ 12:55 pm

I mean really, what right do we have to expect anything from the world’s best golfer except the world’s best golf?

That was the argument made Wednesday by “Married Jake” of Glamour Magazine at Yahoo’s “Shine” site.

The item is called “Why Is Everyone Disappointed in Tiger?” (HT Instapundit). In it, jaded Jake jabs at a substantial portion of the public because, silly us, we thought that the guy was what he and his handlers portrayed.

Here is a graphic cap of Jake’s first three paragraphs. The “Related” insert isn’t his, and seems more than a little ironic in the circumstances:


Jake apparently needs to start taking more B vitamins to assist his memory, because there are at least two very good reasons why the public belief that Tiger was a faithful husband was mostly reasonable. You see, on two separate occasions, Tiger announced that he was taking time away from golf for family-related issues:

  • The less directly relevant of the two was Woods’s nine-week hiatus in 2006 from the PGA Tour to be with his ailing father who was battling prostate cancer. The April 21, 2006 Washington Post reported that “He did not give specific details of his planned break, except to say he would not start playing ‘for a while,’ and the failing health of his father, Earl, would have a major influence on his future schedule.” Earl Woods died on May 3.
  • Much more to the point, Woods specifically took time off to be with his wife Elin in June 2007 when their first child Sam was born. This decision prompted a wave of favorable media coverage (example here) with supportive opinions offered by Woods’s fellow PGA professionals.

Of course these items created the expectation that Tiger was devoted to his family. And of course, his shrewdly promoted, seemingly singular obsession with continually improving his golf game when it was already clearly the best on the planet led people to believe that he had no time for or interest in anything else besides his family (remember the commercial about him hitting practice drives during a driving rain storm, because he said — paraphrasing — “you can never take a day off”?).

Look, though I have little sympathy with the argument, you can assert that athletes aren’t supposed to be role models, and that involuntarily shouldering them with that responsibility isn’t right or fair. But this is about more than that, because Woods and his peeps for years have cultivated a public image that all of them had to recognize at some point was wildly at variance with reality.

So sue us, Jake. Yeah, we’re disappointed. We’re allowed to be. In fact, we should be. In fact, thank goodness we still are.

Cross-posted at



  1. Weird article. I was really disheartened myself to hear about all this, as I had always liked Tiger and respected his dedication to his profession. Oh, well. Hopefully his announcement that he is taking a leave of absence is a true sign he wants to make amends and truly felt sorry and realized he was wrong. And finally he used the term infidelity to describe what he did, which I guess is more than say Clinton or Sanford ever did.

    Just a quick (unrelated) question, do you think it’s fair to categorize Medicare and Medicaid as “public options?”

    Comment by zf — December 11, 2009 @ 10:47 pm

  2. #1, only if they’re optional. Medicare may be legally not optional, and in a practical sense is definitely not optional.

    Comment by TBlumer — December 11, 2009 @ 10:53 pm

  3. #2, I ask that because on some website they were trying to make the case that a “public option” wouldn’t mean government control because Medicare and Medicaid are “public options” and that those two programs don’t give government control outside of the programs and that they are truly “optional.” Outside of the fact that these “options” have to be paid for by people who don’t and never will “use” them, doesn’t Medicare and Medicaid’s tentacles extend much father out then just within there own (supposedly) limited program directives?

    Comment by zf — December 11, 2009 @ 11:20 pm

  4. Nobody’s perfect. Somebody should give him another chance. He’s a great golfer and he had said his peace. Let’s just hope that healing follows soon with his family.

    Comment by Chicago Interpreter — December 11, 2009 @ 11:31 pm

  5. #4, I agree to a certain extent that if Tiger is sincere and not just saying the right things to get by we should support him in that.

    However, I have to pick a few bones of contention with how you said it. First off, what Tiger did wasn’t a “mistake”. A mistake is an unintentional blunder. Infidelity is a deliberate purposeful betrayal of ones family and wife. To call actions like that a “mistake” puts it on the level of say, Tiger trying to drive the ball on the green and landing it in the water. Sorry, don’t buy it.

    The “nobody’s perfect” mantra I also find grating. That could be said to soften anyone’s wrongdoing. Hitler killed Jews, well nobody’s perfect. Manson directed people to kill, well don’t condemn him, because none of us are perfect. It makes a false equivocation of treating all “imperfections” the same. Again, deliberate adultery is not a case of someone falling short of perfect, it’s a case of someone committing a wrongdoing for their own selfish reasons when they should know better. Again, picking your nose (imperfection) is not the same as infidelity (lack of moral fiber.)

    That said, while I’m willing to give Tiger a second chance as it were, it’s going to take a continued effort on his part to convince me so. I’m not big on the typical knee-jerk and immediate cries of ‘second chance!” when someone commits a wrongdoing that permeates society today. How many people commit wicked acts knowing that they can count on being granted an immediate second chance? (Mike Vick falls into this category in my opinion.) They’ll have the cake and be able to eat it too. Tiger started off badly and has recovered a bit, and if he continues to do so, by all means grant him his second chance. By only at the end of a long torturous road.

    Comment by zf — December 12, 2009 @ 12:12 am

  6. #5, great comment.

    Comment by TBlumer — December 12, 2009 @ 7:25 am

  7. #3, the obvious difference, even if you accept the premise that Medicare and Medicaid haven’t directly influenced the provision of medical care (tell that to operators of and patients in nursing homes), is that the new legislation creates some 100+ regulatory bodies that will make sure that Medicaid, Medicare and everything else the government touches influences and controls the course of medical care in this country.

    Comment by TBlumer — December 12, 2009 @ 7:28 am

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.