Comments on: Is Tiger Woods’ sexuality news?

By: gnarlytrombone

gnarlytrombone — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 18:11:58 +0000

“his readers clearly want to read about and discuss Tiger Woods and his sexuality”

Prurience is one part of the equation, but it’s more complicated than that. The interests invested in Woods colluded with the media to manufacture a cultural demigod, representative of not just excellence in golf but excellence in everything. So it’s no surprise that when the polarity flips from positive to negative, it’s going to generate a lot of heat. It’s not just the sex; it’s the schadenfreude.

In other words, the inflation of the Woods bubble is just as important to the phenomenon as popping the bubble. “We” wouldn’t be interested in Woods’ fall if the media hadn’t lifted him so high.

By: lturner

lturner — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 04:43:54 +0000

I don’t think Tiger’s sexuality is news. I could care less. I think our culture is obsessed with the prurient details of individuals at the expense of caring about things that matter. Do I sound like a snob? Fine, I’m a snob then. But here’s a great example of what’s wrong with the news and our culture… sure, let’s investigate WikiLeaks over those 9/11 pages, but don’t bother about Sprint feeding customer GPS data to cops over 8 million times… that would be silly. Let’s talk about Tiger’s wayward schlong because that’s more important than talking about more and more people having to use food stamps. I’m happy to see broadcast and print media under strain, and I hope they collapse and something new comes about that actually covers news.

By: Dave Winer

Dave Winer — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 04:24:14 +0000

Here’s a link to the Frontline report on credit and debit cards.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/creditcards/view/

Highly recommended. It’ll probably save you money, maybe hundreds of dollars.

By: Alexandre Cayla

Alexandre Cayla — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 03:36:06 +0000

I haven’t read the comments on the news story referenced by Matthew. However, I don’t seem to think the criteria here should be what news is and what readers want. Or thats its only a story about sex and celebrity. After all, Tiger Woods is not just Tiger Woods. He is a symbol of excellence, of wholesomeness, or of whatever you want. He might be a celebrity, but he is no Kobe Bryant. I am sure his story and charisma had inspired many and to see him crash and burn like that, can be very disheartening. I am not talking about some journalists that will go after the juicy tidbits because they think they are going to help sell copy. I am talking about the fact that the interest in the Tiger Woods story (in the beginning because if the coverage continues for too long, it will become weird and perverse), might be legitimate and should not be categorized immediately as not news.

I believe that news, fundamentally, is about change. Not any or every possible change, meaningful change in our (social) environment. Changes can occur in different domains. Policy and personal. If we see this story as the fall of a role model rather than celebrity gossip, then the readers concerns very legitimate and can be sane. The questions addressed can start good discussions on society, on marriage, on fidelity, on wether we should care or we should consider his personal life out of bounds, on a variety of legitimate topics. In other words, when something occurs in our social environment and that people deeply care about what has changed (or affected), it’s news. Regardless of what it is, if it can alter the way we see the world, it’s news…