Wednesday, December 2, 2009


I have been watching developments regarding Tiger Woods' car accident last week pretty closely, but the news has developed slowly, often beginning as rumors covered by disreputable sources. I don't know that we've heard the last of it, and I want to wait and comment further as things are clarified. For now, a few questions:

Was the media absolutely naive or absolutely complicit in propounding what now appears to be the daft notion that this was anything but an issue of a domestic dispute over infidelity?

Tiger Woods, although he has long refused to cast himself as such, seems to be considered a model black athlete. 
Will race play a role in the way his apparent "transgressions" (his words) are handled?

Does Woods have a "right to privacy" on this? He is not an elected official, but he is a public persona.

1 comment:

  1. As a legal matter, Tiger is clearly a "public figure." This means that the press has broader First Amendment speech rights regarding him and his behavior. Tiger could not bring a defamation or libel case without showing "actual malice"--an element not required for claims by normal folks. I guess you are talking about the ethical question of where the press and public should recognize certain matters as off-limits. Our society seems to assume that fame and leadership = a loss of privacy and that this is a fair tradeoff. This might be biblical too. Biblical leadership is expected to be above reproach, held to a higher standard. In fact, leaders' handling of private, family matters is a required subject of inquiry and consideration.


There was an error in this gadget