Critics of Tiger Woods' Ad Have Exposed Themselves as Hypocrites
I hope to keep this short, because frankly, I'm tired of the Tiger Woods scandal.
Sidenote: The scandals around Woods are vaguely reminscient of the Bill Clinton saga in the late '90s.
What goes around comes around
People have said that the recent Nike ad—with the voice of Earl Woods questioning his son as Tiger stares blankly—is creepy and manipulative.
The fascination with Tiger's exploits has been creepy and manipulative, quite frankly.
I understood that Woods is a larger than life icon, so scandals like his become larger than life; though I wondered about the alterior motives about "some" of the mockers and critics.
Yet, the mockers and critics now say that the Nike ad is creepy because it feels manipulative?
Think about what you're saying here.
People have defended the manipulative media circus around Tiger Woods that has pried into every aspect of Tiger's life, because it's Tiger Woods.
He's larger than life—people want the seedy details. Apparently, though, if Tiger tries to reveal some human details—it's manipulative.
Thus, the critics of the Nike ad, in my opinion, have lost the high-ground on the issue, when really, the Tiger ad is just the equal but opposite version of how he's been treated by the media circus around him.
We knew all the details about whom he slept with; every sex pun under the sun; and plenty of speculation on his future as a professional golfer.
Tiger went and flipped the script.
Followers of my articles would probably assume that I expect professional athletes to be saints, but I don't.
I draw the line when pros lie directly to fans about their success or after a crime (i.e., steroids; Michael Phelps) or get special treatment for something that others get impugned for (i.e Ben Roethlisberger, Pacman Jones).
Tiger is clearly no saint.
But I guess that you could say that Tiger has fought fire with fire. And as the saying goes, you get what you paid for.
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?