Rosenberg gives Tiger a free pass
I was listening to NPR today, and they introduced a guest. This guest was Michael Rosenberg of the Detroit Free Press. He was talking about Tiger Woods' "incident" and apology. He said "I really don't see why the public has any right or need to see into Tiger's private life. He never presented himself as perfect, he never told people how they should live their lives, all he said was 'I'm a great golfer and I value my privacy.' "
I think it's ridiculous that he would give him such leniency. Rosenberg isn't consistent in any way.
December 2nd, 2009 at 10:54 PM ^
But Rosenpuke is definitely inconsistent, because he would be on RR like white on rice if RR was in a similar situation.
I'm still waiting for the Rosenpuke "expose" of what happened at MSU. I guess I shouldn't be holding my breath, though.
December 2nd, 2009 at 10:57 PM ^
He has one against UM.
As far as Tiger's concerned Rosencrap is doing the right thing. He knows nothing about the real truth and anything he says about what Tiger did or did not do is pure speculation.
Chances are Tiger diddled more than once and it will all come out in the wash. It's gonna be a rough Xmas is Isleworth FL. I don't give the guy a free pass, but he certainly doesn't have to tell the whole world what he did. He just needs to not lie any more to try and cover it up.
Tiger obviously underestimated the power of the tabloid press.
December 2nd, 2009 at 11:08 PM ^
Tiger is a private person, he should be left alone to do whatever the hell he wishes. The dolphin puncher is right on this one.
December 3rd, 2009 at 7:46 AM ^
I am not one of those people that follows the celebrity gossip, personally I think it is a waste of time and I have bigger things to worry about in my life.
The problem is, once you become a public figure, your private life becomes virtually public as well. I am not saying I agree with this, but that is just the way things go.
I think celebrities know this coming in. They do their best to keep as private a personal life as possible under the circumstances, but know they are under the microscope. This is why I can't feel sorry for Tiger. When you know this and still can't seem to keep your pecker in your pants, you desreve the fallout that insues.
Also, this doesn't seem to be a one off either. More like he got away with it once and has been pushing the envelope ever since. One time is a screw up that can easily (for the public, perhaps not for the wife) be forgiven, multiple times shows a pattern.
To top it all off he lied about all of it, to the wife and the public. Those actions don't exactly inspire sympathy IME.
December 2nd, 2009 at 11:13 PM ^
If you want to be left alone, don't try to playing with a 4some off the course.
December 2nd, 2009 at 11:14 PM ^
However, I'm not really surprised that Rosenberg supports the "I don't need to explain you shit" attitude because, if memory serves me right, that's exactly how he handled his famous NCAA-violations investigative piece.
December 2nd, 2009 at 11:21 PM ^
I'm giving Tiger a free pass as well. It's none of my business. He owes me no apology.
December 2nd, 2009 at 11:31 PM ^
Why does Tiger deserve a free pass? Whether he likes it or not, people look up to him, thus he should life in accordance to that. People can say that celebrities don't deserve the invasion of privacy, but if they don't want the publicity or the invasions, then choose another job. He is role model whether he chooses to be or not, so Tiger should have to apologize to all the fans he let down. Part of the reason I always respected Tiger was because he seemed like a stand up guy, now that credibility is gone.
It's too bad that I can't block this memory, because every time I see him I will think of a cheating douche bag.
December 3rd, 2009 at 12:04 AM ^
We can argue this issue until we're blue in the face, but whether or not Tiger deserves a free pass has nothing to do with Rosenberg.
What does seem relevant is Rosenberg's readiness to give him said free pass but to keep the cross-hairs trained on Rodriguez whenever he swears too much. Bottom line is, Michael Rosenberg has it out for some people and doesn't leave them alone when their transgressions come to light. He's got nothing to gain from throwing Tiger Woods under the bus.
December 3rd, 2009 at 12:35 AM ^
1. Being a very good professional golfer should not mean that you lose your right to privacy.
2. Being an unwilling role model should not mean that you have to apologize to others for behavior that does not affect them. In fact, being a willing role model should not mean that you have to be perfectly virtuous in all aspects of your life.
3. "Whether he likes it or not, people look up to him, thus he should life in accordance to that." Alright, so if people looked up to you, would that mean that you should be publicly vilified for an unspecified, private, and legal act of moral misconduct? And also, if he didn't volunteer to be an inspiration to others, why the hell is obligated to be one.
Tiger Woods has demonstrated that he, in fact, does things that are wrong. Maybe I shouldn't look up to him as a model person then. Does that mean he owes me an apology? I think not.
December 3rd, 2009 at 6:16 AM ^
Is Tiger Woods just a golfer? Or is he also a spokesman representing a dozen different companies that paid him over a $100,000,000.00 this past year to sell their products?
That said, I really don't care as I don't watch golf or buy products because of him.
December 3rd, 2009 at 6:41 AM ^
I'm starting to get tired of people acting completely appalled at the lack of privacy granted to Tiger and his family.
If all he did was golf, he might have a point. But he volunteered to become the richest man in sports by endorsing various and sundry products for various and sundry multi-million dollar paychecks. Sorry Tige - nothing's free, and one thing you traded for that close to $1B you're going to have is the right to privacy you're trumpeting. You can certainly argue that this is not a pleasant aspect of society, but it's a reality nonetheless. If he had remained just a golfer, people outside the world of sports wouldn't give a shit about his car accident. I doubt this would have become the kind of news that, say, was on the front page of guardian.co.uk.
December 3rd, 2009 at 12:23 AM ^
I give Tiger a free pass because his personal life is not my business. I see no reason to bash Rosenberg for doing so as well.
Attack him for his Michigan/MSU coverage, not this other crap.
December 3rd, 2009 at 12:33 AM ^
Disagree.
Bash Rosenberg for whatever you want, true or otherwise. He'd do it to you if he wanted to.
Here's some examples of what you can bash him for: He's a horrible writer. He has it out for Michigan. He uses the wrong color toothbrush. He doesn't use toothbrush at all. He pees sitting down. His mother is a whore.
Bash away, bashers.
December 3rd, 2009 at 2:46 AM ^
Eff Tigarr.
If anyone of us was to crash our car and leave the scene of the accident then had our wives tell the cops your sleeping and cant talk for three days. You would end up in cuffs. And a shit load of charges.
Plus, I could care less if he cheated with a different chick in every state.
December 3rd, 2009 at 6:11 AM ^
Left the scene of the accident? He was taken to the hospital in an ambulance, he didn't flee the scene. And no one is required to talk to the police unless there are official charges made. They requested to talk to him, it is his right (and anyone else in his situation) to decline to speak with them. They gave him a ticket and that is pretty much case closed, as far as they are concerned.
As far as the free pass stuff goes, it isn't our place to decide if he gets a free pass or not. His wife is the only one who can make that decision. I don't understand the whole fascination with this. He plays golf, that's it. Weather he is a shitty husband or not, doesn't have any bearing on how he performs on the golf course. My guess is that he isn't the only guy on the pro tour to step out on their marriage.
And as far as the Rosenberg stuff goes, most of us think his is an ass clown. So, why would I care what he thinks about the Tiger Woods story?
December 3rd, 2009 at 7:27 AM ^
While Tiger's private life is private, his pompous statement deserves analysis. He claims his actions were not true to his values, but one's actions define the values and he apparently lied and cheated.
If someone is willing to lie and cheat on the ones purportedly close to them, then one would be willing to lie and cheat in their profession. Actions speak louder than Tiger's crisis management statement.
December 3rd, 2009 at 10:52 AM ^
of the Rosenberg NPR interview.
Rosenberg (at the 3:15 mark of the NPR interview with Melissa Block) said this: "One thing that we in the mainstream media are not good at, is stopping our covering a story..."
Rosenberg was making the point that coverage of the official investigation of the auto accident was legitimate, but hounding Tiger for non-golf, non-accident, intimate-detail stories is not legitimate.
I'm going to remember that statement by Rosenberg; that the mainstream media doesn't know when to quit on a story. Sound familiar?
Discuss.
December 3rd, 2009 at 11:44 AM ^
Tiger's attempt to cover this up makes him look like a REDACTED. :P
Also interesting is just how low Tiger pecked to get some REDACTED. Cocktail waitresses? I guess I can't blame him as they were easy pickins. Btw, Tiger's dad, from what I was told, wasn't faithful either. Like father like son, no?