The majority awarded Tiger favorable reviews for his performance in his Monday Q&A session at The Masters. So if Tiger received an A, then what grade did the golf media — which vowed to redeem itself after years of admittedly lobbing softballs — deserve? Jim Frank offers his assessment over at Mediaite.com:
While I think the golf press corps could have done a better job chipping away at Tiger — read the transcript and you’ll see they asked some pretty good questions — I understand why they didn’t do more. We aren’t investigative reporters, unless you consider asking a player what club he hit into 15 an investigation. Most of what we do is reactive, reacting to the ebb and flow of a tournament, analyzing revisions to a golf course, profiling a hot player. One of the reasons we love golf is that we haven’t had to be proactive. The game has always been relatively trouble-free: No steroids (well, not much), no cheating (well, very little), with a strong connection to real people, like ourselves, who play the game.
Everything that made the Tiger story so shocking and so riveting to the outside world the last five months—scandal, sex, drugs—are things golf writers don’t usually write about. A fact Team Tiger, Augusta National, and anyone else who had a hand in planning yesterday’s press conference was counting on.
In other words, the media never stood a chance. Especially at the chosen stage of Augusta, where anything but polite banter would seem sinful.