Magazine Replaces Editor

Midnyte_Ragebringer · January 18, 2008, 4:24 pm

Magazine Replaces Editor

This image released by Golfweek magazine shows the cover of the Jan. 19, 2008 issue. Dave ...
By DOUG FERGUSON, AP
Fri Jan 18, 1:09 PM EST
Golfweek magazine replaced the editor responsible for illustrating the current cover with a noose and apologized Friday for its depiction of a Golf Channel anchor's use of "lynch" in a comment about Tiger Woods.

"We apologize for creating this graphic cover that received extreme negative reaction from consumers, subscribers and advertisers across the country," Turnstile Publishing Co. president William P. Kupper Jr. said. "We were trying to convey the controversial issues with a strong and provocative graphic image. It is now obvious that the overall reaction to our cover deeply offended many people. For that, we are deeply apologetic."

Turnstile is the parent company of Golfweek.

The company said Dave Seanor, the vice president and editor of Golfweek, has been replaced immediately by Jeff Babineau.

A copy of the Jan. 19 cover was removed from the magazine's Web site Friday morning.

Kelly Tilghman, in her second year as anchor of PGA Tour coverage on Golf Channel, was suspended for two weeks because of comments she made during the second round of the Mercedes-Benz Championship, when she and analyst Nick Faldo were discussing young challengers to Woods.

Faldo suggested that "to take Tiger on, maybe they should just gang up (on him) for a while."

"Lynch him in a back alley," Tilghman said, laughing.

Seanor said in an interview Thursday night that he took responsibility for the cover, which showed a noose against a purple sky and the title, "Caught in a Noose." The subtitle said, "Tilghman slips up, and Golf Channel can't wriggle free."

The magazine devoted four pages of news and commentary on the topic, including a column on the back page supporting Tilghman and asking that the controversy be kept in context.

In an editorial, the magazine explained why it felt the Tilghman story deserved so much attention. It was accompanied by a cartoon that showed the Rev. Al Sharpton, who demanded Tilghman be fired, holding a noose and offering it to a pair of Golf Channel employees staring in a hole of thin ice, presumably where Tilghman had sunk.

Reaction to the noose drew a harsh rebuke from PGA Tour commissioner Tim Finchem.

"Clearly, what Kelly said was inappropriate and unfortunate, and she obviously regrets her choice of words," Finchem said in a statement. "But we consider Golfweek's imagery of a swinging noose on its cover to be outrageous and irresponsible. It smacks of tabloid journalism. It was a naked attempt to inflame and keep alive an incident that was heading to an appropriate conclusion."

The tour issued a statement Friday that said Finchem's comments were "not a call to action, but rather a response to an inquiry and an expression of the tour's dissatisfaction with Golfweek's choice of a cover image."

The tour said Golfweek's decision on its editorial leadership was an internal matter.

CBSSports.com reported Thursday that Jack Peter, chief operating officer of the World Golf Hall of Fame, said that tour officials had told the magazine it might withdraw $50,000 in advertisements for the World Golf Village.

"Jack was not speaking on behalf of the PGA Tour," spokesman Ty Votaw said Friday. "I can categorically tell you the PGA Tour has not threatened any advertising pull."

It was not clear if Seanor had been fired.

Babineau, 45, has been with Golfweek for nine years, including roles as editor, deputy editor and senior writer.

"We know we have a job ahead of us to re-earn the trust and confidence of many loyal readers," Babineau said. "Our staff is very passionate about the game. Our wish is that one regretful error does not erase more than 30 years of service we've dedicated to this industry."

Copyright 2008 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

http://www6.comcast.net/sports/articles ... Out/print/

I'm so disgusted with today's society. All our companies are run by pussies. Spineless fucking pussies.

Fash · Post by **Fash** » January 18, 2008, 4:29 pm

no.. actually, this quote sums it up:

"Clearly, what Kelly said was inappropriate and unfortunate, and she obviously regrets her choice of words," Finchem said in a statement. "But we consider Golfweek's imagery of a swinging noose on its cover to be outrageous and irresponsible. It smacks of tabloid journalism. It was a naked attempt to inflame and keep alive an incident that was heading to an appropriate conclusion."

They deserve whatever they got for putting out that magazine. They, and everyone else, should fucking know better by now. As if we haven't had enough fucking nooses in the news. Fuck.

Midnyte_Ragebringer · January 18, 2008, 4:31 pm

I couldn't disagree more. There is nothing wrong with a noose. Symbolism over substance.

Fairweather Pure · Post by **Fairweather Pure** » January 18, 2008, 4:57 pm

Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:There is nothing wrong with a noose.

Then there is nothing wrong with removing a picture of it. If you are upset that they removed the cover, then your reaction equals the strong feelings that people had over the original cover with a noose on it.

I wish there was a word that describes someone who condems another person, where the stated basis for the criticism is the breach of a rule which also applies to the critic and of which the critic is in breach to a similar or greater extent... Oh well. I'm drawing a blank.

Midnyte_Ragebringer · January 18, 2008, 5:21 pm

Ok. Then I ask for consistency. Will all movies with scenes in them with nooses(westerns, movies depicting lynchings, etc.) now be modified with a blur over the noose so no one sees and gets damaged for life? Are you same people in favor of all these restrictions on symbols and words also okay with the elimination of games like Hitman, GTA, etc. because those images are also damaging and represent awful things?

Fairweather Pure · Post by **Fairweather Pure** » January 18, 2008, 5:29 pm

Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:Ok. Then I ask for consistency. Will all movies with scenes in them with nooses(westerns, movies depicting lynchings, etc.) now be modified with a blur over the noose so no one sees and gets damaged for life? Are you same people in favor of all these restrictions on symbols and words also okay with the elimination of games like Hitman, GTA, etc. because those images are also damaging and represent awful things?

Absolutely, because those are the exact same things and perfectly comparable to the current topic.

Funkmasterr · Post by **Funkmasterr** » January 18, 2008, 5:45 pm

Fairweather Pure wrote:
Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:Ok. Then I ask for consistency. Will all movies with scenes in them with nooses(westerns, movies depicting lynchings, etc.) now be modified with a blur over the noose so no one sees and gets damaged for life? Are you same people in favor of all these restrictions on symbols and words also okay with the elimination of games like Hitman, GTA, etc. because those images are also damaging and represent awful things?
Absolutely, because those are the exact same things and perfectly comparable to the current topic.

Not the same, but what makes one on the cover of a golf magazine so bad? Just because there is one nerdy fucking black dude (that I personally just think of as a white dude with a really dark tan) playing golf? That's pathetic, being PC is over-sensitive bullshit, and continuing to jump and make it look like someone paid anytime some minority screams about anything is fucking retarded bullshit that needs to stop. If people are really that sensitive to issues they need to lock themselves in a fucking bubble somewhere so the mean, cruel world can't get to them.

Honestly, people defending these kind of reactions to this type of shit bothers me more than the actual situation. Stop playing into assholes that toss the race card every single time they get a chance, it almost makes you worse than them.

EDIT: To clarify, if he was indeed being outright racist I am not defending that, but he was not. If he wrote an article titled "Why niggers shouldn't be allowed to play in the PGA" then I would have a problem, but no one should have to tip-toe around issues like this, it's pathetic.

Midnyte_Ragebringer · January 18, 2008, 6:11 pm

Fairweather Pure wrote:
Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:Ok. Then I ask for consistency. Will all movies with scenes in them with nooses(westerns, movies depicting lynchings, etc.) now be modified with a blur over the noose so no one sees and gets damaged for life? Are you same people in favor of all these restrictions on symbols and words also okay with the elimination of games like Hitman, GTA, etc. because those images are also damaging and represent awful things?
Absolutely, because those are the exact same things and perfectly comparable to the current topic.

Not, EXACTLY THE SAME THING. However, very comparable. If you have no opinoin or ability to generate one. Just refrain from posting.

If the symbol of a noose is the new sign of ULTRA MEGA HATRED RACISM in the world, then I ask to see consistency. Do you not agree?

Post by **Sylvus** » January 18, 2008, 6:57 pm

Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:If the symbol of a noose is the new sign of ULTRA MEGA HATRED RACISM in the world, then I ask to see consistency. Do you not agree?

There is a history, in this country, of lynching black people because they are black <--- THAT'S RACISM
Tiger Woods is one of the few black golfers in the PGA.
Someone said he should be lynched. <--- THAT'S PERCEIVED AS RACISM
In its issue commenting on the lynching comment, Golfweek put a noose on its cover. <--- THAT'S A BAD IDEA
Golfweek received "extreme negative reaction from consumers, subscribers and advertisers across the country".
Golfweek changed the responsibilities ("It was not clear if Seanor had been fired") of the guy whose bad idea it was. <--- THAT'S HOW BUSINESS WORKS

I would think a (self-)righteous defender of free speech like yourself would also understand and be a proponent of capitalism. When someone makes a bad decision that costs a company money, it's common practice to publicly punish that person in an effort to regain the customers that they lost.

That's not even mentioning the difference in context of A) a golf magazine publishing a cover depicting a noose after it was suggested that the most famous black golfer in the world be "lynched" and B) a Western in which a criminal gets hanged.

Good work on the trolling though!

Funkmasterr · Post by **Funkmasterr** » January 18, 2008, 7:00 pm

Sylvus wrote:
Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:If the symbol of a noose is the new sign of ULTRA MEGA HATRED RACISM in the world, then I ask to see consistency. Do you not agree?
There is a history, in this country, of lynching black people because they are black <--- THAT'S RACISM
Tiger Woods is one of the few black golfers in the PGA.
Someone said he should be lynched. <--- THAT'S PERCEIVED AS RACISM
In its issue commenting on the lynching comment, Golfweek put a noose on its cover. <--- THAT'S A BAD IDEA
Golfweek received "extreme negative reaction from consumers, subscribers and advertisers across the country".
Golfweek changed the responsibilities ("It was not clear if Seanor had been fired") of the guy whose bad idea it was. <--- THAT'S HOW BUSINESS WORKS

I would think a (self-)righteous defender of free speech like yourself would also understand and be a proponent of capitalism. When someone makes a bad decision that costs a company money, it's common practice to publicly punish that person in an effort to regain the customers that they lost.

I totally agree with you that that is how things work, however the reason it is that way is because 75% of the people in this country are either: an over sensitive whiny bitch, someone who likes to play the race card/pity card whatever to get any attention they can, or someone looking to get rich off of any little damn thing they can. I detest that we continue to let these people mold our country/world in these types of ways, and would love to see people start standing against them and tell them to take a flying fuck.

Bagar- · Post by **Bagar-** » January 18, 2008, 7:25 pm

Funkmasterr wrote:
Sylvus wrote:
Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:If the symbol of a noose is the new sign of ULTRA MEGA HATRED RACISM in the world, then I ask to see consistency. Do you not agree?
There is a history, in this country, of lynching black people because they are black <--- THAT'S RACISM
Tiger Woods is one of the few black golfers in the PGA.
Someone said he should be lynched. <--- THAT'S PERCEIVED AS RACISM
In its issue commenting on the lynching comment, Golfweek put a noose on its cover. <--- THAT'S A BAD IDEA
Golfweek received "extreme negative reaction from consumers, subscribers and advertisers across the country".
Golfweek changed the responsibilities ("It was not clear if Seanor had been fired") of the guy whose bad idea it was. <--- THAT'S HOW BUSINESS WORKS

I would think a (self-)righteous defender of free speech like yourself would also understand and be a proponent of capitalism. When someone makes a bad decision that costs a company money, it's common practice to publicly punish that person in an effort to regain the customers that they lost.
I totally agree with you that that is how things work, however the reason it is that way is because 75% of the people in this country are either: an over sensitive whiny bitch, someone who likes to play the race card/pity card whatever to get any attention they can, or someone looking to get rich off of any little damn thing they can. I detest that we continue to let these people mold our country/world in these types of ways, and would love to see people start standing against them and tell them to take a flying fuck.

75% of statistics ARE A LIE.

Aslanna · Post by **Aslanna** » January 18, 2008, 7:26 pm

Bagar- wrote:75% of statistics ARE A LIE.

63% of the population makes up statistics.

Funkmasterr · Post by **Funkmasterr** » January 18, 2008, 7:29 pm

I pulled a random number out of my ass, but I would guess im not terribly far off.. Chances are if you think I am way off base you are probably in that percentage I spoke of.

Midnyte_Ragebringer · January 18, 2008, 10:51 pm

Sylvus wrote:
Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:If the symbol of a noose is the new sign of ULTRA MEGA HATRED RACISM in the world, then I ask to see consistency. Do you not agree?
There is a history, in this country, of lynching black people because they are black <--- THAT'S RACISM
Tiger Woods is one of the few black golfers in the PGA.
Someone said he should be lynched. <--- THAT'S PERCEIVED AS RACISM
In its issue commenting on the lynching comment, Golfweek put a noose on its cover. <--- THAT'S A BAD IDEA
Golfweek received "extreme negative reaction from consumers, subscribers and advertisers across the country".
Golfweek changed the responsibilities ("It was not clear if Seanor had been fired") of the guy whose bad idea it was. <--- THAT'S HOW BUSINESS WORKS

I would think a (self-)righteous defender of free speech like yourself would also understand and be a proponent of capitalism. When someone makes a bad decision that costs a company money, it's common practice to publicly punish that person in an effort to regain the customers that they lost.

That's not even mentioning the difference in context of A) a golf magazine publishing a cover depicting a noose after it was suggested that the most famous black golfer in the world be "lynched" and B) a Western in which a criminal gets hanged.

Good work on the trolling though!

No trolling, sweetie. Who complained? Who cares? Were they calling back every five minutes to find out if someone had been fired? Were they threatening to pull millions in advertising if they didn't receive a definite confirmation of someone being fired?

In life you will encounter many things you do and do not like. You need to have the ability to absorb the ones you do like and disregard the ones you don't.

This continual over sensitivty and over reactions by companies who receive a handful of whiny bullshit complaints from pantywaists like you is destroying this world.

The liberals and Dems who once championed the necessities of freedom of expression and speech and the like are now on the opposite side of the spectrum. It is sickening. I don't want a sanitary world. I don't want THX1138. I don't want to live in that world. That is the world we are moving towards in light speed, because of people like you who are unable to see past the hour, day, or week in front of you.

Nick · Post by **Nick** » January 19, 2008, 12:31 am

Politically correct hysteria gone mad. Anyone dumb enough to think this is a good idea should grow a fucking brain.

For once, Midnyte is the only one of you idiots to not be talking full on bullshit.

Bagar- · Post by **Bagar-** » January 19, 2008, 12:58 am

Meh, honestly who cares? Do any of you actually read the magazine? Does it really matter? Are you really suprised?

I bet 92.7% of you don't give a shit, and are just posting for the sake of it. 5.11% of those people are just trolling, while the other 2.4% are midnyte and funk.

Tyek · Post by **Tyek** » January 19, 2008, 2:32 am

That's 100.21%

Boogahz · Post by **Boogahz** » January 19, 2008, 3:01 am

Tyek wrote:That's 100.21%

I think his margin of error is added in there

Noysyrump · Post by **Noysyrump** » January 19, 2008, 5:58 pm

Bagar- wrote:Meh, honestly who cares? Do any of you actually read the magazine? Does it really matter? Are you really suprised?

I bet 92.7% of you don't give a shit, and are just posting for the sake of it. 5.11% of those people are just trolling, while the other 2.4% are midnyte Noysy and funk.

Fixed... Bags forgot me, thats why it came out to .21% extra.

Lots of people got lynched in the old west. NOT just blacks. Hell even frankenstien was gonna get lynched. IT WAS NOT A RACIST COMMENT !!!!!! People wanted to make it racist (Al Sharptan) to keep racism alive!

Midnyte_Ragebringer · January 19, 2008, 8:29 pm

Noysyrump wrote:
Bagar- wrote:Meh, honestly who cares? Do any of you actually read the magazine? Does it really matter? Are you really suprised?

I bet 92.7% of you don't give a shit, and are just posting for the sake of it. 5.11% of those people are just trolling, while the other 2.4% are midnyte Noysy and funk.
Fixed... Bags forgot me, thats why it came out to .21% extra.

Lots of people got lynched in the old west. NOT just blacks. Hell even frankenstien was gonna get lynched. IT WAS NOT A RACIST COMMENT !!!!!! People wanted to make it racist (Al Sharptan) to keep racism alive!

Nosy you are my new favorite poster. Logic, reason and common sense still live on in Cali. Good to hear.

Bojangels · Post by **Bojangels** » January 19, 2008, 9:25 pm

The comment wasn't malicious or racist, but the magazine cover was obvious race-baiting. What they did was as bad as what Sharpton's doing, and the editor deserved to be 'replaced'.

Fash · Post by **Fash** » January 19, 2008, 10:17 pm

Exactly... I don't see why the 'cover story' of any sports magazine would be a huge spotlight on an inappropriate comment made on one broadcast. If you want to talk about it on page 6, go ahead, but I'm sure something more important is going on relating to golf that deserves to be highlighted on the cover. The motive behind it is the problem.

Bagar- · Post by **Bagar-** » January 20, 2008, 1:14 am

I was actually just pulling numbers out of my ass. I was trying to make my post as nonsensical as 72.298179% of the posts in this thread, but apparently I failed.

Carry on though. Lynching isn't racist, yadda yadda, it's entertaining to say the least. If I ever have to do a documentary on the ignorance of tradional american racism as a means to pretend that it never existed i'll probabaly use this thread or something, so keep it bumped for me.

FUC KI DIDN'T CAPITALIZE AMERICA. OH FUCK I MUST BE A TERRARIST. LET ME FIND A FLAG TO BURN RQQQQQQQQ.

Midnyte_Ragebringer · January 20, 2008, 1:34 am

Fash wrote:Exactly... I don't see why the 'cover story' of any sports magazine would be a huge spotlight on an inappropriate comment made on one broadcast. If you want to talk about it on page 6, go ahead, but I'm sure something more important is going on relating to golf that deserves to be highlighted on the cover. The motive behind it is the problem.

Wrong. You are allowed your opinion as they should be allowed to have theirs. This is a big story in the golf world. They put that story in the fore-front and on the cover to sell magazines. They should be allowed to. You are pushing your sensibilites upon the magazine and expecting them to live up to them. This is the exact behavior and thought process which has led us to this destructive politically correct infested world we now live in.

Xyun · Post by **Xyun** » January 20, 2008, 2:55 am

i'm made the "air jerking off" motion as I read this thread.

who the fuck cares?

Gzette · Post by **Gzette** » January 20, 2008, 3:32 am

I agree putting the noose on the cover was race baiting and adds to everything that I've gathered from your (Midnyte's) previous posts pisses you off. It seems like a damned if you do, damned if you don't sort of thing to me. Do and you aggravate people that are over-sensitive to racism or perceived racist imagery, don't and you surrender to the over-sensitives' emotions. I hope they gave the editor a nice chunk of the added sales off Golf Whatever Digest as a parting gift. No doubt it was their highest selling issue.

Aslanna · Post by **Aslanna** » January 20, 2008, 7:09 am

Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:Wrong. You are allowed your opinion as they should be allowed to have theirs. This is a big story in the golf world. They put that story in the fore-front and on the cover to sell magazines. They should be allowed to.

Just as they should be allowed to hire and fire who they want. For whatever reasons they want. It is their business afterall and not yours. So you don't like it.. Boo fucking hoo.

Bagar- · Post by **Bagar-** » January 20, 2008, 7:57 am

Aslanna, you're now my favorite poster here. Logic, reason, and cute bears all live on in your unidentified location. Good to hear.

Mak · Post by **Mak** » January 21, 2008, 1:08 am

This issue is not whether it was a racist cover. The issue is whether or not it could be perceived as racist, and the editors should have been smart enough to figure it out the very second someone proposed that cover shot. In a day and age when someone can use the word niggardly and lose his job, and Trent Lott can say something nice about Strom Thurman on his deathbed and lose his job, it shouldn't take a braniac to figure out what a fucking NOOSE on a cover would stir up.

Fash · Post by **Fash** » January 21, 2008, 2:30 am

In addition... nothing the commentator said had anything to do with nooses.

got that? there was no mention of a noose... soooo, why the noose on the cover?

i don't think what the commentator said was an issue... he/she said the only way these other golfers could beat tiger would be to lynch him in the alley... so?.. maybe a better word could've replaced lynch and passed peoples censors.

Bojangels · Post by **Bojangels** » January 21, 2008, 3:55 am

The only way the other golfers could beat Tiger was to gang up on him in an alley and sodomize him.

Midnyte_Ragebringer · January 21, 2008, 12:53 pm

Fash wrote:In addition... nothing the commentator said had anything to do with nooses.

got that? there was no mention of a noose... soooo, why the noose on the cover?

i don't think what the commentator said was an issue... he/she said the only way these other golfers could beat tiger would be to lynch him in the alley... so?.. maybe a better word could've replaced lynch and passed peoples censors.

Lynching assumes using a noose to hang him. That's why the noose on the front cover.

Fash · Post by **Fash** » January 21, 2008, 1:06 pm

Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote: Lynching assumes using a noose to hang him. That's why the noose on the front cover.

Does not. Nor does doing it 'in a back alley' lend any credence toward hanging. He/she did not imply hanging at all, just an ass-beating.

WordNet wrote: Noun
* S: (n) lynching (putting a person to death by mob action without due process of law)
Verb
* S: (v) lynch (kill without legal sanction) "The blood-thirsty mob lynched the alleged killer of the child"

Wikipedia wrote: Lynching, an enumerated felony in some states in the U.S.A., is defined by some codes of law as "Any act of violence inflicted by a mob upon the body of another person which results in the death of the person," with a 'mob' being defined as "the assemblage of two or more persons, without color or authority of law, for the premeditated purpose and with the premeditated intent of committing an act of violence upon the person of another." Lynching in the second degree is defined as "Any act of violence inflicted by a mob upon the body of another person and from which death does not result."[1] To sustain a conviction for lynching at least some evidence of premeditation must be produced, however "The common intent to do violence" may be formed before or during the assemblage.

uiuc.edu wrote: Vigilantism, or summary justice, has a long history, but the term lynch law originated during the American Revolution with Col. Charles Lynch and his Virginia associates, who responded to unsettled times by making their own rules for confronting Tories and criminal elements. "Lynching" found an easy acceptance as the nation expanded. Raw frontier conditions encouraged swift punishment for real, imagined, or anticipated criminal behavior. Historically, social control has been an essential aspect of mob rule.

Bringing a noose into the picture was intentional race-baiting and done with intent to incite.

Midnyte_Ragebringer · January 21, 2008, 3:00 pm

You're wrong. You can link definitions all day long. Conventional wisdom associates hanging with lynching. There was no race baiting what-so-ever in the placing of a noose on the magazine cover. It was an attempt to draw attention and sell magazines. Which is kind of the purpose of magazine covers. It was a very pertinent topic going on over the past couple weeks in the golf world and made total sense for it being the main topic for that issue.

Race baiting is the term for an act of using racially derisive language, actions or other forms of communication, to anger, intimidate or incite a person or groups of people, or to make those persons behave in ways that are inimical to their personal or group interests. This can also be accomplished by implying that there is an underlying race based motive in the actions of others towards the group baited, where none in fact exists. The term "race" in this context can be construed very broadly to include the social constructs which define race or racial difference, as well as ethnic, religious, gender and economic differences. Thus the use of any language or actions perceived to be for the purpose of exploiting weaknesses in persons who can be identified as members of certain groups, or to reinforce a group's perceived victimhood, can be contained within the concept of "race baiting." Many people who practice race baiting often believe in racism, or have an interest in making the group believe that racism is what motivates the actions of others.

The term "race baiting" is often a critique of anti-racist actions and communications implying that those who criticize apparent racism are themselves guilty of either a form of racism or of simple manipulation.

Sueven · Post by **Sueven** » January 21, 2008, 6:23 pm

AND CONVENTIONAL WISDOM ASSOCIATES LYNCHING WITH RACISM YOU FUCKING IDIOT

Tyek · Post by **Tyek** » January 21, 2008, 6:46 pm

You're wrong. You can link definitions all day long.

So I am supposed to respect your opinions, yet you will not even acknowledge facts? This is why you get mocked. You have little or no grasp on reality.

Midnyte_Ragebringer · January 21, 2008, 7:02 pm

Sueven wrote:AND CONVENTIONAL WISDOM ASSOCIATES LYNCHING WITH RACISM YOU FUCKING IDIOT

No need to yell or call me an idiot. I agree with you. Lynching does conjure visions of America's racist past with slavery and hangings. However, a picture of a noose isn't racist or race-baiting. It is a very accurate symbol of the term lynching used by the broadcaster in a comment she made two weeks ago. It was a very appropriate picture to draw attentin to the discussion at hand. Adults with even the slightest bit of logic and common sense can handle such an image and conversation.

Fash · Post by **Fash** » January 21, 2008, 7:11 pm

They can also get really upset about it.

Midnyte_Ragebringer · January 21, 2008, 7:14 pm

Sure. Being upset about things is a reaction people can have to things they encounter, see or hear. Then we move on. As adults if you choose to be upset about a picture, one should look into it and see what it's about. Once they find out it was to call attention to a comment made by a golf broadcaster about Tiger Woods and Tiger said it was silly and meant nothing. They should move on with their little lives. No harm, no foul.

Wulfran · Post by **Wulfran** » January 21, 2008, 7:16 pm

OK I realize that much of this thread is about Midnyte not realizing what a hypocrite he is or pretends to be. I think the post by Fash in the 2nd post of this thread sums up this entire incident. I also realize Sueven was just restating Midnyte's own words here in his last post but I'm confused as to how the concept of "Lynching" is inherently racist, especially in light of the definition of "Lynching" being tied to your rebellion against the UK. I mean do people in the US really think when you guys were fighting the Brits you took time out to hunt some black guys to hang, rather than the guys who sympathized with the Brits? I find that a bit of a stretch (no pun intended). This whole thing is going way too far. Whats next? Will electrocution become a racist term since more black guys got the chair over the years than white guys?

Shit, when my relatives (who I know some of you would term rednecked or hick because of their views but they are honest in how they view things from their perspective which I think has an inherent value as well) talk about problems in the justice system, some of them talk about how they wish we did "give the rope" to murderers and pedophiles or just "string em up". There's no racism in their statements, just revulsion at the actions of the "people" in question and frustration with a system that in their view allows too many chances for felons to re-offend (and in the interest of full disclosure while the largest demographic in Canadian prison is native/aboriginal/indian most of the high profile cases of multiple murder or pedophilia are white). I guess I just find it confusing how in a country that prides itself on leading the way on things like free speech, you guys are so willing to jump to conclusions/make assumptions and condemn someone over their word choices.

Funkmasterr · Post by **Funkmasterr** » January 21, 2008, 7:18 pm

Anything can be construed to be racist, that's my point. I don't personally believe in allowing there to be any grey area on this subject. I consider people that are over sensitive about these types of things to be either weak minded over sensitive cry babies, reverse racist shitbags, or shitheads looking to get paid over anything they can.

Either you are for eliminating this bullshit, and have no tolerance for the above kind of people.. Or you fall into the same category as Jesse Jackson in my mind. You are parading around making people think you are angry because of some injustice done to you, when really you are a fucking waste of oxygen that is being completely counter-productive to the cause you are supposedly for.

PC needs to go. Unless someone is being outright maliciously racist or sexist, it does not deserve this kind of reaction. Let people like this know they can go fuck themselves, and that we have to time for their fucking games. This will also require judges to stop letting people that bring cases like this to court to even get the time of day. I realize this will never happen, but I can wish.. I am sick and tired of everyone bending over backwards for this kind of absolute bullshit.

Animale · Post by **Animale** » January 21, 2008, 8:24 pm

I'm trying to think of an analogy to this situation in other contexts. I know that some people, especially black American citizens in the south, equate a picture of a noose in a similar way - for instance - a Jew in Israel would respond to a photograph of a swastika. It's just such a loaded image, that I cannot imagine a GOLF publication is the appropriate time/place to discuss it. It's definitely in poor taste, and that's really what an editor's job is... make sure that your publication (especially a vanilla publication like a GOLF magazine - if this was the cover of a political discussion magazine it could be another issue... but it's a GOLF magazine for christsakes) doesn't piss people off to the point it will negatively change the opinion of your advertisers.

Quite frankly, what did he expect... people to come to his GOLF magazine to have a reasoned discussion on the importance and impact of iconic imagery in modern society... or to cause a shit-storm that might result in selling more magazines that week. Hmm. He tried to play the sensationalist card and got burned, I have no sympathy for him.

That's not to say that always putting up loaded, iconic images should be discouraged, it's just that - as for most things - you need to be in a situation to handle the resulting blowback that will inevitably occur. There is a reason such images are iconic, and it's just not reasonable to say "we're trying to start discussion" unless you are reasonably in such a position to claim that. Golfweek magazine is not such a place. Hell, just look at the power an image of Mohammed has... imagine if Golfweek wanted to "start a discussion" on a Muslim golfer and lead with that. Would the editor get canned for that decision... fuck yes.

Animale

Midnyte_Ragebringer · January 21, 2008, 9:01 pm

In America, they should be allowed to, yes.

Tyek · Post by **Tyek** » January 21, 2008, 9:05 pm

So your point is that you should over-react to the reaction, but everyone else should just deal with it?

I was disappointed when O&A were taken off the air because they did not say anything, their guest did. I was concerned when Imus lost his job, because it was a bad joke taken to far. This got the reaction it deserved because it was a bait to sell magazines and back-fired.

Crying after every "Injustice" is like calling racism when it is not the case. Pick the true battles, or you defeat the cause.

Midnyte_Ragebringer · January 21, 2008, 9:10 pm

When I see injustice, I'll rail against it. When I don't, I won't. I'm not outraged. I'm just expressing my point of view and my fears of where I see this country going. It reminds me of the Salem Witch trials. Very scary time to live in.

Spang · Post by **Spang** » January 21, 2008, 9:14 pm

I think it's fucked up that we, as a society, can't make fun of minorities without getting fired or suspended or whatever, but anyone of any race can make fun of white people all day long with no repercussions.

As far as a noose is concerned, I think of people getting hanged when I see one, not necessarily black people, just people. More often than not, white people in the middle ages.

Tyek · Post by **Tyek** » January 21, 2008, 9:20 pm

Midnyte,

This is one you should be upset about. Sharpton gets an award recalled for a host 2 weeks after he was announced to receive it.

Conservative flamethrowing septuagenarian talk show host Bob Grant will go to his grave unrecognized by industry bible Radio & Records. The 78-year-old curmudgeon now back at WABC after a long stint at WOR was supposed to get R&R's 2008 Lifetime Achievement Award at the annual talk radio do. But the LA-based rag now owned by Nielsen spiked Grant's invite over racial comments he uttered in the 1990s. Washington Times NYDN

Grant tells the Washington Times Radio & Records "should be ashamed of themselves."

"It's contemptible that they would do such a thing. I smelled a rat right away."

The rat is none other than Al Sharptongue who will be at the March talk radio seminar in DC.

R&R would rather piss off WABC PD Phil Boyce than the slippery, corrupt, race pimp Al Sharpton. Phil is "shocked and hugely disappointed... R&R has egg on their face. At the same convention where they are banning Bob Grant, Al Sharpton gets to come and lecture program directors like me about what is good and just and fair on the radio... Yeah, there are some things that Bob said years ago he shouldn't have said. He paid the price, and that's 10 years ago."

If Sharpton didn't hold hostage his own microphone, no one would give a shit. R&R is pandering to Al the Talk Show Host. I'll say it again: Sharpton has become increasingly irrelevent. Talk radio's Mark Levin chimes in with an anti-R&R Sharpton rant. "Who's next?" he bellows. YouTube

Midnyte_Ragebringer · January 21, 2008, 9:29 pm

I know of that story, yes. I find that one silly as well. One email....one email.....caused the R&R to retract their lifetime award. Sad.

Noysyrump · Post by **Noysyrump** » January 22, 2008, 2:05 pm

What the fuck is &? thats not an "and" symbol! wtf is going on here? Its your racist secret plot to confuse me!

Bagar made me laugh my ass off with his/her (still see a giant female ogre, sorry) "aslana" post...

Tyek · Post by **Tyek** » January 22, 2008, 2:29 pm

It was a "and" sign, now it looks like something Prince might dream up.

Test
&