The big news before I even walked out the door this morning was Tiger Woods’ public apology, in fact the first public appearance he had made since that cataclysmic collapse on Thanksgiving weekend. This was no press conference, and everything Woods said this morning felt painfully processed. It was also already common knowledge thanks to the reporting that took place during his two-and-a-half-month Houdini act.
The question everyone seems to want to answer is whether he meant what he said. Was he sincere? You can watch the above video and judge for yourself. Or you can read Bill Simmons and let him doing the thinking for you:
I thought it was a borderline train wreck. It amazes me that Tiger learned little to nothing from the past two months. The control freak whose life slipped out of control dipped right back into control-freak mode, reading a prepared speech in front of a hand-selected audience of people, taking no questions, talking in cliches and only occasionally seeming human. Everything about it seemed staged. Everything. When the main camera broke down at the nine-minute mark and Tiger had to be shown from the side, I half-expected to see that he was plugged in to the wall.
Whatever. I was going to leave it alone. After all, that had to have been a humiliating experience for the guy. But listening to talking heads praise that ludicrous speech pushed me over the edge. Someone actually said, “It came from the heart.” It did? Was it C3PO’s heart? I thought it seemed like an automated response from Microsoft’s new “Cheater’s Confession” program.
Preach it, Brother! I can’t help but agree, which is why I also can’t reconcile what I saw this morning — stale, stilted — with what Rabbi Shmuley Boteach writes was “Woods’ courageous confession.” Courageous how? Because he acknowledged that he couldn’t return to golf and all the money it’s brought him if he didn’t go through this cultural formality? Was it really any more than that?
Maybe, maybe not. That requires much deeper insight into Woods’ soul than he’s willing to offer and, dare I say, than we really deserve. Woods said he’s on the road to recovery; his stint at a retreat for those battling sex addiction was reported. And Woods said his Buddhist tradition is helping:
I have a lot of work to do, and I intend to dedicate myself to doing it. Part of following this path for me is Buddhism, which my mother taught me at a young age. People probably don’t realize it, but I was raised a Buddhist, and I actively practiced my faith from childhood until I drifted away from it in recent years. Buddhism teaches that a craving for things outside ourselves causes an unhappy and pointless search for security. It teaches me to stop following every impulse and to learn restraint. Obviously I lost track of what I was taught.
But sadly, though not surprisingly, this portion of Woods’ speech (the entire text is here) has been missing from much of the major coverage. And, at least in this Politico blog post, it was just seen as a veiled, or mailed indirect, response to Brit Hume, who said what he quickly learned a TV pundit can’t say.
Upon doing a quick search, the only major outlet I could find to talk specifically about the role of Woods’ religious beliefs in all of this was CBS News, who got its story from the Associated Press, which means this content is out there on the wire for everybody to pick up on. CBS News reported:
“I believe in Buddhism. Not every aspect, but most of it,” Woods told Sports Illustrated in 1996. “So I take bits and pieces. I don’t believe that human beings can achieve ultimate enlightenment, because humans have flaws.”
The foundation of Buddhist philosophy is ethics, James Shaheen, editor and publisher of the Buddhist magazine Tricycle, told the Associated Press: “An ethical life leads to a life of less suffering.”
Buddhists are taught that redemption for unethical actions is sought not through an omnipotent figure but through oneself.
I would have liked more, but this is certainly a good primer, especially when considering that covering Buddhism is tough even for Godbeat veterans. It’s not among the major American religions and there is such a diversity of practices.
Cathy Lynn Grossman, on her religion blog for USA Today, was the first religion reporter who I saw give attention to Woods’ Buddhism comments. And later in the day, RNA blasted a Buddhist tip sheet to reporters in need of deeper insights. (I lived off these ReligionLink resources when I was starting out.) We’ll have to see who tunes in.
 | Posted at 8:38 pm |  Print
| Permalink | Trackback |
Comments (21) |
February 19, 2010, at 10:39 pm
Wow. This has got to be one of the most uncharitable posts on Get Religion I’ve seen. You admit that you don’t deserve a look into Woods’ soul, yet seem to expect him to bare it to the world as a mea culpa anyway. I’m curious what kind of apology, exactly, would have met with your approval.
To be honest, I would have been more suspicious of a “natural” and “free” apology so soon after going into rehab, and just months after nearly destroying everything he had built in his life. I’d be guarded and cautious too.
However, if you’re looking for further ghosts, how about the ghosts of the 12 steps? Check out the Salon.com editorial that lays out how his statement was drenched in the language of the 12-step program
.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
February 20, 2010, at 12:16 am
I agree with Jason. I guess I prefer the well-thought out apology to something free-flowing because it shows a greater degree of introspection and effort. Maybe there’s a cultural reason why a lot of the pundits liked the speech but perhaps many in the TV audience did not? I really don’t know.
At the risk of needlessly injecting divisive politics into things: For some reason I’m reminded of Sarah Palin’s resignation speech. Much of the press thought it was a train wreck because it wasn’t planned. But many of her fans thought it was yet more evidence that she is “real” and spontaneous. Tiger’s approach — and perhaps those who responded well to it — was the inverse.
Final thought… When Tiger talked about returning to Buddhism, he talked about realizing he had been looking outside himself too much. This is very different from a Christian come-to-Jesus apology where someone would admit to thinking too highly of oneself and realizing they need to look outwardly to Jesus. So, perhaps the “control-freak” aspect of this apology boils down somewhat to religious differences about where “redemption” is located.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
February 20, 2010, at 2:35 am
My reaction was that it was pretty much a pro-forma celebrity ‘I messed up’ speech. What struck me is how he avoided mentioning how drugs/ alcohol/ whatever had led him into troubles. Instead, he simply took responsibility for his actions. And laid out a plan of action to deal with them. It seemed much more believable than Brittny Spear’s and Mel Gibson’s speeches on the same subject.
In talking about his Buddhism, which I saw on teevee, Tiger did not use the common US Buddhism word for the second Noble Truth: attachment. This was clearly what he was talking about. Nor did he reference the Noble Eightfold Path, which is also clearly how he plans to proceed. It seems odd for a Buddhist to explain how his religion helped him to get life back together and not use Buddhist terminology.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
February 20, 2010, at 2:41 am
BTW, the ReligionLink story tells us about the numbers of Buddhists in the US:
Isn’t this more adherents than the Episcopalians claim? Compare the press coverage of the two.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
February 20, 2010, at 8:49 am
Tiger was probably stiff because giving national speeches about his personal failures is not something he is accustomed to. That wasn’t his gig and we should understand that.
As to his Buddhism, I think he has it exactly backwards. Just see how many times he mentions “I did” or “I” in reference to his sins. He wasn’t looking outside himself. He was doing just what a sinful heart wants to do and put himself and his sinful desires first.
It’s nice to see him take responsibility as being a role model for kids. Now if he could just address all of those f-bombs and the like the cameras pick up from him.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
February 20, 2010, at 10:05 am
I watched some of the ESPN coverage on its website. In the midst of watching the ESPN commentators slavering over this speech, it struck me that a lot of people have a vested interest in spinning this speech in a positive manner. Are they just playing their part in The Little Kabuki Dance of Public Repentance? The cynical side of me wonders. Tiger Woods is worth a lot of money. A restored Tiger Woods is worth a lot more money.
To say that there is a lack of moral outrage at ESPN over Tiger’s action is an understatement. There is some pro forma condemnation quickly followed by the long list of mitigations:
1) It’s common among pro atheletes of this caliber.
2) Where is the guy who could withstand such temptation, anyways?
3) It’s a private matter.
4) This is just about sex. It’s not like he said homosexuality was wrong or something.
The undertone at the network has been framed by the subtle assumption that men don’t really care all that much about what Tiger did. Men, however, exist in the world with women, and women do care. So we are getting a corporate version of Fred Flintstone - a husband trying to get out of trouble with his wife for something he got caught at doing, but doesn’t feel all that bad about. ESPN frames Tiger Woods as everyman doing what everyman would do if only he could get away with it. If everyman does get caught, then he manufactures a little guilt so that repentance can be displayed, and forgiveness offered. Vice pays tribute to virtue and then seeks to get back to the proper business of earning money.
In six months or a year, Tiger Woods will be well into a divorce. His kids will lose their father. He will be playing golf again. The PGA will be happy. The sponsors will start picking him up again. He will quietly acquire a (much younger) girlfriend. ESPN will talk about his phenomenal golf skills, and this whole issue will just disappear. Who remembers the Marv Albert sex scandals, and Tiger is much bigger then Marv Albert. In the end the only people who will lose are his wife and kids. And all the other wives and children who get kicked to the curb because we as a culture just don’t think sexual infidelity is all that big of a deal.
carl
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
February 20, 2010, at 10:53 am
I’ll admit.. I did not watch the Tiger apology. Frankly I just don’t care. As far as I’m concerned its a matter between him and his family.
BUT… the media wouldn’t let go. I started hearing reports 3 days ago that there was going to be a press conference, that’s all anyone wanted to talk about. Then the only thing that reporters seamed to care about was the fact that they weren’t going to be allowed to run the event and ask their questions. It was nothing but wine, wine, wine from some of the pundits. Even to the point of the golf writers association wanting to boycott the event.
What ever happened to just sticking with the facts… who, what, when, and where. The event happened, Tiger said he’s sorry and has more work to do before returning to tournament play. He asked people to give him and his family some privacy. Really… who gives a ______ what the press core thinks or the fact that they can’t run the show.
Tiger is a non-elected public figure. He doesn’t answer to the press and /or public, he answers to his family and sponsors. That’s it. Done deal. To the press I say “Get over yourselves. Your suppose to tell the story, not be the story. Your just not that important.”
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
February 20, 2010, at 12:22 pm
Maybe I missed something that Woods or one of the reporters you quote said, but why is this piece entitled “In Buddha’s name”? The Buddha is nothing like Jesus Christ. Buddhists do not “pray in Buddha’s name.” They do not act in “the Buddha’s name.”
In most straightforward ethical forms of Buddhism, allegedly the oldest, the Buddha is nothing more than a teacher. Upon his death, he became the Tathagata: he’s “gone”—presumably to Nirvana, an indescribable, indefinable state/condition. (One cannot say “of being,” since Buddhism denies that Nirvana is a state of existence at all, nor is it a state of “non-existence,” or of both or of neither).
To be sure, other forms of Buddha recognize the deity of the Buddha, but not of the human being who lived about 2500 years ago. Rather the “divine” Buddha is the infinite power of “Buddha-nature,” in the Japanese tradition, of sunyata, of “emptiness.” The Buddha’s nature is to be Nothing.
So if Mr. Woods is doing this “in the Buddha’s name,” then he is hopelessly confused.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
February 20, 2010, at 2:44 pm
One that wasn’t so carefully planned. Or, heavens forbid, one he actually wrote himself. Like I said, Bill Simmons nailed it. Tiger Woods felt like a cyborg up there. His words … were so … carefully put together. His eyes … were so … void of emotion.
His fans and the public at large can’t expect to know what is really going on inside his heart. But if Woods wants to go through, as dalea said, the pro-forma celebrity mea culpa almost three months after he falls from grace and disappears, leaving rumors to run wild and an open stage for all those women to come out of the woodwork, then he should at least speak from the heart.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
February 20, 2010, at 5:17 pm
It’s amazing reporters make hay out of Hume’s criticism of Tiger’s Buddhism and are mum when Tiger talks openly about it. It demonstrates a curious (double) standard in the press at large about religion: you can say whatever you want to about your religion, but can’t criticize anyone else’s.
Has anyone else noted the internal inconsistency of Tiger’s comments about his religion and his apology? If he doesn’t believe in pursuing “cravings for things outside” himself, why is he apologizing for being selfish? Shouldn’t he instead apologize for giving into outside cravings? Oh well; the press doesn’t mind inconsistency on matters of religion, since those seem outside the purview of the press, as opposed to, say, Tiger’s morality.
The bifurcation in morality and religion reporting is madness.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
February 20, 2010, at 9:19 pm
Sorry, but I prefer my public mea culpas (culpae?) carefully planned. Go unscripted and you risk being a Mark Sanford, slobbering self-pityingly over his Argentinian “soulmate” when he’s supposed to be apologizing. Heartfelt, to be sure, also really entertaining to the press, but not exactly a role model for taking responsibility.
Sure, Tiger seemed robotic up there, but no more so than he usually does in his interviews. He may just be a guy who is not comfortable speaking publicly.
I personally thought Bill Simmons was off base in many of his assessments. He thought Tiger should start out by regretting how much he let down his foundation? I think he let down his wife a good bit more than that. Simmons thought he should bring up the culture of debauchery among athletes — to many, that would sound like passing the buck.
Simmons came across as petulant because the apology wasn’t more entertaining.
As for the religion angle, I think we don’t have much experience dealing with Buddhist celebrities apologizing. We know what a Christian-based apology is supposed to sound like — after all, we’ve heard a lot of them. But this is new territory.
Personally, I think he only brought up his Buddhism at all as a “thanks, but no thanks” to Brit Hume.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
February 20, 2010, at 10:01 pm
I think it’s sad when someone’s acting ability is evaluated as part of a public mea culpa. But I find the entire public demand for one to be in any event a theatrical performance. Repentance is an internal matter and we typically have no independent way of knowing what is in someone’s heart.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
February 20, 2010, at 10:02 pm
Here’s a link to an AP story that ran this evening.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
February 20, 2010, at 10:43 pm
I think Tiger handled the apology appropriately, whether or not some accept it or would rather continue to sensationalize what is essentially a private tragedy. Its too bad the whole thing had to be played out in public with our celebrity-driven media that makes the big bucks from airing dirty laundry of the rich and famous.
I was most disgusted by some in the media bringing religion into the whole travesty, wishing to demonstrate their moral superiority by trying evangelize a public figure caught in the crosshairs of public scrutiny for private affairs gone bad. Its just as well not much Tiger’s buddhism isn’t the prime focus because it would become part of the target of the public judgments some feel like entitled to make. Not doubt Buddhism is more introspective than other religions that seem to be practiced for external consumption.
Tiger was eloquent in telling Hume and others to mind their own business and mind their own religion.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
February 21, 2010, at 12:08 am
“Tiger Woods felt like a cyborg up there. His words … were so … carefully put together. His eyes … were so … void of emotion.”
Do you even realize how you sound when you write that? Even at my most snarky I don’t make fun of how people talk. But thanks, I suppose, for confirming this as one of the most uncharitable posts in Get Religion history. I mean, have you done a careful study of Tiger’s eye-emotion connection so you can properly gauge his sincerity? You also assume that he *wanted* to do this public apology, instead of keeping his apologies private. Perhaps this was done because the media wouldn’t stop stalking his children and wife, the people he’d hurt?
No worries, since he “feels” like a cyborg, he must not warrant all that Christian charity and forgiveness I keep hearing about. Maybe once he hits your sincerity threshold. I can’t help but think that the tone of this post would have been utterly different if he’d taken Hume’s advice and become a Christian.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
February 21, 2010, at 12:43 am
That comment was not intended to be snarky. Frankly, I don’t think I’m clever enough for snark.
More to your point, though, this post would have been much the same if Tiger had taken Hume’s advice. Just look at how I responded in previous blog posts to Michael Vick and Alex Rodriguez saying their mistakes were a message from God.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
February 21, 2010, at 1:52 am
“I can’t help but think that the tone of this post would have been utterly different if he’d taken Hume’s advice and become a Christian.”
And I can’t help but wonder if the criticism of this post would be utterly different if it had addressed a penitent Christian like (say) Jimmy Swaggart blubbering on TV about getting caught with a prostitute. Yes, there were boatloads of people prepared to take that apology at face value, and say it was all just a private matter.
carl
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
February 21, 2010, at 2:08 am
Brad says:
I strongly suspect that Buddhists do not approach issues using a concept of ‘sin’. The Noble Eightfold Path seems to place more emphasis on what one does than how to live up to norms. Here is a condensed version of the Path:
I think Tiger’s many ‘I’ statement make perfect sense from a Buddhist perspective.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
February 21, 2010, at 2:27 am
The Noble Eightfold Path information is from:
http://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/8foldpath.htm
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
February 22, 2010, at 10:33 am
I don’t think that attitude’s limited to the press; seems to be a social norm in general. Remember the bus ad that said, “Don’t Believe In God? You’re Not Alone.” One bus driver refused to drive a bus with that ad on it, and the Iowa governor said he was “disturbed” by it.
All it said, in effect, is “Atheists exist.” But this was upsetting, even offensive…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
February 22, 2010, at 4:29 pm
I’m not going to decipher the sincerity of Tiger’s speech. Rather, I’d like to comment on what I perceived is missed coverage. Clearly this missed coverage came from the main media channels which - as noted - simply avoided Tiger’s words on his Buddhist faith. But I also wonder if the above GetReligion article missed out on something as well.
Taking Tiger’s words at face value, the entire first portion of his speech came close to a good confession of ‘I’ve Fallen! I’ve fallen hard, fast and far’ (a paraphrase).
But, then when he came to the portion on his Buddhist faith he talked of being “out of balance” (his words).
While it is true that one who is ‘out of balance’ can subsequently ‘fall’, I did not hear him saying this. Rather, I heard a distinct shift in his rhetoric that could not be reconciled.
In the first he described a hole from which he needs help to escape from. In the second he described the situation having resulted from an imbalance in his spiritual life the remedy of which greatly mirrors his successful golf life: apply oneself through fierce personal dedication, proper technique, innate skill, and a ‘just do it’ attitude & endorsement.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0