December 2, 2009
Here's what newsrooms can learn from the Tiger Woods story
By Robert Niles
3 comments | 
Archive Link
What? You didn't know that there were sites devoted specifically to sports gossip? Hey, how many times do I have to tell ya that the future of news publishing is all about working a niche? :-)
Leaving that topic aside for this post, however, let's instead talk about how so many news organizations came to cover the Tiger Woods story, when ultimately they really didn't want to. Then, I'll offer some suggestions on how newsrooms can extricate themselves from a story like this in a way that helps enhance their reputation, instead of damaging it, as I believe many newsrooms did with their handling of the Woods story on its first day.
First, a quick review, for people who ignored the story or are reading it years later, thanks to a Google search. The world's top-ranked professional golfer, Tiger Woods, crashed his Cadillac Escalade into a fire hydrant, then a tree, outside his Orlando, Florida-area home at about 2:30 am on Friday. Woods suffered facial lacerations and later withdrew from a golf tournament he hosts outside of Los Angeles each year, which takes place this weekend.
News sites erupted with stories when the Florida Highway Patrol released its report later that day, around 2 pm, that Woods was taken to a local hospital in "serious" condition. And yet, within an hour, the Orlando Sentinel and several Central Florida TV stations had reports from the hospital that Woods was no longer a patient, and had been admitted and released in "good" condition.
Obviously, if an international sports celebrity of Woods' stature suffers injuries that might threaten his life, or even his career, that's a news story of widespread interest, one that general news outlets such as the New York Times and CNN would cover. And they did.
But a fender-bender where an athlete suffers only cuts to his face? That's a brief in the sports section, at most.
The FHP later said that it automatically reports any accident victim who is transported to a hospital as being in "serious" condition. If that's true, I find it depressing that no copy editor or cops reporter on duty at the Sentinel (or any other Florida paper) at that hour on the day after Thanksgiving was aware of such policy. A sharp, veteran journalist should have been able to question the FHP's report and follow up to find what Woods' true condition was, or at least flag the report with a disclaimer when it went out over the wires.
But what does "serious" condition actually mean? Most news stories report these medical conditions without explanation, which I believe is a mistake. After the Woods crash, I took a moment to look up the definitions of medical state on Wikipedia. To my untrained eye, one big differences between "serious" and "fair" condition appears to be whether the patient is conscious.
Indeed, FHP reports said that Woods was unconscious, lying on the street, when officers arrived and that he was drifting in and out of consciousness for several minutes after that. Could an accident victim be in "serious" condition due to being knocked unconscious, then progress to "good" condition during the ambulance ride by regaining consciousness and having his pulse and breathing stabilize?
I don't know, but that'd be a good question to ask a local doctor, to provide additional perspective to this story.
The Los Angeles Times, like many news organizations, went the "meta" route in its report that evening by writing about the dispute over Woods' initial condition. But where the Times, and so many other publications failed, was in stopping short of a full meta analysis of the incident.
Earlier last week, the National Enquirer reported that Woods, a married father of two, had been carrying on an affair with a New York woman. That report, blended in readers' minds with the late hour of the accident (who drives out of his house at 2:30 in the morning if there's no family crisis?), and reports of Woods' wife, former model Elin Nordegren, standing over Woods with a golf club in hand when officers arrived, led many to imagine a wild scenario of domestic conflict. (Woods reported through representatives that Nordegren had smashed the car's window with the club to extract Woods from the vehicle.)
By not even acknowledging the affair reports in its initial stories, news organizations such as the LA Times looked like they weren't being straight with readers, and may have been covering up for Woods and his wife.
I understand that newsrooms such as the Times' don't want to engage in tawdry reports about celebrities' private lives. But once they ran with the story that Woods was in serious condition, they were obligated to report that story fully. And that requires acknowledging the Enquirer report and the circumstances that led to so much speculation about a fight between the couple.
At that point, a news organization that wants out of the story - and I commend those which do - ought to be honest with their readers and admit that. In theater, there's a phrase called "breaking the fourth wall" - which refers to a character breaking from others on stage to address the audience directly. (The "fourth wall" surrounding the scene is the imaginary one that separates the stage from the audience.)
Bloggers do that all the time. Newspapers and broadcasters need to do that more often - to drop the "character" of a disconnected voice and instead talk directly to readers about coverage of a particular story. If a story you're following is slipping into tabloid territory, fully report the circumstances, then get an editor into the story to explain why the publication is bailing out. If you don't want to report allegations about affairs, say so.
That's a far more honest report than excluding those details from the story, especially when millions of readers are already talking about them. Breaking the fourth wall allows journalists to show that they trust their readers with all the information that they have, that they won't hold out on readers, and that they are willing to be honest with their readers about why and when they choose not to pursue a story.
I believe that readers will appreciate and respect that transparency. I also believe that some readers would feel a great deal of loyalty and affection for a news organization that explicitly bowed out of covering a mess like this, and fully explained why.
Yes, the Woods incident put many news organizations in a tough spot. But by choosing to withhold details of the story, without explanation, too many newsrooms made a bad situation even worse.
Update: If you are among those who have decided to cover Woods beyond what he shoots on a golf course, please read this piece by Charles P. Pierce. Heck, even if you are not among those, go read Pierce anyway. He provides an indispensable perspective on the coverage of Woods and other celebrities.
Next week on OJR: Niles offers his suggestions on the two most important things the U.S. federal government can do to help journalism.
More about: ethics
Comments (3) • 
Email to a friend
Responses via 
Technorati • 
Google Blog Search
Share on 
del.icio.us • 
Digg
Comments:
From Chris McCarron on December 4, 2009 at 9:32 PM
The whole situation will blow over in a week or two.From Todd Hebert on December 8, 2009 at 7:18 PM
I think they should just leave him alone.. The problem with journalism is negative stuff sells.This article has been archived and is no longer accepting comments.
RSS Feed
From ALBERT GACHIRI on December 4, 2009 at 6:14 AM
agachiri@blogspot.comMEDIA CIRCUS CAPTURES TIGER WOODS
Where should the media draw the line between a private and a public matter, when covering a celebrity's family affairs? If that person happens to be a symbol of great disciplined success, like Tiger Woods, the media would gladly gobble him up.
After all, such stories rarely get to cross over from the gossip pages in tabloids to the mainstream media . Forget the sword business for a second, if you live by your public image you shall die by your public image, seems destined to be a poignant catchphrase, thanks to the deeds and misdeeds of Tiger Woods.
The media played a big role in creating the Tiger Woods franchise but if there was ever any lesson to be learnt from being constantly in the public limelight, it has always been that the same enthusiasm used to turn people into multi-million dollar brands, is the same if not more than the one going to used to destroy them. That is just how the media works.
And that is just but one of the many reasons why celebrity-hood is fraught with so many dangers. It robes one of the right to live a normal life. The scrutiny noose perpetually gets tighter .
Any indication of a moral flaw especially, does not go unchecked or cross-referenced and the punishment for slipping or messing up is dished out mercilessly.
Even the society that you always think would be understanding and forgiving, becomes cold and distant, in times of great personal distress. Your philanthropy and great charities cease to register in the public radar and the only signal registering has to do with your fall from grace.
But, and a big but for that matter, isn’t it worthy of note that corporate America really relishes opportunities to tear down the stardom of black achievers and smear their reputations, even if some are self-inflicted?
From MC Hammer to Mike Tyson, Whitney Houston to O.J. Simpson, Marion Jones to Michael Jackson, and now Tiger Woods.
So who is next? Serena or Venus Williams, Jay Z or Beyonce or is the sight trained on the biggest of possible catches: President Barack Obama?
Bill Clinton survived the Monica Lewinski affair and his wife, the aggrieved woman, is now America's top diplomat. The Clintons somewhat managed to be rehabilitated, in the view of the public. Will the Obamas survive in the unlikely event of one of them transgressing morally?
I have my huge doubts.