Poor Poor Journalism

So from reading this and the old 606 forum I understand one gripe people have is poor Journalism in golf. A particular source of annoyance is the BBC's coverage.

See attached article which was published in one of Ireland Leading National Newspapers. I spotted 3 errors in this article put prehaps there are more. Can you spot them??

http://www.independent.ie/sport/golf/its-inevitable-that-i-will-be-world-number-one-rory-mcilroy-3033661.html

From reading this type of shoddy crap which passes forJournalism I genuinely have to say that 606V2 and Posts by the Likes of Kwini is a far superior source of Information for all whats going on in the World of Golf.

There are probably factual errors in most golf pieces that mention many tournaments, players and results from several years.

That piece looks ok to me, it's meant to illustrate that McIlroy has some steel and determination whilst retaining some humility too. I think he comes across pretty well.

I didn't notice any factual errors, but I don't follow pro golf much so I'm probably not the best one to spot boo boos.

Any factual error wouldn't detract from the article to my mind really. It's a piece about Rory's place in the world of golf, and I don't think a factual error makes the piece less valid.

The simple fact is that most sports fans or casual golf fans wouldn't be interested in an in depth analysis of every PGA event, it's not for everyone. I follow golf pretty closely but I dont read them most weeks as by and large I only care who wins and how the Brits place. Im mot bothered about who might finish 32nd to stay in the worlds top 64 for an extra week etc....and not do most sports fans.
It's about playing to your market and Kwini's pieces work here and would be good on a golf mag as well I'm sure.
IMO people are pretty petty and completely unrealistic when debating golf journalism that features in a broader sporting context like a newspaper.

Diggers, I think you refer to the bashing of carter that is common on here, for a few reasons I support this bashing. Whether the BBC’s top golf correspondent actually produces an in depth piece like Kwini’s or some populous blog where he spouts whatever thoughts are on his mind is down to the bbc editorial team. I would hope for more depth but that of course is my preference. What should be a given is that someone who is given such a privileged position is on the pulse of the sport with a great knowledge and understanding of the sport. Sadly Carter does not have this as he consistently demonstrates in his weekly writings and appearances on bbc radio.

I am not sure why you would think it makes sense to have people with no more knowledge than the average fan working as the bbc’s expert? If they are going to pay someone to write a blog why not pay someone who knows what they are talking about? Lasts weeks effort was a joke and showed how little he knows about the workings of the games administrators and those who pump the money into the sport.

They guy covering the masters last year on the bbc live web feed did not even know how to read a scoreboard, surely you agree basis facts like that are useful to any level of golf fan?

Hmmm, from the first read the only things jumped out...
1) "strengthened his case to supplant Tiger Woods and Phil Mickelson as America’s leading player. " A cursory glance at the rankings will quite clearly show Stricker as the current leading American, not only that, Mahan is ALREADY above Mickleson and Woods.

2) "Westwood, with whom he has had a cool relationship ever since their time as stablemates under Chubby ¬Chandler’s management," Really?? I thought they were best of mates off the course

3) Early on he calls McIlroy an Irishman then later he calls him an Ulsterman. Neither technically incorrect so not an obvious mistake but consistency in these matters helps

I suppose the thing that Bothers me with this article is that the Headline is very Misleading. The first time I read it, my Immediate thoguht was, What an arrogant pr@t. It shows the Quote ”It’s inevitable that I will be world number one” in the Headline. The actual statement Rory said was no way as arrogant “Getting to the top of the rankings is hopefully inevitable, if I keep playing the way I am at the minute,” Quotation marks should only be used to accurately replicate exactly what was said. Not the Journalist interpretation what was said. The reporter is Trying sensationlise a story that does not exist.

Also to Say Later in the Article to that Hunter Mahans botched chip “effectively” cost the US the Ryder cup is also not true. Hunter was 2 down playing the 17th; the best he could have done was win the last two for a half and retain the cup. I think Hunter has been treated too harshly over that duffed chip.

Again to say about Rory and the World ranking that “should he finish strongly at this week’s tournament” he will reach number one is also not entirely true. Rory would require a win to be guaranteed number one position with the points that are on offer in that event. So to suggest a strong finish is enough is wrong. However I only know this because of the Rankings Posted By Princedracula, which keeps us ahead of the curve. It might be a bit hard of me to expect the Journalist to know this!

Detones, I would expect someone writing about golf to at least glance at the OWGR table. Are we pampered by the great work of kwini and prince on this site? Yes, I think we are. But why that means people played to report on golf cant put in the same effort is beyond me?

(Maybe 606v2 golf section could make a killing if we edited golf articles for the major news organisations for a consultant’s fee?)

The article you linked to is clearly poor, as all the points you raised are correct but should we care about this sort of thing? I think so as clearly not everybody has access to the great works of kwini and prince.

A generally ignorant and under demanding golfing public means the likes of Johny Miller and sam Torrance can spout whatever rubbish they want and get away with it.

I saw the other day that Mr Torrance has been bestowed some form of lifetime achievement award by the Scottish Golf Union (or similar body). Not sure if his commentary/journalism skills were taken into account though...

[Incidentally, I was semi-surprised by him being only the 3rd to receive such an award after Paul Lawrie and Colin Montgomerie. But then I remembered that the person whom I thought was a notable omission (initials "SL") does not seem to have the best relationships with the golfing powers that be.]

But I read it here http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/golf/9109665/Rory-McIlroy-says-he-is-playing-so-well-that-deposing-Luke-Donald-as-the-world-No1-is-inevitable.html
But there is no credit to the author........

The danger with this type of misquote is that McIlroy decides to stop being so open and starts giving banal answers a la Tiger. Everyone loses then.

Journalists seldom write headlines for their pieces, so you can't lay that at the feet of the hack who wrote the article.

Mahon's duffed chip did mean the USA couldn't retain the Ryder Cup, so that's not an error is it?

And as for the OWGR, who knows what happens with the placings after each event? Does anyone care that much?

I remember hearing someone banging on about continuity errors in Foyles War. They showed a Spitfire with 4 blades on the propeller, and hundreds of people wrote in to say that Spitfires didn't have four blade propellers in 1942, when this show was set. Did it matter to the rest of us? No. I think the same about this srticle. It's pretty much right.

JAS wrote:Hmmm, from the first read the only things jumped out...
1) "strengthened his case to supplant Tiger Woods and Phil Mickelson as America’s leading player. " A cursory glance at the rankings will quite clearly show Stricker as the current leading American, not only that, Mahan is ALREADY above Mickleson and Woods.

2) "Westwood, with whom he has had a cool relationship ever since their time as stablemates under Chubby ¬Chandler’s management," Really?? I thought they were best of mates off the course

3) Early on he calls McIlroy an Irishman then later he calls him an Ulsterman. Neither technically incorrect so not an obvious mistake but consistency in these matters helps

I have another. The unnamed journalist tells us if McIlroy "should finish strongly" at the Honda, he "could" be World No 1.
I think all golf journalists should be made read PD's Weekly World Ranking column to know that only a win will do and that that will definitely get him to No.1. Donald doesn't play this week so there is no "could" about it..............................

George agree it is not the worst article but I do think the headline (whoever wrote it) does present McIlroy as arrogant whereas what he actually says is much more self effacing. In itself harmless but the drip drip effect could be a change in public perception of him which could affect his marketability so he makes a decision not to engage openly with the media.

What I read into this article is that McIlory seems to have this unshakable belief that he's the best golfer in the world. He may not have meant to disparage Mahan by suggesting he was spent from the morning match, but I would hope Hunter took it that way.

Good for both of them.

To me, it's reminiscent of Tiger Woods saying to Curtis Strange that "second sucks" and that after he trounced the field mentioning that he did it without his "A" game. In the world of top professional golf, only a select few are able to muster up that sort of confidence and then back it up on the course. Tiger's done it, Rory's done it and I suspect will do it again.

He's that good.

The writer comes across as being less than knowledgeable about the game..............

George1507 wrote:Journalists seldom write headlines for their pieces, so you can't lay that at the feet of the hack who wrote the article.

You are correct in a way. As a former journalist of 30 years (who was never allowed to be a golf correspondent because that was a job for the boys) I can confirm that headlines are written by sub-editors who often have no direct knowledge of the subject and just pick out something which they think is appropriate .. and fits the space available (which is often more important). Reporters and sub-editors, by the way, are all classed as "journalists" - it's just that they do different aspects of the job.