Not getting it about a certain golfer
Here, from Lucianne.com, is an example of incorrect coverage of the Masters tournament that concluded today:
Phil Mickelson wins the MastersSorry for sounding naive, but why is the golfer who finished fourth mentioned in Lucianne’s headline, but not the golfers who finished second and third? In the history of golf, was the fourth place finisher ever given priority in news coverage over the second and third place finishers?
Lucianne is thus falling insensibly into the mainstream media cult of that certain golfer, treating him as though he were the presumptive winner by divine right of every match he plays, and therefore the focus must always be on him whether he is the winner or not. This is wrong, offensive, and obnoxious, deeply unfair to other golfers, deeply violative of the spirit of sports, and it should stop.
See the previous entry showing two mainstream media stories that covered the Masters finale the way it ought to be covered.
David B. writes:
Here is the ABC story on the Masters. It is titled, “Tiger Woods Overshadowed by Phil Mickelson in Masters Finale.”LA replies:
That’s truly disgusting. If Woods wins, he’s the main thing. If he comes in fourth, he’s the main thing. Other golfers don’t exist, except in relation to Woods. Mickelson hasn’t won the Masters. No. Woods, the presumptive owner by divine right of the Masters, has, on this unfortunate and atypical occasion, been “overshadowed” by Mickelson. But Woods came in fourth, five strokes behind Mickelson, and thus wasn’t even Mickelson’s main competition. Yet Woods is treated as the main thing. I wonder why sports fans don’t complain about this disgusting emphasis on one golfer to the detriment of all others. I think the answer is the weakening in the bowels that occurs in white men at the very thought of saying anything that might be taken as critical of a black. They are helpless, pitiful slaves of the new order.
Posted by Lawrence Auster at April 11, 2010 11:56 PM | Send