Would You Put Tiger on the Cover?

TIGER WOODS WAS featured on the April cover of Golf Digest. Is there anything wrong with that?

In 2009, Woods was found to have had affairs with around a dozen women while married to his wife. The father of two young children took five months away from golf to seek treatment for his sexual addictions. Many of Woods' sponsors pulled their endorsement deals with him because of what he seemed to represent.

Should magazines avoid him on the cover because of his adulterous past?

"Tiger Woods is an extraordinary golfer, and the mastery of golf is what our magazine is all about," the editor of Golf Digest wrote after receiving angry letters from subscribers. "He is finally a man who has confessed his mistakes--publicly--and vowed to turn things around--in particular to be a conscientious father."

Does Woods deserve a second chance?

Is the magazine pulling a PR stunt - putting a controversial figure on the cover in hopes of getting attention and selling more mags?

Principle of Journalism: Keep Mickey Mouse Happy?

THERE'S A NEW SHOW launching on ABC this week and it sort of takes place in Philadelphia.

While Body of Proof is filmed in Rhode Island, it is a Philadelphia tale. They show Philly skyline shots and scene-setters but the location filming is actually done in Providence.

6ABC did a full news story on the new program, even sending a reporter to Providence to interview the show's stars.

Is it a news story that Philadelphia is sort of the setting for a new show? Or is this just promotion for their parent company, Disney?

The Royals: "The Longest Running Soap Opera in Britain."

ROS COWARD BECAME fascinated with Princess Diana not just because Diana was royalty, but because of what she represented.

Diana Spencer married Prince Charles and entered the media spotlight during an era fueled by a new brand of celebrity-obsessed journalism encouraged by Rupert Murdoch's The Sun.

"Murdoch changed British journalism," said Coward, a journalist, educator and author. "He created a less deferential attitude."

The down-market rag had paparazzi tailing Diana (not so much Charles) everywhere and salacious stories about her life filled the newspapers.

"It was a time of a new journalism and she was a new woman - young, fashionable, sensational," Coward said.

The stories about Diana seemed to follow soap opera plot lines with themes of familial relations, sexual relations, body image comfort, women in the workplace, etc. She lived under constant press scrutiny as Diana coverage garnered higher circulation. She was dubbed "The Princess of Sales."

Coward said that many female journalists, including herself, sympathized with Diana, recognizing themselves in the young princess. When Diana died in a car crash in 1997, Coward cried as she wrote her column.

The press turned against the Royal family after Diana's death, Coward said. The Royals appeared cold in the face of death. At the same time, all coverage of the Royals was good for sales. So coverage continued.

With the upcoming nuptials between Prince William and Kate Middleton, the British media (and some American media) are going crazy again.

The British press tend to focus on feature stories, Coward said, so the Royals are more than simply tabloid fodder. Speculation about the family, the wedding, their children, etc are all common topics in even the most respectable of British newspapers.

She said that the BBC sets the standards for all journalists, especially broadcasters, but even the BBC is rather obsessed with the wedding.

What did you think of Ros Coward and her analysis of the British media's coverage of the Royal family?

Thursday: British Journalist and Educator Ros Coward.

BRITISH JOURNALIST AND EDUCATOR Ros Coward will visit the class on Thursday and discuss media coverage of the British Royal Family, a very timely subject given the pending wedding of Kate Middleton to Prince William, the future king of England.

Coward has worked in television, reported for newspapers, written for magazines and she has authored several non-fiction books, including Diana, The Authorized Portrait.

Her specialties include coverage of the royals, confessional journalism, environmental issues and the state of modern feminism.

She documented her efforts caring for her mother, who suffered from dementia. She wrote an academic article about the rising popularity of autobiographical journalism. And she serves on the board of directors for Greenpeace UK.

She is a faculty member at Roehampton University but she is currently a visiting faculty member at the University of Pennsylvania this semester.

She'll lecture about coverage of the royals and then we'll open the floor for questions. Think about what information you can draw from her:

• How is the British media different from the American media?
• Are the royals newsworthy?
• Is the constant presence of the journalist in news stories good, or is it a distraction from the actual news?
• Can a journalist also be an activist?

Click on the links throughout this post. Learn about her. Come ready to ask questions.

Are the Royals Newsworthy?

ARE YOU EXCITED for the royal wedding between the UK's Prince William and Kate Middleton?

BBC America is planning 184 hours of related programming prior to the actual wedding. TLC has 89 hours of content ready to air. All of the US network news operations are planning to send their crews to to London and run special programming, in addition to the non-stop, live coverage of the nuptials.

An estimated two billion people are expected to watch some or all of the actual wedding and reception (the rumor is that the reception will have disco and 80s music).

CNN will have 50 journalists and staff on scene for the wedding day on April 29. CNN currently has 50 people covering the tsunami/ earthquake/ nuclear meltdown in Japan.

Is the royal wedding that big of a story?

(FYI: On Thursday, Ros Coward, a British journalist and educator will speak to the class about coverage of the Royals in the British press).

Should Journalists Root for the Home Team? Part II: The Sports Edition.

ESPN COLLEGE FOOTBALL analyst Kirk Herbstreit, a native Ohioan who was a star quarterback at Ohio State University, moved out of the state recently because he felt loads of negativity from fans.

Apparently, they chastised him whenever he said anything verging on critical of Ohio State University football.

"Nobody loves Ohio State more than me," Herbstreit told the Columbus Dispatch. "But I've got a job to do, and I'm going to continue to be fair and objective. To continue to have to defend myself and my family in regards to my love and devotion to Ohio State is unfair."

Is it wrong for fans to expect their hometown heroes to root for the hometown teams, even if they are journalists?

Should objectivity exist in sports? It's not like football is the war on terror or the state budget. Shouldn't sideline reporters just own up to their team preferences?

(related story: Should ESPN sideline reporter Erin Andrews have accepted a high-paying endorsement deal from Reebok, provider of equipment for many of the teams she covers?)

Should Journalists Root for the Home Team?

A FEW WEEKS AGO, Inquirer editorial page editor (and TU adjunct) Paul Davies wrote a column about the opening of the massive expansion of the Pennsylvania Convention Center.

"Would you invest $786 million in a business that lost millions every year, charged more than most of its competitors, and left many customers angry and unwilling to return?" Davies asked. "Well, you just did."

He wrote that the center is full of cronyism, inside politics and union mismanagement and it is hurting the city and state (since the money to build and expand the place came from public funds).

Today, the chairman of the Philadelphia Convention & Visitors Bureau has a letter to the editor in the Inquirer:

"Unfortunately, as a result of that column, a major convention customer whose business is worth $54 million in spending for the city is now questioning our ability as a convention destination," Nick DeBenedictis wrote.

He argued that the negativism of the Inquirer and Davies will cost the center (and therefore city and state) millions of dollars.

He concluded by writing, "We should all be rooting for the home team, and encouraging customers to choose Philadelphia."

Was Davies wrong to be critical of the Convention Center expansion? Should he have championed the larger facility?

Can a journalist be a watchdog for the public and a civic booster at the same time?

(the image above is from the Flower Show at the Convention Center)