There goes the fourth estate: Are the media Tiger’s puppets?

A recent article in The Daily News calls the select journalists who attended Tiger Woods’ apology “stooges.” The reporter suggests their agreeing to attend a press briefing during which they’d be allowed to ask zero questions should have earned them “T-shirts reading: ‘2-19-10. I attended Tiger Woods’ Bootlicker’s Ball.’”

The article goes on to say, “There was a time when reporters would not genuflect, not bow down, not adhere to rules set by some celebrity-punk looking to control them. Nor would they listen to some shifty PR flacks or enabling agents, like the ones who look the other way as their married clients morph into womanizing, cheating creeps.”

In the spirit of full disclosure, I know personally one of the three reporters who agreed to attend the “Bootlicker’s Ball.” All journalists are in the business of breaking news. My colleague, who works at Bloomberg News, was the first to write about the apology with this article that scooped his biggest competitors.

Not only was he first with the story, but the piece led to his being interviewed by dozens of other media outlets, including CNN Headline News and Good Morning America. The coverage was great exposure for him and his employer. Plus, he didn’t simply publish Tiger’s statement. He found other people to fill in the gaps for the story he wrote after he attended the event. A stooge? Hardly.

Is the idea that someone in power put restrictions on the media really new? Sure, there are circumstances where reporters won’t acquiesce to the demands of their sources (e.g. they can get the info elsewhere or they know the source needs them more than they need the source). It’s impressive that the Golf Writers Association of America boycotted the event. But, in the era of citizen journalism, Tiger Woods would have found a way to get his story out even if the others had followed suit.

I appreciate the idealistic notion that media should be able to report a story the way they see fit. But I don’t subscribe to the idea that journalists are more easily influenced by people in power today than in the past.