Kindred doesn't think Tiger was honest

Nice work by Dave, who was honored this week at the Masters.

Kindred doesn't beleive Tiger was telling even part of the truth during his presser.

http://sportsjournalism.org/sports-media-news/because-of-sports-journalists-in-the-room-with-tiger-woods-monday-we-know-he-hasnt-changed-at-all/

 

Opinions are like assholes ....

I don't get why evading a question about what kind of rehab you're in is telling a lie. He's come clean that he was in rehab, and that it's worked for him. So he doesn't want to offer what could be (more) embarrassing information about his personal life. Nobody would in that situation.

Just beacuse he isn't answering your questions, doesn't exactly make him a liar. This is why sports media kind of pisses me off these days ... The line between mainstream sports media and the National Enquirer only continues to get more blurred.

 

I think we're at the point where people have locked themselves into a position on Tiger Woods.

1. "He's a foul human being, but I'll still watch him play golf." aka the intelligent position

2. "I don't care about his personal life but he's the greatest golfer.EVER. PERIOD." The jock niffer

 

Fact 1: Some people think Tiger was honest.
Fact 2: Some people think Tiger was dishonest.
Fact 3: No one but Tiger knows for sure.
Fact 4: Tiger makes good copy.

 

Blood-Horse magazine paid 1K for an article in 1986??

 

Now THAT'S impressive. Wonder what they pay nowadays. :-o

 

They're a non-profit, but hurting. Ad sales are in the sewer. The thing's
a quasi-pamphlet, some weeks.

 

They are, but this is the opinion of a golf writer... a long time and well-respected golf writer. The same kind of guy many on here would accuse of genuflecting at Tiger upon his return to remain in his good graces.

 

There's a bit of a point-counterpoint thing on the above-mentioned Web site. Kindred's piece is offset by Eric Deggans, who says the reporters in the crowd weren't tough enough on Tiger. That notion seems a bit harsh to me. While there were a couple of questions that went unasked, the press conference didn't strike me as a hands-off affair.

 

The subject of an interview has every right to say I don't want to answer a question. People use "no comment" all the time. The reporter can either accept it or dig somewhere else for the answer.
Whenever I see or read about a reporter who has a difficult interview, it makes it look like the reporter is a whiny crybaby. Toughen up and do some investigating, if it's worth it.
To me, it looks like TMZ and Deadspin have been doing most of the digging and reporting on the Tiger story and coming up with at least interesting details. By interesting, I mean that stories that people actually read, and not necessarily worthwhile material.
Let me know when Tiger wins another golf tournament and I will read the story.

 

You forgot one ...

3. I don't give a fuck about any of this. PERIOD.

 

I don't get the logic behind the thought that because Tiger didn't respond to questions (that Tiger obviously deemed too personal) he's therefore "unable to tell the whole truth" and unworthy of Dave's sympathy.

Uh, no, Dave, he is under no obligation to provide every gory detail of his private life to a room packed with people who would take that information and subject him to further embarrassment in the name of journalism. And I don't think he was asking for your sympathy, either.

Maybe I'm just really tired of the finger-wagging, holier-than-thou columnists who put themselves in position of moral arbiter.