Golfweek editor fired for noose on cover of mag

[jpk]

(AP) Ten days after a Golf Channel anchor was suspended for her use of "lynch" in commentary on Tiger Woods, an editor was fired Friday for illustrating the controversy with a noose on the cover of Golfweek magazine.

Dave Seanor, vice president and editor who took responsibility for the noose cover of the Jan. 19 issue, was replaced by Jeff Babineau.

"We apologize for creating this graphic cover that received extreme negative reaction from consumers, subscribers and advertisers across the country," Turnstile Publishing Co. president William J. Kupper Jr. said. "We were trying to convey the controversial issue with a strong and provocative graphic image. It is now obvious that the overall reaction to our cover deeply offended many people. For that, we are deeply apologetic."

http://sports.yahoo.com/golf/pga/new...v=ap&type=lgns

--

Jeezus. I don't know how to process this. This editor was a complete tool. I would have caned the sonofabitch. But that's just me.

[rick]

Jeezus. I don't know how to process this. This editor was a complete tool. I would have caned the sonofabitch. But that's just me.

He was trying to make a visual comment on a hot subject and pushed it a bit too far, but he certainly didn't deserve to lose his job over it, anymore then that anchorwomen deserved to lose hers.

[jpk]

I don't know, man. I'm an editor and I've been in countless creative sessions discussing cover topics. Someone on that team should have said "Whoa" at some point.

The noose is a powerful symbol of terror and hatred. To use it -- even with the goal of provoking a debate -- is poor judgment at best.

His firing was justified in my book.

[Paul McEnery]

He was trying to make a visual comment on a hot subject and pushed it a bit too far, but he certainly didn't deserve to lose his job over it, anymore then that anchorwomen deserved to lose hers.

Make a "lynch" comment, you get suspended. There's a charming irony to that.

And of course he deserved to lose his job. Do you know how much money he cost the company?

[rick]

Make a "lynch" comment, you get suspended. There's a charming irony to that.

And of course he deserved to lose his job. Do you know how much money he cost the company?

I would be willing to guess that he didn't cost them a dime.

[SUPERECWFAN1]

I would be willing to guess that he didn't cost them a dime.

Well how many now know there is a Golf Weekly magazine now ? This guy may have actually helped them sell a few extra copies.

[GozertheGozarian]

It may sell a few extra due to controversy, but lost advertisers will more than make up for it.

[rick]

It may sell a few extra due to controversy, but lost advertisers will more than make up for it.

But according to the article nobody was actually threatening to pull out ads.

[Jack Zodiac]

I wasn't even aware of this until I saw "Real Time" tonight and someone brought it up at the very end of the show, so I'm sure I didn't get the entire story, but the gist was: some announcer made an off-color/near-hateful remark about Tiger Woods and lynching? And then the editor of this magazine gets fired for using a noose on the cover of their latest edition? Why?

There's two connotations in the image of the noose itself: one, obviously, is the racist and hateful intent of the image that is linked to the announcer's careless remarks about Tiger Woods. And the other is the imagery of suicide, accompanied by the print on the page describing the announcer's self-defeat.

It's true, using the imagery of the noose on its own was edgy, which is obviously why it was done, because honestly, what the fuck do you think the circulation on Golfweek is like? I doubt it's all that incredible, even among golf magazines. So using the imagery they did would generate interest like any "edgy" Rolling Stone cover. The mag sells more copies, but it attracts more attention, and with attention, criticism. Being some subpar (haha!) golfing magazine, they view the attention as positive but the critical reaction as negative, and instead of simply apologizing for the imagery and letting it all pass, they fire the editor?

The dumb motherfucker who made the comment in the first place gets a ruler slap on his knuckles and the editor of some magazine gets the noose? Fucked up. I don't agree with it at all.

[rick]

I wasn't even aware of this until I saw "Real Time" tonight and someone brought it up at the very end of the show, so I'm sure I didn't get the entire story, but the gist was: some announcer made an off-color/near-hateful remark about Tiger Woods and lynching? And then the editor of this magazine gets fired for using a noose on the cover of their latest edition? Why?

Actually the reporter in question was a friend of Woods and actually made the comment in defense of the man.

It wasn't hateful, although probably not the best choice of words.

Woods said that he understood the context of the comment and that it was no big deal, and it only became an issue when Al Sharpton started yelling about it saying among other things, that it didn’t actually matter if Woods was offended or not, or what the context was or not, just for saying the term, the reporter deserved to be fired.

[Jack Zodiac]

Well, of course Al Sharpton was offended by it. And I read the complete article now, and while it was certainly an awkward remark, yeah, I didn't see anything hateful in it, but then I don't see anything hateful in the cover, either. Overreactionism, to say the least, exacerbated by a cultural "leader" who never quite knows when to shut the fuck up.

[rick]

Racism is bad and should be confronted and fought.

But destroying careers over something that was never meant in a racist way is pretty damm low.

Should the reporter and the editor been told off and read the riot act?

Maybe.

But this extreme reaction all the way around is just nuts.

[StoneGold]

Florida is an at-will state. Kind of end of story.

[Donald M.]

I decided to find out what this woman actually said. It was an odd choice of words, the reaction is unsurprising and I think the decision to suspend her is fair.

It appears that the Golf Week editor did not cost his magazine any money and may have actually gained them some with the controversy surrounding the cover, which leads me to believe there's more to the story.

It occurs to me that this in not a decision one person alone can make and there there must have been plenty of opportunity and plenty of people to stop this cover from happening.

Sounds like editor dude was chosen to fall on the sword. Maybe he was already on the way out? Is he close to retirement age?

[K'Nort]

But according to the article nobody was actually threatening to pull out ads.

And that's not an appropriate reason to fire someone proactively.

If advertisers are demanding it, a publication has to think about it. But not before.