My tweet to Doug Ferguson

I know you're all on the edge of your seats, so I'll note that I did some extensive Twitter searching to see Ferguson did respond and did so exuding a great amount of class.

 

One thing is certain, I could give a flying ____ about approval on this board. I think that's pretty much established.

I had no particular quibble with the way the Thursday story was constructed. I do think there could be good alternate lead there contrasting Steve Williams' old and new bosses. Maybe Grantland will bail me out with that in a couple of weeks.

My question to Ferguson was just what it said: How good a round did Scott need to have to push Tiger out of the lead, or at least share it?.

Ferguson kindly responded and we kicked it around a couple times and I went on about my business.

Speaking of which ...

 

For some reason this made me think of the night Kobe scored 81. After the game, Smush Parker said he was more impressed with how the Lakers played defense. Making Adam Scott the focus of the story wouldn't have been as egregious as making the lede about the Lakers' defense, but, yeah, you have to go with Tiger. And yes, he would have had to shoot a 59 for that to change.

On the other hand, if Scott wins, it's another example of good - Stev(i)e - triumphing over evil, just like the 2010 Masters. Can't wait to read those stories.

 

What percent of the people reading that story, or watching/attending that tournament, are only interested because Tiger is playing and are only interested in how Tiger is playing (good or bad)? Gotta be a big number ... 50 percent, 75 percent? That's where I come down. He's the lead because he's what people are interested in and want to read about. That's what we're supposed to be in the business of doing.

If Scott shoots a 59, then sure he has to be the lede, with Tiger shortly to follow in the story.

Curiosity got the best of me and I checked Ferguson's Twitter to see how he answered the Tweet: "Been faced with days like these for many years, and best answer I can give you is not a number but a day of the week: Thursday."

Good answer.

 

I'm torn ... instead of going in the same lead as everyone else, couldn't he have mended the lede? I'm sure that wouldn't have been that hard.

 

And MCT had a great story about the guy in third place. As if.

 

Four quick points:

1. Tiger Woods is the biggest story. He was always the biggest story, but now it's magnified, particularly on his first day back. If he closes to within four strokes of the lead in the next two days, I'd bet both stories will lede with Tiger. You won't see the leader in the lede until he's the winner. And even then, if Tiger is sniffing the lead at all on the back nine, you can bet he gets a first- or second-paragraph mention.

2. Ferguson's the AP writer. I could see bemoaning a guy like Bob Harig or Steve Elling or Dan Wetzel for running with the obvious story, but the AP is supposed to go for the obvious story. That's its purpose.

3. If you didn't have an issue with Doug Ferguson or his approach, then you sure as hell didn't make that obvious in posting this thread.

4. I hope you understand that you've effectively outed yourself. That's your fault, and no one else's.

 

I'd rank him with Jenna Fryer in terms of being an AP writer who is also one of the two or three most important print media voices in his/her sport. That said, Barry Wilner is my favorite AP writer.

 

Anyone who wants to get themselves into a lather over a player who was tied for 18th after the first round, that's your choice; go for it.

 

except "that player" isn't exactly just another player.

 

For the past year and a half, Tiger has been nothing but average. If and when he does something worth seeing, go ahead and shout it from the rooftops. But I don't give a damn about mediocrity, which is what his first round was.

 

That would be a great way to run a paper or network.