Annual Augusta National He-Man Woman Haters Club Masters Dilemma

As someone mentioned before, the round is not without professional benefit -- it's a ready-made column, and usually a very popular one with readers.

I've covered a couple Masters and, like Michael, didn't bother entering the lottery to avoid embarrassing myself. From what I've heard (apologies if this has already been mentioned, as I haven't read the entire thread), they keep the Sunday pin placements for the media round, but they don't mow the greens, which makes them a bit slower than they are for the pros.

 

Exactly. Remember, there is more going on there than a bunch of old, white republicans (redundancy?) looking over the fence to make sure no girls show up. There is actually a golf tournament to cover there and most would agree that it is the biggest tournament of the year.

But rest assured, someone will ask the question about female members. They will get the "membership issues are private" response and then we'll all move on. What more is a journalist supposed to do there?

 

I could say "not accept gifts and once-in-a-lifetime privileges that are not available to the general public, so as to not feed the impression that you're helping Augusta kill the issue," but I guess that would be out of the question.

 

Here is/was my position on Augusta women membership. 1. If I were a member, I'd make a huge stink about it. It's stupid and right or wrong aside, it causes more trouble for the club than it's worth.
2. I'm not a member, and at last report, the invitation is still lost in the mail.
3. If people protest, it's news, and I cover it.
4. I'm not there because of the issue. I'm there for the damn golf tournament. I'm not going to spend my time asking members why they're idiots. That goes nowhere fast.
5. Outside of the New York Times, there can't be 100 Americans, men or women, who give a fuck who's a member of Augusta National. The first women will be as much of plutocratic pig as all the men. Who cares?

 

Name one writer whose credential was revoked. I've only heard of a radio guy 25 years ago or so who never got another credential after he was busted in downtown Augusta the week of the tournament on DUI and coke possession.
The people who have written some of the harshest things in terms of Augusta's policies during the Martha Burk stuff of 2003: Len Shapiro, Ed Sherman, Christine Brennan, to name three, still got credentialed after that.

 

The golf media one-up thir colleagues covering other sports for their fawning coverage of golfers, courses, and the culture. It's what they do best.

And can't we agree getting free rounds of golf is unethical if taking free meals from sources is unethical.

 

If a writer's had his/her credential revoked (for his/her coverage) in the last 25 years, I can't remember it. I think there'd be a big stink, and to my knowledge no such stink has occurred. Now I could be wrong on that, and would welcome someone showing me how I'm wrong.

Oh, and since it's a one-and-done thing on the playing lottery, I would think the carrot/stick facet of it would be moot once a given writer got to play.

 

That's a huge load of shit.

You don't take free shit from the entities you cover. Period.

And, what, is a reporter going to work his experience into a "gamer"? "Tiger Woods handled Amen Corner much better than this reporter did when I played in the media round last year."

 

I can tell you that whether you pay for the round or not, playing a course where the pros play does give you better insight into how tough the holes are. It doesn't matter whether you make birdie or a 12. Golf is the only sport where the arena is not a fixed, cookie-cutter place. All football fields, basketball courts and hockey rinks are the same size. Baseball stadiums are different in terms of fences, foul areas, etc., but all of them are 90 feet between the bases and 60-6 from the mound to home. Golf is a different animal and playing those courses helps perspective.
PS: Female sportswriters have been picked in the lottery and played.

 

Look, I'm an advocate for writing about what you know. I've suggested folks who want to get into journalism study and work in other fields first. Some of the best court reporters, medical reporters, and business reporters previously toiled in those fields.

But, no one is letting a court reporter try a case, handing over their surgical instruments to a medical reporter, or letting the business reporter make the call on a merger so they can get a "better insight".

And, if what you're describing is so important, why not just hire former jocks to cover sports? They'd have plenty of insight.

I don't believe for one second that a single round of golf at Augusta is going to improve the reader's experience.

It's a gift. It's unavailable to the public. It's given strictly because you are a member of the press. It should not be accepted.

And, if the "insight" was so crucial, then media organizations would be tracking down members and paying for their reporter to play a round of golf at Augusta as a guest of the member. Does that ever happen? If not, then how important is it?

Less important than the funny pages I imagine.

 

Still a load of crap if the powers-that-be from advocacy groups to editors continue to jabber on about how ethics in the industry are sacred, yet wink-and-nod at reporters doing this.

If I can't take a free meal or service to judge how good a business is, why can golf reporters do this?