Political Realities: A Campaign Primer
February 6, 2010
Writing Right: The 100-Word Challenge
March 7, 2010

Dedicated to the proposition that turnabout is fair play, it seems only appropriate to offer a critique of the collective analysis/dissection by the press of Tiger Woods’ 13½ minute statement of apology.

Taken together, the reporters seem to have three primary issues.

–  First, they question the motivation for, sincerity of, and/or purpose of the statement.

–  Second, they suggest it was improper for a PR person to have penned all or part of the words that TW read.

–  Third, they continue to condemn TW’s behavior as if it were as unthinkable to them as the serial murder of nuns.

Taking these issues in order:

The Statement: What part of “addiction therapy” do these guys not understand? One need not have gone through a 12-step program to recognize TW’s statement as Step 5. One need know only that such programs exist and that he is in one. Insofar as more than a few reporters have been through these programs, it’s hard to believe they actually thought he was doing anything but executing Step 5.

The Authorship: To suggest that it was somehow untoward or inappropriate for all or part of TW’s statement to have been written by a PR person is at the very least disingenuous, for a couple of reasons. About half of today’s newsies either do PR on the side, or soon will. Plus, reporters hardly ever actually go out and look for news any more. Most of them depend on PR people for leads, stories, general information, etc. It’s a symbiotic relationship akin to that of sharks and remora, except that with reporters and PR people, it’s sometimes hard to tell which is which.

The Offenses: Most of the reporters doing the clucking are sportswriters, 98% of whom are male, and most of whom are also womanizing horn-dogs who would do exactly what TW did if they could, and could get away with it, which most of them can’t. Hence, there’s more than likely a bit of envy at work here, along with a dash of schadenfreude.

This is NOT to defend TW. What he did was certainly morally wrong, and quite possibly illegal — if the prenup guaranteed fidelity — not to mention tacky and really gross. But on the three counts described above, the newsies wagging their fingers stand here accused and guilty of either bald hypocrisy or insulting our intelligence, or both.

Donna Dupuy
Donna Dupuy
Donna Dupuy is a marketing and PR consultant for professional practitioners, service providers, and progressive political entities.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *