It Was Wrong to Defend Dave Seanor and Golfweek


After this writer’s post late Friday about the removal of editor Dave Seanor from Golfweek magazine due to his decision to run an image of a noose on the cover, in reaction to a comment made by an on-camera talent on The Golf Channel, we got the chance to talk to a few readers by e-mail, having some enlightening discussions in the process. While this writer defended what he said, he was working off the assumption, based on what he’d read in the wire reports, that the magazine’s feature story used Kelly Tilghman‘s comments as a launching point to talk about both past and present racism within the sport. Unfortunately, after reading Michael Wilbon‘s editorial in The Washington Post on the subject, “Language Was Hurtful, But Actions Were Profane,” we got more information about the matter and this writer realized he was wrong to defend Seanor and Golfweek. In the work this writer was hoping for in his original post, this full debate would have existed within Golfweek and it’s that idyllic world he was defending. Here was something of this writer’s side of the argument, but in Wilbon’s words:

The Golf Channel, instead of waiting several days to publicly reprimand Tilghman, should have done so immediately, perhaps avoiding the need for a suspension. And Golfweek absolutely should have used the controversy as a teaching tool, examining black participation (or lack thereof) in the golf industry with sidebars on lynching and why so many people were offended by Tilghman’s words. But Golfweek conducted no such examination, meaning the picture of a noose on the cover did little more than inflame, which is inexcusable.

This writer agrees one hundred percent and apologizes for publishing an editorial piece based off of one report and not having based an opinion off of the original source material in question. In the end, to support this kind of depth-less, tabloid journalism was unquestionably dumb.