Annual Augusta National He-Man Woman Haters Club Masters Dilemma

Dude, you can look up Webster's definition if you want. I told you what it means as I used it in the context of this discussion. It's not inconsistent. Hint: When I say "Transparency means... " that is a clue I'm telling you what it means. I do not understand your harping on that unless it is just to drive me crazy!

I don't see how I could be any more clear. Freakin'-a.

 

Yes. Our golf writer. But I pointed this out to you the other day.

 

I think this kind of thing is over the top. That YF isn't (or wasn't) a journalist is irrelevant to the points he's making. No amount of journalism expertise is required to weigh in credibly on this subject. I largely disagree with him as a practical matter, but that's not because I'm a former journalist and he isn't. I'm also willing to concede that since the theory underpinning his viewpoint is correct, there's a chance that I am (or was) in the wrong. If all you've got in opposition to what he's writing is that you've been there and he hasn't, then perhaps you're not trying hard enough.

 

Lots of weasel words in your definition.

It's not a theoretical question. It's a practical one.

How should a writer who's played in the Monday round disclose it to his readers? Is it really that tough of a question?

 

Did I miss your link to this incredible article with its "dozens of comments"?

 

It can be mutually true that a newspaper should pay the greens fee for a reporter to play Augusta, and that a good story can come from such a round, whether that story has ever been written yet or not.

 

XXXX Leads Masters at Halfway Point; Tiger Lurking

By Joe Schmoe
Staff Writer

AUGUSTA, Ga. -- Alone among those who teed off at Augusta National Golf Club Thursday, XXXX XXXX managed to deal with blustery conditions on the way to a 4-under-par 68 that gave him a four-shot lead after the first round of the XXth Masters.

XXXX's score, 32 shots better than this writer's score 12 years ago during a courtesy round won in the annual media lottery, put him ahead of Tiger Woods, who shot what he called a "very solid" 72, and Phil Mickelson, who was five back at 73.

XXXX three-putted only once, seven times fewer than this writer did during his turn on the fabled Alistair Mackenzie design.

"All I know is that, if the media ever got a chance to play this course the way we play it," XXXX said, "they'd have a real appreciation for how difficult it really is."

This writer, while in agreement, noted that titanium-faced drivers were not available during his courtesy round. This writer also noted that he was hung over after a post-tournament visit to a downtown Augusta strip club, which likely added "at least one or two strokes" to his score.

 

He has as much a right to be a douchebag as anyone else, and no one is saying otherwise.

 

This was slipping down, and I shouldn't revive it, but this is just too coincidental and funny considering this thread:

I just got a blast email from the golf writer from the biggest paper in our region inviting, on behalf of some group, everyone to their annual "media appreciation" golf outing at an area country club. The media is invited for a free round of golf and lunch followed by a presser to announce their upcoming tournament. There won't be a single outlet of any type in about six counties that doesn't have a couple of guys there. A good time is going to be had by all.

The email also said expect another invite from a different group next month.

 

I played in one of those things many moons ago that was held to drum of coverage for a semi-pro football team. A fellow I knew won the long-drive contest, and his prize was a dozen Spalding "Kro-Flite" balls ... kid you not. Someone said that second prize was two dozen of the damn things.

 

So are you saying 47 of his posts are OK?