First of all, I do not moderate the opinions of people on this board, I do post my own opinion.
Secondly, I do not see any "news" value when the private life of a so-called celebrity is concerned - mainly when this celebrity did not invite the press into his private life before. I criticise what I want and it's not up to you to tell me that I can't.
john bodega · Member since
A great golf ad just loaded under Joxer's post. :D Come on guys, 3 days of golf from only $375!
*goodco* · Member since
The press have left Mr. Woods alone for over ten years. They respect his privacy. The fans respect his privacy. He has led everyone on to a 'squeaky clean life style'.
No one was at his house a couple of weeks ago at 230 AM. He is the one who ran over a fire hydrant, and in to a tree, and his wife smashed out his rear window with a 5 iron.
It has now come to light, that the world's most recognizable athlete, has had affairs with more than one woman. Not because he is a man, or a rich man, or.........
He is liked or disliked because he wins. He is liked or disliked because he is aloof. He is liked or disliked because of his personality. But, he was very well respected due to his character and squeaky clean image. No one could ever dispute that. Women liked him. Minorities liked him. Majorities liked him.
If a John Daly messes up, no one is surprised. Love him or hate him, he is not exactly a model citizen.
Ratings on TV are at about a "2" when Tiger is not in contention. They are at a "6 to 8" when he is in contention. The attendance at tournaments suffer when he is not participating. The galleries are enormous when he is. Much like The Beatles, there was a mania. Hell, 2,000 surrounded the practice tees at the tourney we saw him at. Many started to leave so that they could see him at the first tee after a while. When he left, there were perhaps 100 people watching the remaining pros.
"Image"? Hell, there are debates on this site regarding Freddie's mustache. And his flamboyant lifestyle that came to light later on.
A man who is in a sport that makes itself out to be 'pristine', gets endorsements due to that image. One who totally effs up that image, deserves to be burned. As well he should be.
Keep the new Tiger jokes coming. I am sure that the idiots who would shout out 'get in the hole' will have a whole new take on his use of other 'holes' over the years. Alternate back nine comments are acceptable.
YourValentine · Member since
This is a Queen website - so if people want to discuss Freddie's moustache, it's probably the place where they can do it. CNN, for example, is a news page and not a Tiger Woods fan website, so the ridiculous amount of "news" concerning a very private affair is maybe not so appropriate. Reading the user comments on CNN it seems like people are already fed up with it. Of course - when people are so interested in other peoples' marriage problems, let them dicuss it and let them judge for all I care - it's a free world. Personally, I can find that sickening but if you find it appropriate, then your wish to have Tiger Wood's infidelity made national news is fulfilled, good for you. This is what my American co-worker said about it today: "The world looks to Copenhagen and worries about our future of this planet while the United States dicuss the extra marital affairs of a golfer". I can only agree.
The Real Wizard · Member since
I agree with YV's stance on this one.
My old signature was a great quote from Eleanor Roosevelt, and it applies perfectly to just about any situation, particularly this one..
"Great minds discuss ideas, average minds discuss events, and small minds discuss people."
*goodco* · Member since
Guess we need to remove the 'personal' forum then............
I could discuss global warming, health care reform, sky-rising unemployment, the Parmalat court cases and related accounting scandals (ie, officials find over $190 M worth of art, by the likes of Picasso and Monet, in a hideaway of their former CEO this week), but the audience here probably doesn't give two hoots.
Hence, I try to discuss a current, well known, worldwide topic....not of my making. geesh. sorry
Instead, let's call this topic an ideas forum about a polished, corporate image worth a billion dollars, rather than about an individual. How do the marketing experts recreate, fix, and maintain this image to its previous higher-than-thou stature? Or solve their future charitable foundations' expected losses of revenues in an already tight fiscal economy.
How do the handlers provide future increases in gross and net revenue by obtaining similar monetary endorsements that might dry up?
YourValentine · Member since
I agree that money is the driving force behind almost everything in this world. Paparazzi make big money out of private photos because people want to see them. When a person becomes a company as you suggest (if I understand you correctly) people may feel more justified to take an interest in this person's life. However - a telelens picture of Mr. Wood's mother in law being admitted to a hospital cannot have any news value - it is prying into peoples' private life in a way that really should not be legal IMO. I am sure we agree about this incident. It's really up to us - the public - to avoid pages like TMZ and to let the news outlets know that we do not appreciate such kind of coverage.
In Europe we have other topics that are similarly blown out of proportions - the current German hype topic is the swine flu where an unprecedented attempt to frighten the public just failed. Although there was special coverage in virtually every news show on TV only 5% of the population fell for it and got a swine flu shot. Instead of learning from this they will probably try even harder next time.
Micrówave · Member since
Don't worry, YV. They found out it was just a minor fainting spell. The cannons have been fully shifted back to Tiger now. It won't be long before they start telling him he should stay home and stop playing golf for a while.
Why do you think these lame afternoon talk shows are so popular? Any chance to shift the reality of one's shitty life to that of a celebrity's downfall is hard to pass up for the average joe.
The Real Wizard · Member since
[QUOTE]
[b]YourValentine wrote: [/b]
In Europe we have other topics that are similarly blown out of proportions - the current German hype topic is the swine flu where an unprecedented attempt to frighten the public just failed. Although there was special coverage in virtually every news show on TV only 5% of the population fell for it and got a swine flu shot.
[/QUOTE]
People are most obedient when they're afraid. They've known that for ages and ages.
But only 5% !?? Good job, Germany! I think about 30% of Canadians fell for it, but I'd like to think it was mostly kids and seniors who got it, since they are the higher risk groups. Otherwise, we have immune systems that work just fine.
The regular flu kills 10x more people than H1N1. The WHO even had to change the definition of "pandemic" to suit their agenda this time, removing the terms "enormous illness and death" from their criteria. Even they realized that the 1918 Spanish flu that killed 50 million people (and infected 1 in 4 people) was a real pandemic compared to this farce.
«¤~Mrš. BÃD GÛŸ~¤» · Member since
[QUOTE]
[b]Sir GH wrote: [/b]
[QUOTE]
[b]YourValentine wrote: [/b]
In Europe we have other topics that are similarly blown out of proportions - the current German hype topic is the swine flu where an unprecedented attempt to frighten the public just failed. Although there was special coverage in virtually every news show on TV only 5% of the population fell for it and got a swine flu shot.
[/QUOTE]
People are most obedient when they're afraid. They've known that for ages and ages.
But only 5% !?? Good job, Germany! I think about 30% of Canadians fell for it, but I'd like to think it was mostly kids and seniors who got it, since they are the higher risk groups. Otherwise, we have immune systems that work just fine.
The regular flu kills 10x more people than H1N1. The WHO even had to change the definition of "pandemic" to suit their agenda this time, removing the terms "enormous illness and death" from their criteria. Even they realized that the 1918 Spanish flu that killed 50 million people (and infected 1 in 4 people) was a real pandemic compared to this farce.
[/QUOTE]
Nope, I have to disagree, people are more obedient when they're educated. Anything I've learned from the media about H1N1 is that it[i] might[/i] become a pandemic. Why wouldn't most want to protect and prepare themselves for it in case it did?
How does the media benefit from putting fear into the general public about this virus? I think they're obligated to their job and report any news because of public interest.
john bodega · Member since
I must admit, I'm not up to speed on the possible motivations for wanting to give everyone a vaccination, other than to vaccinate a possible threat. [/QUOTE] [/QUOTE]I'm always of an open mind when it comes to our 'overlords' pulling fast ones on us, but this one I'm just not so sure about. What is the big deal? I'm not scared of needles.[/QUOTE]
JoxerTheDeityPirate · Member since
[QUOTE]
[b]«¤~Mrš. BÃD GÛŸ~¤» wrote: [/b]
[QUOTE]
[b]Sir GH wrote: [/b]
[QUOTE]
[b]YourValentine wrote: [/b]
In Europe we have other topics that are similarly blown out of proportions - the current German hype topic is the swine flu where an unprecedented attempt to frighten the public just failed. Although there was special coverage in virtually every news show on TV only 5% of the population fell for it and got a swine flu shot.
[/QUOTE]
People are most obedient when they're afraid. They've known that for ages and ages.
But only 5% !?? Good job, Germany! I think about 30% of Canadians fell for it, but I'd like to think it was mostly kids and seniors who got it, since they are the higher risk groups. Otherwise, we have immune systems that work just fine.
The regular flu kills 10x more people than H1N1. The WHO even had to change the definition of "pandemic" to suit their agenda this time, removing the terms "enormous illness and death" from their criteria. Even they realized that the 1918 Spanish flu that killed 50 million people (and infected 1 in 4 people) was a real pandemic compared to this farce.
[/QUOTE]
Nope, I have to disagree, people are more obedient when they're educated. Anything I've learned from the media about H1N1 is that it[i] might[/i] become a pandemic. Why wouldn't most want to protect and prepare themselves for it in case it did?
How does the media benefit from putting fear into the general public about this virus? I think they're obligated to their job and report any news because of public interest.
[/QUOTE]
ive had my swine flu jab so when the world drops dead from sneezing pigs i wont be one of them
YourValentine · Member since
I do not know about other countries but in Germany the story goes like this:
In September the German government ordered 50 million (!!) units of the vaccine Pandremix from GlaxoSmithKline although the vaccine had not been tested at all (actual tested persons: 67!). Pandremix contains adjuvants like for example ASO3 (squalene) which was blamed for the Gulf syndrome by some studies and is banned in the USA together with other adjuvants. The connection between sqalene and the Gulf syndrome has been fiercely denied by members of the German ministery for health - nevertheless the government ordered 200 000 units of another vaccine for themselves, the parliament, police and army which has no adjuvants and is also cheaper.
When the mortality of swine flu patients kept staying under 10 people in total and almost nobody wanted the ordered vaccine the government started a campaign to frighten the holy crap out of people and make them get the swine flu shots. This is where the media started to cover the swine flu issue with a ridiculous amount of "news specials" while the death toll rose to 15 cases and 2 deaths after the flu shot. I believe it is a disservice to the public to act as the mouthpiece of a government that was stupid enough to buy this ludicrous amount of vaccine and to guarantee GlaxoSmithKline the deal - even though we may not need them!! Unless, of course, it's not stupidity but a case of corruption in which case the media should look into who is involved. After all, it's a lot of tax money being spent on this campaign and the money will be missed for real health issues.
Sorry for hijacking this topic...
The Real Wizard · Member since
[QUOTE]
[b]«¤~Mrš. BÃD GÛŸ~¤» wrote: [/b]
Nope, I have to disagree, people are more obedient when they're educated.
[/QUOTE]
How does that make any sense? If people are educated they're more inclined to think for themselves and they're less inclined to blindly believe the media or authority figure X when they say something. They knew this ages ago, which is why people lived under the theocratic rule of the catholic church for over a thousand years until science came along.
[QUOTE]Anything I've learned from the media about H1N1 is that it might become a pandemic. Why wouldn't most want to protect and prepare themselves for it in case it did?[/QUOTE]
With a vaccine that has not been properly tested? Vaccines generally come out after years of being developed, not 6 months after the virus is discovered. Numerous doctors have come out and said the vaccine is poison. Most health officials have not received the shot. It's just like politicians saying "let's send our kids to war, but not mine," which is exactly what happens.
A few hundred deaths is not a pandemic. Full stop. A pandemic (until this June, when the WHO changed the definition) is a virus that affects millions of people worldwide. When you see football games being canceled because the offensive and defensive lines have H1N1, then it's a pandemic. That's what happened in 1918 - there was no Stanley Cup awarded because half of the league had the flu.
[QUOTE]How does the media benefit from putting fear into the general public about this virus?[/QUOTE]
The media is just the outlet. It's the politicians and the people above the politicians who benefit. The more that people are kept afraid about marginal and overblown issues, the less inclined we are to focus on real issues.
That, and the pharmaceutical companies are making money through the wazoo. Gilead Sciences is the company that licenses the vaccine. Donald Rumsfeld is ex-chair of Gilead, and now a major stockholder. This company and its shareholders have made millions off this, if not billions.
[QUOTE]I think they're obligated to their job and report any news because of public interest.[/QUOTE]
And that's the very problem - the media are the very ones who are telling the public what to be interested in. They let you know what they think you should know.
So yes, let's keep talking about Tiger Woods. This is ever so important.
«¤~Mrš. BÃD GÛŸ~¤» · Member since
[QUOTE]
[b]Sir GH wrote: [/b]
[QUOTE]
[b]«¤~Mrš. BÃD GÛŸ~¤» wrote: [/b]
Nope, I have to disagree, people are more obedient when they're educated.
[/QUOTE]
How does that make any sense? If people are educated they think for themselves and they're less inclined to blindly believe the media or authority figure X when they say something. They knew this ages ago, which is why people lived under the theocratic rule of the catholic church for over a thousand years until science came along.
[QUOTE]Anything I've learned from the media about H1N1 is that it might become a pandemic. Why wouldn't most want to protect and prepare themselves for it in case it did?[/QUOTE]
With a vaccine that has not been properly tested? Vaccines generally come out after years of being developed, not 6 months after the virus is discovered. Numerous doctors have come out and said the vaccine is poison. Most health officials have not received the shot. It's just like politicians saying "let's send our kids to war, but not mine," which is exactly what happens.
A few hundred deaths is not a pandemic. Full stop. A pandemic (until this June, when the WHO changed the definition) is a virus that affects millions of people worldwide. When you see football games being canceled because the offensive and defensive lines have H1N1, then it's a pandemic. That's what happened in 1918 - there was no Stanley Cup awarded because half of the league had the flu.
[QUOTE]How does the media benefit from putting fear into the general public about this virus?[/QUOTE]
The media is just the outlet. It's the politicians and the people above the politicians who benefit. The more that people are kept afraid about marginal and overblown issues, the less inclined we are to focus on real issues.
That, and the pharmaceutical companies are making money through the wazoo. Gilead Sciences is the company that licenses the vaccine. Donald Rumsfeld is ex-chair of Gilead, and now a major stockholder. This company and its shareholders have made millions off this, if not billions.
[QUOTE]I think they're obligated to their job and report any news because of public interest.[/QUOTE]
And that's the very problem - the media are the very ones who are telling the public what to be interested in. They let you know what they think you should know.
So yes, let's keep talking about Tiger Woods. This is ever so important.
[/QUOTE]
Where do you get your information? This is not a new virus. Its been around for over 30 years. First fact of H1N1 is that it does kill, and secondly what few people don't know is that flu itself is far more likely to cause Guillain-Barré syndrome than any flu vaccine. Just ask your physician.
You may be lucky and get a mild version of the this flu, but how would you feel if you infected a family member, child or friend if they were to become severely ill? I would think doing nothing is more risky even if the chances are low.
