I meant to say something about this several days ago but I guess I didn’t care enough to do so. Now I see Gail Collins made a similar point, so now that I’m reminded, I’ll say it:
Tiger Woods’ scandal is not news. Not in any legitimate sense, anyway. Frankly, it’s none of your business.
Sure, you’re interested, and lots of people would define news as something that interests them. But I’m picky, and have a rather conservative definition that I tend to live by.
Here’s the thing: You have no reason to be interested in Tiger Woods private life. It affects you in no way whatsoever. You have no stake in it; it does not affect your life. You are in no way responsible for Tiger Woods, and he is in no way responsible to you. Unless you live in his neighborhood, you have no reason even to care about his crazy driving. He’s just not your problem.
Basically, you’re interested because you’re into gossip. That’s what this is: Gossip, not news.
Frankly, I’ve been really put off by how fascinated people — including some people I love and/or respect — are by the Woods revelations. And I wonder at it, in terms of wondering why people take such… delight in this man’s humiliation, and his family’s pain. And “delight” is the word. Delight, accompanied by a suspension of all sense of propriety. There seems to have been a national consensus agreed to whereby the lastest tidbits on Tiger are to be joked about and relished, ad nauseam. A couple of nights ago, I saw a couple of minutes on one of those 24/7 TV “news” channels in which a panel of people who I assume were professional comedians (I didn’t know any of them, but they had that “I’m a famous celebrity” B.S. aura about them) just batting Tiger back and forth, trying to outdo each other in the outrageousness of their sarcasm. (At one point, a white guy said to a black woman something along the lines of, “All these women are white. Which I guess proves that Tiger actually IS black, after all.” Which caused my jaw to drop. Then the black woman said, “No, he’s not, because a black man knows how to keep his hos in line.” Really. I may not have the quotes exactly right because I wasn’t taking notes, but that’s essentially what they said.)
Let’s contrast this to, say, the Mark Sanford scandal. Up to a limited point (and frankly, I still haven’t decided whether I think my former newspaper’s publishing of the infamous e-mails goes beyond that point or not; it’s right on the cusp), South Carolina voters (and no one in the rest of the country, unless they were foolish enough to think he actually WAS a presidential contender before this) have a legitimate interest in knowing how sleazy the guy they were foolish enough to elect twice is. His notorious press conference should be required viewing for SC voters. The bizarre, cringe-making interviews with the AP in the following week further informed us that this is a man who is dangerously narcissistic and out of touch with basic propriety.
After that, our legitimate interest ends — way before we get to a Barbara Walters interview with Jenny Sanford as one of “The 10 Most Fascinating People of 2009.” By the way, that list of most fascinating people is a dissertation on NON-newsmakers. A person with my old-school definition of news (I always think, “Does this story live up to what the Framers were thinking of when they drafted the First Amendment?”) would not choose this list of people for a top ten of the year. Michael Jackson’s kids? My fascination with them only extends as far as thinking, “HE had KIDS? Oh, the poor things…” The only one who even comes close to being a legitimate subject for such a list is Michele Obama, and that just serves to make me think, “Why on Earth did her husband not make the list?”
That went over the line. And I have to tell you, I applauded Mark Sanford when he was asked whether he would watch his soon-to-be ex-wife on the show, and he said, “You’ll never know.” (Sorry, I can’t find a link to that, but I know I read it somewhere.) I don’t ordinarily agree with libertarians on “privacy” issues, but on that, he was dead right.
All we need to know about Mark Sanford’s infidelities is enough to judge his character and decide whether he should have been trusted with high office (short answer: NO, he should not have been). Beyond that, we don’t have a dog in the fight. And we certainly don’t have one in the Tiger Woods fiasco.
Related Posts
Brad there’s a faint, tiny, itty bitty bit of hope for you. You actually acknowledge that a person’s private life and by extension the decisions they make are their’s and their’s alone to make, without interference from external forces. In Tiger Woods case the external forces are the tabloids and the media.
Now let’s take this a step further. Shouldn’t people also be free to make decisions that concern their money, bodies and choices ALSO be free from interference from external forces, especially the government? Seems really obvious to me that Tiger should have privacy just as the guy who wants to play video poker should also have that right. Or the woman who wants to make decisions about her unborn child should also be free from interference to make those gut wrenching decisions. Or how about the guy who is suffering from the side effects of chemotherapy? Shouldn’t he be allowed to choose his treatment free from the medling of government bureacracy?Or for that matter shouldn’t a famous athelete be free to toke on a bong with his friends without the intrusion of some redneck sheriff?
To those of us who truly and I mean truly, truly believe in freedom and privacy these types of decisions flow naturally from the logic Brad applied to Tiger Woods. Heck it’s so obvious I really can’t understand the twisted, awkward logic that would recognize how unreasonable it is to pry into Tiger’s situation and yet find it ok that Sheriff Dunderhead can go on a rampage based on a photograph of a world class swimmer. Nor does it make sense to deny someone his right to privately enjoy the entertainment of his choice. Follow the dots and privacy should extend to ALL human endevours, not just a select few. And that right of privacy should go double for the prying eyes of government.
bud, you’re considering things in isolation, which is something I, as a communitarian, will never do.
My critique of Tigermania is based in my sense that we have a responsibility to each other, and one of those responsibilities is not to be morbidly fascinated in the failings of our fellow humans, when they don’t concern us.
What you insist upon ignoring on video poker is that it was an all-pervasive corrupting influence on our Legislature. You look at the poor schmuck pouring all his money into a machine in a cloud of cigarette smoke in a convenience store and think, “To each his own.” My attention is elsewhere. My attention is focused on what that $3 billion in ill-gotten gains was doing to our politics. Our State House was entirely in the grip of that industry. No one dared take it on for the longest time because they knew it was jealous of its power, and vindictive. Stand up to video poker, and you will have a well-funded opponent. I was unable to tell the very worst instances of that I heard about, because my sources refused to go on the record for fear of the poker barons. But what we DID report was far more than enough for a reasonable person to decide that video poker either had to be seriously regulated (which is where we started) or banned outright.
The video poker industry did NOT mind its own business. It was well on its way to owning our Legislature, and that had to be stopped. So we stopped it. We failed on the lottery, even though we fought it just as hard (because a gambling operation RUN BY THE STATE to take advantage of our citizens was worse than video poker). But at least we succeeded on video poker, and South Carolina is better off because of it. Yes, as many problems as our state has, things could be worse. And they were, when the video poker barons were running roughshod over our state government.
Schadenfreude at hypocrisy is not pretty, but it isn’t quite as pure “gossip” as one might like. Mark Sanford–need I say more? Jenny “give us some privacy–so I can be in Vogue and on Barbara Walters” Sanford—“Do as I say, not as I do, while I hold myself out to be a pious God-fearing family man/woman.” And Tiger Woods, who has profited greatly from hs squeaky-clean image—we aren’t talking about what if you or I had the misfortune to be in this mess–neither of us have held ourselves out to be anything but flawed people. We have not profited from any kind of personally-created public persona of virtue.
and, bud, while I generally agree that marijuana illegality makes no more sense than alcohol legality, so long as it is illegal, a Wheaties-box celebrity might ought to stay within the boundaries of the law.
Why we let Barney (“DUI”) Giese off so lightly, I do not know. His former employees report his personally lecturing them that should they so much as get arrested (not convicted, arrested) for alcohol-related driving, they would be fired, yet he abides?
Oh, and “gossip” is widely agreed to have a useful function–it isn’t a horrible thing, after all. It disseminates community information while providing coherence with community mores. Lying is one thing, but spreading information throughout the community is believed to pull a community together, or so academicians theorize.
It’s home-made, amateur news-and-opinion dissemination—like a BLOG! You just resent the infringement on your turf…
Sigh. Brad still doesn’t get it. And still makes the same bogus, unrelated arguments about corruption of the legislature. Oh well. Hope springs eternal. I’ll continue to beat my head against the wall. It’s just too important to do otherwise.
Brad,
“Basically, you’re interested because you’re into gossip. That’s what this is: Gossip, not news.”
Granted, not page one news.
Consumers, voters, sports enthusiasts have legitimate interests in wishing to know if a spokeperson
(or elected official) deserves our continued support and confidence, however.
We are going to learn hearsay
(gossip) without any reports from formal news purveyors with a longstanding responsibility of to investigate and report matters (to those who should be concerned as well as to subscribers who could be concerned). The value, which you seem to miss, is factual, non-libelous reporting distinct from gossip.
Brad! I’m surprised at you, you being such a pop-culture maven and all.
On a purely news level, Tiger Woods’ self-inflicted problems are interesting only because they destroy a carefully crafted, multi-million dollar public image. But only editors and PR agents care about that. What going on is a public need to be fascinated by the lives of others.
Human beings operate on a level of social empathy that requires, essentially, the subconscious task of making “others” into avatars and exemplars. In olden days — before instantaneous mass media — these consisted primarily of those on another social level, such as royalty and religious and military leaders. Their exploits were followed and discussed to the nth degree. It’s not really WHAT they do, but HOW they do things that are most fascinating. Because we’re social animals with the capability of absorption and reflection, what other people do in times of crisis — even tawdry crisis — is a learning experience. There is a driving human desire to learn such things, even at the expense of others’ privacy.
It’s pretty much of a stretch to compare Alexander of Macedonia’s conquest of India to Tiger Woods’ conquest of his own libido, but the innate curiosity about the details is still there, buried in our subconscious.
Yeah, and front page news today was that Jenny Sanford was divorcing Gov. Sanford. And you wonder why newspapers are tanking? Wouldn’t it be wonderful if we could leave these tidbits to the magazines and tabloids that traffic pretty exclusively in this stuff. At least then I wouldn’t have to attend to it. As it is, it’s top news on the web, on TV, in the “newspaper” and everywhere else I commonly look for news (here using your definition, Brad).
And yes, part of my attitude on this is that I cannot even begin to understand that fascination with the private lives of famous people.
I’m not especially interested in what Tiger Woods does on the golf course, but my interest in what he does OFF the course is either zero or sub-zero, in that learning anything about his private life actually stimulates a negative response in me. I flat do NOT want to know. My God, my life is so very full of things I DO need to keep up with and deal with and make decisions about; I don’t have a second to waste on him, about whom I have no decision to make.
Ditto with Jenny, by the way. None of my business.
Mark and Barney are my business. And I haven’t made up my mind about Barney. All I can say is that this one incident resides in my box of “things I know about Barney Giese” that are mostly positive. I don’t think I’ve gotten to the point that I think he should not be the solicitor. The same with my friend Jean Toal. Jean just absolutely blows me away with her intellect and superb qualifications for her job. She is a very great rarity in South Carolina public life. Very few officeholders make an impression on me nearly as positive as hers. I’d put Joe Riley into that category, and Lindsey Graham as well. But not that many other people are as smart and as dedicated to public service as they are. (They stand out ESPECIALLY for the smarts.)
So her very distressing incidents upset me, and at the same time, I think we’re lucky to have her as our chief justice. And to a lesser extent, I guess I’m still there with Barney, although I’d be interested to hear any arguments you may have to the contrary.
With Mark — well, he started out as a total disaster of a governor (and he would have been a disaster even if you agreed with what he allegedly wanted to do in office, because he most assuredly did not succeed in doing it). Then there was the scandal. And the real scandal, for us, was not the infidelity, but the extremely bad faith he exhibited toward his staff and the people of South Carolina. Then there was the fact that his actions exhibited profound instability (especially the interviews with the AP). Now Tiger Woods has also demonstrated instability, but since we are in no way responsible to him and he is in no way responsible to us (any more than an average citizen who has an obligation to his community), that’s just a personal mess and none of our business.
Tiger Woods doesn’t matter. Princess Diana didn’t, either, except to the extent that each and every person matters. Nor did Michael Jackson. If you enjoyed his music, fine. But the only legitimate interest we as a society had in his public life was when he was accused of luring young boys to his home with perverted intent.
Karen and I just crossed paths with our comments…
Karen, yes, I know. That’s why I’m speaking out against the media’s catering to people’s burning desire to know all about things that are none of our business.
If the governor’s getting a divorce, OK, make note of it, and that’s about it. But whether Jenny Sanford is getting a divorce is none of my business; my only responsibility bears upon her lesser half.
I have nothing at all against Barney Giese, Solicitor (or the man, for that matter). I would hope that he would rehire anyone fired under just the circumstances he experienced–as a lawyer, I would also hope that he would have understood the difference between arrested and guilty–a difference that his solicitors ought to review a bit more often.
Word is that Jean Toal has had more “indiscretions.” By permitting her to “get away” with DUI, are we not enabling her, instead of encouraging her to get the treatment she, by all accounts, needs. You have kin living in the path of her drunken driving exploits. Doesn’t this concern you?
I don’t particularly need to know about Jenny Sanford’s divorce filing, or Tiger Woods’s Barbies. I don’t do more than skim the articles that cross my eye-path unbidden. In the case of Tiger Woods, Michael Phelps, Michael Jackson, et al., the lesson has been made so many times, yet we still fall for it. Pop idols and sports figures are particularly prone to clay feet.
….as are pious politicians.
Fenner: Giese and Toal are known close allies. I heard it was Bob Coble who got Jean’s”driving indiscretions” erased this past summer. Do you believe there was a little tit for tat between Giese and Toal concerning her corrupt attorney discipline system and his not being reprimanded and her not being cited? Hmmmmm. Now, Brad, we know this is gossip – but relevant gossip. I am also curious as to where Judge Segars Andrews fits in here.
Accolades go to The State’s Gina Smith for driving to Atlanta Hartsville to greet SC Guvernot Mark Sanford after his trip for a roll in the hay with his Argentinian mistress and soul mate.
John O’Connor tweeted that Rep. James Smith said that SC Guv’not Mark Sanford use of state planes and first class travel was a “conviction of hypocrisy”.
It all boils down to relationships. We’re all curious about relationships, because that’s how we get through life and defines our role within the community. It’s when things get out of kilter that they get interesting, and that sort of defines “news.”
Seriously, using the exact same facts, if we replaced Tiger Woods with, say, Snoop Dogg, would these “revelations” have equal reverb? Nah.
Yup, Burl, as always you are too smart—it’s a “man bites dog” thing, isn;t it?
As far as “gossip” goes, I believe Todd is making my point— without “gossip”–the people’s press– it is too easy to sweep “indiscretions” like drunk-driving and an, if not corrupt, unfair attorney discipline system under the rug–as you well reported, reporters can’t be everywhere and cover everything.
Gossip limns community standards. If we don’t find it remarkable–out of line–we don’t comment on it.Some societies frown on drunkenness and displays of drunkenness are tsk tsk material. Apparently SC finds underage (student) drunkenness perfectly acceptable (“heck, why not, I done it when I was in college”, or why is it allowed to continue with little comment save by those of us not part of echt Southern society? Adultery passes without comment in many European cultures, so long as the mores are observed.
According to (uncorroborated) reports, this wasn’t the first Mark strayed. Some of it may go back to right after the ’94 congressional election, when Newt told his newly-elected acolytes not to bring their families to Washington and to spend as much time as possible in their districts. I can hardly think of any idea that would have a greater effect in increasing the incidence of adultery among congressmen.
I see what you and Todd are saying, Kathryn, but did the entire front page of today’s paper have to be about the Sanford divorce? Things like this used to be the stuff of tabloids (along with flying saucers and “monster” babies).
Absolutely, Karen…but then I disagree with a lot of stuff that makes the front page of The State–big sports stories, for one. I guess they gotta sell papers, too, just like the National Enquirer.
I’d like to see more of what Tiger Woods did in the first instance, which was “stonewall”—or as the normal world might see it, “Keeping your personal business to yourself.” Alas, from what I gleaned from the sidelines, Mr. Woods decided to listen to the media handlers who tell you to come out with it and own your story, etc. Maybe if he hadn’t been so greedy–how much money does anyone really need–maybe he could have just said, “pass” on the endorsement moolah and gone to ground. Ditto Jenny, the Memoirist. If Mark Sanford and Jenny Sanford and Tiger Woods really wanted privacy, they could have had a whole lot more–but then they might sacrifice economic opportunities down the road! Egads!
Maybe these people could just rest quietly on their millions, invest wisely and protect their children more that way. No my-side-of-the story books, no magazine and TV interviews, no endorsements….