My journalism professor brought up an interesting topic in class. What is fair in journalism concerning Tiger Woods’ car accident on 11/27/09, the parade of mistresses slogging through the media and Woods’ subsequent revelation of infidelity? Is Woods’ life our business?
The class erupted in opinion. A student broke first, insisting that Woods placed himself in a position of public scrutiny because he was rich and famous. She said that because it was “our” money that made Woods a millionaire, he lost his right to privacy. There was a lot of agreement. Those who disagreed were either silent, couldn’t or wouldn’t make their point.
The Woods’ coverage has changed journalism, particularly in the world of sports, advised the professor.
I saw a paper cartoon this afternoon depicting two people watching news of sex and gossip. One person was drawn, turning to the other saying that the sports channel sure had changed. Yessiree, Bob. It sure has.
Woods has been playing golf almost since birth and in the media spotlight since the age of two. He grew up in front of us. We watched him win much and lose little. We snirkled and let it go when, as an adult, he mouthed f’bombs on television.
Place yourself in these shoes: you are a young man, healthy, semi handsome and very wealthy celebrity. Everywhere you go; people want to do things for you, to please you and women throw themselves at you.
“Yes, sir.”
“Of course, sir.”
“Can I blow you in the bathroom, sir?”
Media and media audiences have a love-hate relationship with celebrities. Love the talent, the lifestyle, money and fame, and hate that those very things allow escape from life’s excrutiating mediocrity. When celebrities fall, some of us salivate while watching them crash and burn. Salacious gossip is a delicious diversion from the sameness of our lives. We are allowed to be better than, placing ourselves above the star we have elevated so high.
Woods is a great golfer. He is not Jesus Christ.
Woods has proven to be just a man, susceptible to temptation, corruptible by power and money and perhaps destroyed by it, just like billions of men past and God knows how many more in the future.
The answer to my journalism professor’s question is that, yes, journalism was fair in its reporting of Woods’ crumbling life, but journalism can no longer use the description of fair, as described by Merriam Webster as meaning, “being marked by impartiality and honesty, free from self-interest, prejudice; or favoritism.” The description that now best fits journalism, for Woods and for many stories to come, is “superficially pleasing.”
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment