Tiger Woods shares thoughts on media during insightful TIME interview

Between his most recent back surgery and his approaching 40th birthday, Tiger Woods is in a reflective place these days. Lorne Rubenstein was the beneficiary, getting an in-depth interview with the golfer for TIME magazine that was posted online Thursday.

The conversation is fascinating, as Woods provides insight to his physical struggles, the role his kids play in his life, his relationship with ex-wife Elin Nordegren, and his legacy in golf, among many other topics. But for the purposes of this site, we’ll focus on what Woods shared regarding his views on the media and how he’s been covered during his career.

As you might guess, Woods doesn’t have warm feelings toward the press, believing commentators and analysts can say whatever they want about him and not be held responsible for their remarks.

“There’s no accountability in what they say. And what they say, it’s like it’s gospel, there’s no source behind it. Nothing like, yeah, I talked to X number of players, I talked to this player, this player, this player. It’s none of that. It’s just, some of the announcers, they don’t even go on the golf course. And they look at a pin sheet from the booth, but they’ve never surveyed the golf course, even though the television coverage doesn’t come on until the afternoon. You have all that time to go walk the golf course, to see some of the early rounds, see what guys are doing, how they’re hitting it, how’s the course playing, is the wind coming up? All those different things that you could do. The only one who does that is Finchy [golf broadcaster and former PGA Tour pro Ian Baker-Finch].”

Woods has a point considering in that some critics might not put his play into proper context against the rest of the field or the affects a course might have on performance during a tournament. But like it or not, he’s still the brightest star in the game and thus draws the most attention. If Tiger isn’t playing well, viewers want to know why. Whether it should be or not, that is often the story — especially in the early rounds of a tournament. Though he might be right about broadcasters not taking a wider view, they also have to serve the audience.

However, it’s probably worth noting that Woods makes this complaint while also insisting that he doesn’t listen to what’s said about him, nor written about him. The above quote would seem to indicate otherwise.

Woods goes on to make another interesting observation, noting how the same media that once lionized him seemed just as eager to criticize him when his personal life unraveled and his performance on the course deteriorated. But isn’t the case in all sports? Both the rise and fall are often equally fascinating, though some might relish covering the downward trend a bit more.

“I have a lot of good friends in the media. Guys I’ve gone out to dinner with on countless occasions. With respect. There’s also a flip side of people that I really don’t care for. Hey, they made their career being negative and being outlandish. They’ve made a career out of it. But that’s their take. They’ve almost created a character, per se.”

Those remarks compel speculation as to whom Woods is referring to, though we could all make some very reasonable guesses. But the beginning of that paragraph speaks to the larger problem of perhaps not understanding what purpose the media serves. Woods appears to be taking the view that writers and broadcasters should only focus on the positive when covering their sports, acting more as public relations than reporters or commentators. That’s not the job.

Not to mention the whole idea of media buddying up with athletes and going out to dinner with them to form relationships contradicts the premise of being an objective observer. Sure, some insight could be gleaned from spending time with Woods and other athletes to get their views on a particular event or performance. But what does Woods mean by “respect” here? If it’s trying to see all sides of a story and not just doing takedown pieces, that’s one thing. However, if it’s being laudatory or subservient, that’s quite another.

Perhaps what Woods is really referring to is fairness. His comments in the interview about being ripped for not doing a post-round interview after playing badly after years of accommodating the media may indeed be a fair point. But again, it’s a question of what the story really is at a given time and what job the media has in covering that. Woods might be long past the point of caring about the difference, but exploring the issue a bit more would make for another intriguing interview.

[TIME]