So Tiger Woods cavorted with lots of women while he was married, was caught, and took a leave of absence from golf, only to emerge yesterday with a public apology that was broadcast live on TV.
Why should I care? You could argue, with some plausibility, that he's a role model, a position that comes not because he's a superstar athlete, but because he willingly and voluntarily endorses a wide variety of products, some of which appeal to younger kids. His inherent credibility has been damaged, and therefore the general audience (as opposed to the sponsors) might have a claim on his apologies. I suppose, although maybe I'm just a bit cynical on this point to doubt that celebrities who endorse products are somehow role models.
In any event, Woods' extensive cheating on his wife doesn't seem to me to contradict directly anything that he's endorsing. It's not like he's on TV advocating that we all be faithful to our spouses or that we always tell the truth to our spouses.
In other words, I really do see his cheating on Elin Nordgren as between the two of them (and, I suppose, their kids). Because he's a celebrity and professional athlete, it's newsworthy, but I could see an argument for why it shouldn't be.
Contrast Woods' situation with those of former NY Governor Eliot Spitzer and former President Bill Clinton, both of whom also cheated on their spouses. Both Spitzer and Clinton also tried to argue that their (mis)behaviors were purely private matters.
It's tempting to say that the difference is one between professional athletes and politicians, but I don't think that captures it. Spitzer's replacement, David Patterson, immediately confessed to having cheated on his spouse (and vice versa) upon assuming office, but that too seemed to me to be a purely private matter.
Clinton's affairs were public matters because he chose to lie under oath when questioned about them. That he was the head of the Executive Branch, charged with prosecuting persons who lie to federal officials and who lie under oath, meant that he arguably was putting himself above the law. The same is true of Spitzer, whose conduct was not only criminal in violating laws against prostitution (using them, in his case), but also demonstrated a belief that he was above the law, since he had himself prosecuted prostitution rings when he was Attorney General.
Tiger Woods is a public figure whose former ability to generate millions in endorsement deals was due to the existence of a huge fan base. That fan base included people who admired him not only for his golf skills but also because he did in fact hold himself out both as a role model to kids -- if you work hard you, too, can be a winner! (See, e.g., his various charitable works, including the The Tiger Woods Foundation that sells the image of his "[i]ntegrity, honesty, discipline, [and] responsibility" to generate $$$ and inspire kids). He also held himself out as someone who seemed to be "above it all" (a star athlete who wasn't a publicity hound, wild party guy, etc. -- back to someone with a high level of integrity). As a result, you have otherwise fuddy duddy businesses like Accensure having a multi-year campaign that revolved entirely around Tiger Woods, a campaign that some describes as one that tried to tie Wood's perceived level of high integrity and high performance with Accensure's level of integrity and performance. Being a lying, cheating SOB who couldn't honor his marriage vows not once or twice but apparently almost on a daily basis destroyed the trust businesses, donors and kids had in him. He made money (and induced people and businesses to donate lots of money) based in large part on the public's view of his character; he cannot now claim everything is "private business" when it is something of this magnitude.
As to Spitzer's replacement, David Patterson, I think it is also wrong to characterize his infidelity as a purely private matter. Not all star athletes could have made millions on an image that included perceptions of integrity and honor, and most do not; so not all star athletes' acts of infidelity fall into the "public concern" category. However, all politicians owe their positions in huge part to their perceived ability to keep their word. Therefore, I don't think any elected official's infidelity is a purely private matter. Politicians generate votes because they make promises to voters and voters believe in their ability to carry out their promises. Under the circumstances, a politician's inability to keep his word to a single individual who is supposed to be the most important person in his life, the person whom he promised to honor in front of God [as I don't think atheists get elected in this country], transforms from a private matter to a public one. One who puts his character out as an issue critical to gaining voter's vote is not entitled to retrieve his character and hide it as a "private matter" when it is no longer convenient.
Posted by: acl | February 20, 2010 at 10:48 PM