Three Fewer Bobbleheads To Be Present At Tiger's Statement Reading

/

Steve Elling writes about the GWAA's decision to boycott Tiger's statement reading.

Woods is refusing to answer questions, however, and outside of the wire service contingent, had limited the number of other media outlets to three. After the GWAA haggled with his spokesman Thursday to increase that number by another 12, Woods’ camp agreed to double the total number to six.

What generosity!

However, given that the GWAA ultimately felt it was inappropriate for Woods to dictate terms regarding how reporters would be allowed do their jobs – namely, by refusing to field questions – the organization voted to skip the event entirely.

“I cannot stress how strongly our board felt that this should be open to all media and also for the opportunity to question Woods,” said Vartan Kupelian, president of the 950-member group.

“The position, simply put, is all or none. This is a major story of international scope. To limit the ability of journalists to attend, listen, see and question Woods goes against the grain of everything we believe.”

One GWAA board member called it “a clear protest vote.”

Damon Hack says that with the decision, "a one-way relationship was forever changed."

On Wednesday night, I wrote in a message to the board that it was a "fiasco" for the Woods camp to choose how many reporters could attend, and that the whole situation was foul, including the Tour's decision to host him. Still, I didn't care if Woods read his statement from a teleprompter or scribbled notes on his hand, I wanted to be in that room to hear him. A journalist wants to be where the story is.

By Thursday evening, after further reflection and discussion, I saw the other side of the story, that calling a pseudo-press conference stocked with family, friends and handpicked media outlets wasn't journalism but a photo op.

I voted for the boycott.