NYT reporter says she would boycott Masters until women allowed at Augusta

As far as crossing a line to involve yourself in a story, this would rank far down the list for me. I've worked with all of the following, although sometimes their escapades happened at their next paper:

Reporter who harbored a fugitive.

Reporter who, assigned to write about nuns smuggling refugees across the border, actually helped the nuns do it.

Reporter who apparently encouraged someone from the Soviet Union to defect to the United States.

Reporter who had business relationships with athletes he covered (got fired).

Two columnists credited with bringing pro sports to their towns, one brokering the deal.

Reporter who tried out for a pro team's cheerleading squad and made the squad as an alternate (she was fired by the paper).

No doubt I am missing a few.

 

What a flimsy, thin-skinned little culture, then.

 

So let's review the inaccuracies in this thread, the incompetent misreads of a small set of quotations:

She didn't do that.

And she didn't say that.

And she didn't do that.

A-a-a-and, she didn't say that.

Nice job! Good thing none of these people is in a business that prizes accuracy!

 

Can the Times even send her to Augusta next year after this? She basically "broken the fourth wall".

 

Somebody please get YF to his fainting couch.

 

If public complaint disqualified a reporter from covering an event, there wouldn't be a man left standing at the Super Bowl.

C'mon.

 

I'm quiite sure if the New York Times and Boston Globe and Washington Post and any other snooty psuedo-intellectual Northeastern Newspaper decided to boycott coverage of the Master's the people of the Masters would be more than willing to revoke their credentials and tell them to go fuck themselves.

The fact that some no name reporter said she would like to boycott it is comical.

 

Is it a public complaint about the event, or a judgement about the morals and values of the people that she has to cover?

It's one thing to say an event is not well organized, or the people in charge of a team (owner/GM/coach) made poor decisions. It's quite another to express your dismay about the politics involved, and to publicly wonder why the commissioner hasn't taken a "stand".

Can I expect her to be objective in the future?

Would it have been proper for her to complain about Woody Johnson's conservative politics when she covered the Jets?

 

I wouldn't call her a no-name reporter.

 

The Martha Burke article referenced in Moddy's link: