Masters for Tiger

"Could" and "should" are quite different.

 

Will such questions really harm anyone?

 

Why should journalists be afraid of Tiger or the "Masters Mystique"?

 

Do you have the digits of the hostess at Waffle House?

 

I was unaware that golf press conferences were subject to the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Harass me some more and I report you and hopefully you'll get a nice vacation.

 

Glad to see this. Regardless of all the off-the-course adventure, Tiger's a great golfer, and to see how he performs after an extended layoff and with a huge chip on his shoulder will be very interesting.

Should make for great TV viewing -- and at an event that has limited commercials!! I'll take it!

 

That's not why. It's because I think it would be grand standing at a certain point by the reporter - someone asking how many mistresses he's had just to show they can rather than because they think the question is going to be answered or elicit a relevant response. I wouldn't go to an Obama presser on health care and start firing Rev. Wright questions at him.

It's not about his feelings whatsoever.

 

If nothing else, 8,000 versions of "How do you think your ordeal over the last few months will affect your golf game" will be asked. The idea of an "only golf-related" questions edict is laughable.

 

No one has to follow it. But it's their party. They can set whatever terms they want.

 

How else would you explain the groundskeepers hearing "Oh God," from the azaleas after hours?