Woods employs a tried-and-true political tactic
Former CIA official Victor Marchetti did not have golf in mind when he defined the term “limited hangout” in a 1978 article in The Spotlight. But his definition sums up what we got yesterday from Tiger Woods. When a secret’s out and a bogus cover story won’t work, Mr. Marchetti wrote, intelligence operatives “resort to admitting—sometimes even volunteering—some of the truth while still managing to withhold the key and damaging facts in the case.”
The public, Mr. Marchetti concluded, “is usually so intrigued by the new information that it never thinks to pursue the matter further.”
Mr. Woods’s address yesterday didn’t intrigue us with new information, but it will probably sate the public’s desire for more. Clearly, his words were carefully scripted, but the apology appeared sincere, as did the flash of anger in his impassioned plea for the press to leave his wife and children alone.
It is perhaps fitting that Mr. Woods’s first public statement since his brief, written apologia shortly after the accident should be defined by a political term. The revelations of his sex life, not to mention the media frenzy they have engendered, have a lot in common with those of politicians, most recently disgraced former presidential candidate John Edwards. In seeking to achieve some measure of damage control, Mr. Woods has resorted to one of the tried-and-true strategies of the political class, the tightly controlled press conference, the limited hangout.
The parallels don’t end there. Prior to the Woods conflagration, the adulteries of sports superstars, like those of politicians such as President John F. Kennedy, were pretty much something we read about long after the fact. Babe Ruth, Joe Louis and Mickey Mantle all misbehaved. But there was an unwritten rule among the men who covered them that their personal lives were off limits.
The same is true of Mr. Woods. It now appears that Mr. Woods’s secret had been known in certain quarters of sports journalism for years, but had been ignored. It wasn’t the sports press that broke the story, but a neighbor’s 911 call.
All this seems likely to change. The staggering scale of Mr. Woods’s transgressions, the contrast between the golfer’s squeaky-clean public image and the tawdry reality of his personal life, and the embarrassment to the media now that their see-no-evil coverage is public knowledge all suggest that sports figures now will be subject to the same aggressive scrutiny as today’s politicians. Just as the JFK revelations changed the way the media handled those in public office, we may soon speak of pre- and post-Woods coverage of athletes.
Even before yesterday’s media event happened, critics were declaring that it would not be a real press conference, and that Mr. Woods would add nothing to our knowledge of his situation. But let’s be honest: What questions should have been asked of him that we don’t already know the answers to? About each of his mistresses? Those personal details could have run on longer than the Accenture Match Play Championship tournament Mr. Woods has been accused of upstaging. Anyway, he can’t name names without risking lawsuits—and if all his girlfriends sued, the legal complications would make Jarndyce vs. Jarndyce look like a date with Judge Judy.
But whether yesterday’s press conference was staged political theater or not, Mr. Woods needs to be asked only one question about it: “Who exactly were you apologizing to?” An honest answer would surely be “The vast public that buys the products I endorse.” Mr. Woods became the wealthiest athlete in the world not just from his tournament winnings but from endorsements, so he must convince the fans who saw him as a brand name that he is sincere.
So will Mr. Woods’s limited hangout have any effect on his public image? Probably not over the short run. But in the long run, do we have any choice but to forgive him? Luckily for him, he has no real rival as an endorser, and the game of golf needs him at least as much as he needs golf. There’s been much hypocritical nonsense in the sporting press to the effect that PGA tour commissioner Tim Finchem should suspend Tiger for “conduct unbecoming,” or something of the sort.
If the history of the New York Yankees’ Alex Rodriguez is any indication, there’s only one thing American sports fans can’t forgive. This time last year, A-Rod was possibly the most reviled player in baseball history. A handful of clutch hits and a World Series ring later, New York sports fans were back on his side. Let’s face it, most Americans define moral character through winning.
So Tiger Woods may be able to put the genie back in the bottle by simply doing what he’s done best all along: grabbing a club, hitting the green and winning. It could be a different story with his press coverage, however. It would be ironic if Mr. Woods’s most lasting impact on the sports world turned out to be not his golf swing, but ensuring that henceforth he and other athletes receive the same implacable media scrutiny as politicians.
Mr. Barra writes about sports for the Journal.
___________
Full article: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703787304575075523124844304.html
