Pages

Thursday, December 3, 2009

Tiger Woods crash, a crash course in media stupidity

Usually when I write about the media its about the stupid and inept way they cover politics, Obama, and issues affecting the country both foreign and domestic. But the stupidity that the media exhibits shows itself once again with the Tiger Woods story.
The only reason its a story at all is because it's a potential sex scandal, the media's favorite topic. If you remember, like Howard Beale in the movie "Network" Bill Clinton became the first president impeached for higher ratings.

It was beyond obvious that Woods was cheating on his wife which led to a domestic dispute which led to his car accident backing out his driveway and a window bashed in with a golf club that was not used to free an unconscious Woods from the car. And now Woods has come out and admitted the obvious.

Of course what makes the media look so stupid is that they kept asking the question, why wont Tiger talk to the police?

The answer was Tiger wouldnt talk to the police because he knew that anything he told them would be a matter of public record. He and his lawyer also knew that lying to the police or on a police report is a felony. So there was no way he was going to turn an embarrassing situation into a felony and there is no way he wanted anyone to know the truth. But now with a second woman, a 24 year old cocktail waitress who said she had an affair with him and has the text messages to prove it, Woods decided he had no choice and has come clean.

Why the news media couldnt figure this out earlier is important only as it pertains to subjects much more important to the country than Tiger Woods making a hole in one with a nightclub hostess. Its why you cant trust the media when it comes to their reporting on anything, from health care to Afghanistan. And why they should do everyone a favor and stay out of the speculation business because they are lousy at it.

If they couldnt figure out the truth about Tiger Woods 2:25 a.m car accident, they certainly aren't going to have any insight on anything important. So, to paraphrase a line from the poem, "Tiger, tiger burning bright, what stupidity will the news media bring tonight?" The answer is, anything they put on the air..

The story of Woods' affair was broken by the National Enquirer. They may not deal in "news you can use" but unlike the New York Times, CNN,and Fox News, the Enquirer, believe it or not, has proved to be the most reliable of all major national news organizations. Their accuracy rate is the best of any national news organization. They almost never get it wrong. And they virtually never print anything unless they know its true ( remember Jennifer Flowers?) And its been proved once again.

Chances are, Rachel Uchitel, meaning no harm to Woods, shot her mouth off to someone about her affair with Woods, and her confidant either told someone else who sold the story to the Enquirer or did it themselves. But the Enquirer would not have run with the story, not when it involves someone whose image is as squeaky clean as Tiger Woods, unless they had enough to back it up.

It didnt take Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein to figure out what the Woods crash was really all about.. But as a professor of journalism once pointed out, a scandal isnt a scandal unless the news media wants to make it one. And in Tiger Woods case that is probably a decision being made right now by news directors behind closed doors.

4 comments:

  1. Why is it taking his sponsors so long to dump him?

    ReplyDelete
  2. I don't think his sponsors should dump him. He didn't commit any crime. It's a private matter.

    I will say that the National Enquirer gets it right...AGAIN.

    I'll belive them before I believe what the mainstream media has to say.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Hi,

    Dealing with the high profile cases is really a tough task for police officers. To become a police officer one needs to have good people handling skills.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Last night some black leaders issued a statement asking Why Tiger only had white mistresses? I believe they are asking the wrong question...

    ReplyDelete