Listen to a reporter's opinion? Not a chance.

Tiger Woods did not win the Masters this year. However, he gave it an amazing run and pulled even with leader Rory McIlroy in Sunday's early going, before ultimately being overtaken and finishing fourth.

I mention it because, had you listened to AP reporter Tim Dahlberg and the countless mainstream outlets that carried him (including Forbes here), you'd have believed that Tiger was out of contention after Saturday's round.
He's as done as some of the patrons who baked for hours in the Georgia sun to catch a glimpse of him. There will be no fifth green jacket on Sunday, even if Woods is the last one to figure that out.

Mocking a fan who had told Woods, "You're in this, Tiger!", Dahlberg concluded his Saturday article:
Not a chance.
This is Exhibit A of why the mainstream press is dying a well-deserved death.

To borrow a line: Those who can do; those who can't become reporters.

I've long been convinced that a reporter is essentially a well-rounded idiot--someone who knows enough to fool the crowd, but not enough to fool anyone who knows what he's talking about.

In my own areas of modest expertise--poker and aviation--I often gag at what passes for reportage in the mainstream press. They frequently get things flat wrong, and even when the facts are correct, it's clear that the reporter still doesn't "get it." (Incidentally I'm watching Suze Orman fool a starry-eyed crowd on PBS right now.)

It's likely the same in your area(s) of expertise. And yet, for every Tiger who dedicates his life to excelling at something, there are a thousand critics/reporters/fans who snicker at each failing, and pretend a knowledge that masks a deep, vacuous cavity in their own respective beings.

I didn't really like Tiger Woods yesterday. Today I recognize he's a thousand times the man that some clown writer for AP is.


Anonymous said...

I largely agree with you. Any golfer who watched Woods play on Saturday knows that his round of 74could have easily been a 70 or lower with a little more luck. Tiger Woods even said when he was winning regularly that a bit of luck is needed to win a golf tournament, but he experienced mostly bad luck at this year's Masters. Conversely, this year's winner of The Masters seemed to benefit from good luck. The shots that Tiger Woods hit from tee to green on Saturday and Sunday make me think he's still the best golfer in the world, and I think that will result in some victories in the near future. I think Tiger should feel a huge confidence boost from his performance at the Masters. And, based on his play, I think he's finally found the right swing coach. Finally, I can't blame him for being short with the press considering how they've treated him over the past couple of years--they took great joy in publicizing his sex life.

Anonymous said...

Well said. I was disgusted when I saw that comment yesterday that Tiger had no chance. Clearly he has little knowledge of the many famous Master comebacks.

Worse though, he used the opportunity to take a cheap shot. Something like a kid in school yard might do.

And he's an AP reporter?

Anonymous said...

Tiger is washed. The same thing happened to Arnold Palmer and Tom Watson and just about every other great in their mid-30s. They lose that magical putting touch of youth, and their putts on the back nine start sliding by, and they also lose the confidence on their short putts. Tiger is not immune to this. Even at his best, Tiger relied on his short game and his clutch putting to win. Now, he whines about his putting, but you can say that about every one of those players in the final round. They all have the same chances, and it comes down to whoever makes them, win. Just look at golf history and tell me who has regained their putting stroke when they lost it?

Anonymous said...

"Tiger is washed". Now you've stooped to the level of "Not a chance" Dahlberg.

Agreed on the putting. Watson's demise was terrible to see, but I saw several "must make" putts by Woods this weekend to believe his putting is still good although not at the level it was in the past.

Anonymous said...

what bugs me even more than moron reporters giving us their opinion on things is the Hip New trend in crisis/disaster reporting: reporters interviewing *other reporters*, just as if they were someone worth listening to, to give us the Real Story.

hurricane? earthquake? train wreck? golf tournament? doesn't matter. 10-to-1 you'll hear this: "tommy, can you tell us how it feels there on the scene? what are the proles....uh, i mean 'the people' saying? how are they coping with tiger's loss of short-iron skillz?"

the amazing thing, it's a classic definition of an echo chamber, and i really don't think they even realize they're doing it.

Anonymous said...

Gene Wojo wrote on ESPN.com that Tiger had no chance to win at the Masters this year. As cool as it was to see Schwartzel go 4 birdies to bring it in, I would have enjoyed seeing Tiger win so that Wojo and those other nattering nabobs would have to eat their words and shut the F up. If Nicklaus could win in 1986 at age 46, why couldn't Tiger win in 2011 at age 35? That's why they play the game!

Vegas Dave said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Vegas Dave said...

The reporter was right in that Tiger had no chance. He made a good run but those late holes were birdie-friendly.

On the radio broadcast when Tiger had 3 holes to go, he was tied for the lead and the announcer said he would have to birdie all three remaining holes to have any chance. The golf people knew that others' scores were going to improve.

Tiger lost by 4 strokes and had 2 other players in front of him as well as two others tie.

On Pinnacle to start the day you could have bet Tiger at 23 to 1 Perhaps if you felt strongly about his chances it might have been worth a bet! Bet $100 to win $2300. Easy money.

Happy Super Tuesday!