Annual Augusta National He-Man Woman Haters Club Masters Dilemma

A good answer. Thanks, and I'll try to tone down the snark.

But here's the point.

I wouldn't suppose to offer an answer to your dilemma, because I'm totally out of my area of expertise. Same would apply for the areas of candlemaking, debt collection and portable-toilet installation.

 

Yes, i took that trip paid for the big developer we are investigating, but I never "promised" him anything.

 

Define total transparency. Does the writer have to mention it in every future article he writes about the Masters?

 

Actually, it's not just the "one time," but don't let that stop you from another erroneous post. Many times I've posted evidence supporting the contention Girardi is an all-star jerk, but he was nice to you and your starry eyes once so all must be well.

You tell us all how to do our jobs and all you've done is read a newspaper. You are less qualified to criticize the media than any sportswriter is to pen a scathing column about how so-and-so sucks. It doesn't stop you from posting, of course.

And I can be uncomfortable with a free round at Augusta and still think you're a pious, self-serving, condescending know-nothing about the topic. I'll read and consider such statements from people whose journalistic careers go beyond the breakfast table, thanks.

 

Also, if we have 20 writers playing per year, there must be some awesome articles written about this incredible experience.

Any memorable ones? Any links?

How many have won an APSE Award, been included in a Best American Sports Writing anthology, or won a National Magazine Award?

With a subject like this, I'd imagine your work is half way done before you even put pen to paper.

 

So, you agree with me on this, but still think I'm wrong somehow? What, is it like a stopped clock being right twice a day.

And, so what, Girardi treated you like gum stuck to the bottom of his shoe twice? Three times?

 

"Total" is a loaded word. Transparency means if there's a journalistic decision made that could have the appearance of being influenced by whether you played a round of golf there then you should disclose it. I don't see how it's relevant to most sports coverage of the Masters I see.

 

I take this as sarcasm. You have it backwards. Playing doesn't dictate you write about having played. Having played means you must disclose if you ever write anything that might objectively be called into question by the fact you played.

 

OK, define transparency. How and when does a writer who's gotten to play the Monday round disclose it to his readers?

A bunch of people have said that writers (and their editors, and even their readers) love this opportunity because it leads to a great article.

Is this true? What's the evidence?

OK, so we're on the board with one.

 

I'm just saying what I'm saying. They can write about it if they want to but that's missing the point. And when I say "transparency means" that's me "defining" it at least in the context it's being discussed here.

 

Ugh.

Two different points.

And, you can't say transparency is needed, and then not say what you mean by transparency.

Every time CNBC reports on Comcast (as they previously did with GE -- and I think they still do, since they retain a minority share) they say that Comcast is the parent company of CNBC.

If you say a sportswriter should be "transparent" with his readers about the perk he received from Augusta National, I take that to mean he should disclose the round of golf to his readers.

And, if he does it once, he should do it every time. You don't get to assume your readers read a previous disclosure.

Is there a single writer who has played in the media round that has done this?

 

Probably not, but you can tell because their stories are a zillion times more authoritative about what it took for Mickelson to get out of that fairway bunker.