Kindred doesn't think Tiger was honest

Well said. And the Magic Johnson thing is a great example. Two months later, he was at the All-Star game hitting a 3-pointer over Isiah Thomas and everyone thought it was such a heart-felt moment. How media has changed ... How would that be taken now?

Here's my take: everyone who has written a bad word about Tiger has a personal vendetta against him. I get that he wasn't the most cooperative guy, but who said he has to be?

A friend and I had a discussion today. What if Tiger was only engaged, not married, and there were no kids involved. Would it produce the same results? I don't think it would have. Everyone is writing about how Tiger's is off his moral compass, which I don't give a shit about. My neighbor could have done the same thing. If you don't like him, don't buy Nike sneakers (or their crappy golf clubs) and don't watch.

Furthermore, these columnists who have blasted Tiger for being morally incorrect must live absolute perfect lives.

 

Dead-on.

 

There's also scrutiny because it appears that the cops treated Tiger with kid gloves because of who he is. Sure, it happens. But it ain't right.

The hate for him is because he tried to have this squeaky-clean image and got caught not being so perfect. The media loves it when that happens, especially when there's sex involved. And the harder he tries to cover up his issues, the harder the media is going to push.

 

I'd also add that they're jealous.

In the annals of time, it has been shown that the ONLY reasons anyone ever says or writes anything negative about a famous public figure is either A. Personal vendetta; or B. Jealousy.

Man, those journalists are just so transparent, aren't they?

 

Oh, we're also happy to go on about robbing, marauding thugs like Enron and Goldman Sachs. No problem.

 

That's sarcasm, isn't it?

I shouldn't have said journalists, when I mean columnists. Big difference. A lot of these guys spew from the fingers their contrarian viewpoints, when half the time I don't even think they believe what they're writing.

The big-time columnist at the metro in our state, I can often tell what he's going to write long before the column is out. He's just a sour old man, so it's never hard to guess his take. It seems that he hates everyone and everything, just because he needs to stick to his contrarian schtick. That's his thing.

It's also the easy way out. When you're not a very good writer, you write things that'll get people pissed off. Works like a charm, whether you actually believe what you're writing or not.

 

That I agree with.

There's not need to ascribe some kind of actual emotion to columnists' rantings, when in actuality sometimes they're just looking to fill the space on that particular day.

 

Yes, 100 percent.

But at the same time, shouldn't readers feel cheated by that? I mean, as the local columnist, I think a lot of readers look to you to provide insight on the things they can't every experience with these athletes. Not just "fill the space" with your contrarian viewpoint. However, I agree that it does get pageviews, comments and sells papers.

It just seems cheap to me.

 

There's a third:

3. He's dead to me. Why should I care about this crum?