Posted on Tue, Dec. 1, 2009
Jenice Armstrong: Tiger's right to privacy? None
By Jenice Armstrong
Philadelphia Daily News
Daily News Columnist
DOES TIGER WOODS have a right to privacy?
Not really.
If he were really serious about not wanting people all up in his business, the way to do it is by staying away from the limelight.
Woods hasn't done that. He intentionally set out to use the squeaky-clean image he earned as the world's most successful golfer to make millions more in product endorsements.
And now that something appears amiss and fans sense that all isn't picture-perfect in Tigerland, he wants to go silent? Not a good move.
Woods owes his fans more than that.
Yeah, we're being nosy.
But people who have supported his career and have bought the products he endorsed have a right to know what's going on. I admit I'm curious. What exactly happened during that early-morning run-in with a fire hydrant? Why has he refused to talk with the police?
The less Woods says, the more people speculate.
Woods needs to start talking - and fast. If Woods is smart, and we know he is, he'll book a sit-down with Oprah Winfrey ASAP. And while he's at it, he should also meet with the co-hosts on "The View." Heck, he should consider throwing in a visit to Dr. Phil and maybe bring his wife, Elin Nordegren, along, too.
Some might think, "Why should he? Whatever happened is his own personal business." Woods has said as much himself. He referred to last week's crash outside his Florida home as a "private matter and I want to keep it that way."
It's a little late for that. So-called private matters automatically become public concerns once the police get called.
And let's face it, Americans are gossip-hungry folks. We may have plenty of other things we should be paying attention to right now, but we still feel entitled to know the intimate details of the lives of celebrities and others in the public eye. Blame our fascination with celebrities. Blame reality TV for making TV viewers come to expect that stars will confess any and everything for the sake of ratings. Blame our willingness to be distracted by things that have no bearing on our lives.
Do I think it's right? Not always. Celebrities don't automatically relinquish all of their rights to privacy just because they become a regular at red-carpet events. But you lose some things and gain others once you live your life in public the way Woods has.
"When you're a public figure, you do have fewer rights to privacy. That's the price of fame," Bonnie Fuller, editor-in-chief of HollywoodLife.com, pointed out yesterday. "I think that is the price that is paid for making the kind of money Tiger makes. When you become a celebrity, you have to understand that you're a public figure and public figures are a source of interest to the world. If he wasn't of interest, he'd have a regular nine-to-five job like the rest of us - and nine-to-five pay."
Communications coach Karen Friedman, formerly of Philly's Action News, agreed. "In reality, this is a personal matter and no one else's business unless a crime was committed, but most celebrity happenings are none of our business - Tiger needs to make this story go away and the only way to do that is to talk so he can control the information and shut down the rumor mill," she wrote in an e-mail. "In the absence of information, rumor and speculation fill the gap which is exactly why this story is gaining momentum."
