Dana Jacobson Vs. Kelly Tilghman: Who's Worse?

Shortly after the "lynching" comment made by Golf Channel's Kelly Tilghman, there were comments about Notre Dame football. The question that is in debate is when one is actually worse. It's like to take a quick recap on the two and compare it and determine which one was worse and why for that matter.

Kelly Tilghman

The quote on the Golf Channel was about her talking about "lynching" Tiger Woods in a back alley to beat him in a golf game. Seriously, Tiger Woods is considered one of the best if not the best golf players in the world. At 1^st, you wonder what was that comment for anyway and it was a bad choice of words. Even though she personally apologized to Tiger Woods, she was sent away for two weeks. Tiger Woods had accepted her apology and wanted to move on but that's not the case. To make it worse, there was a magazine on Golf Digest showing a noose. Seriously, a noose, are you for real? The issue has been blown more out of proportion than ever. There are blacks that are upset about Tiger not doing more but if he doesn't feel it's necessary, then people should respect his choice on that.

Dana Jacobson

Recently was disciplined for her comments on Notre Dame football and of course religion. Keep in mind though she was actually drunk and when a person is drunk, it's very unpredictable on what she is going to say exactly. She said f- Notre Dame, f-Jesus without spelling it out and not completely necessary. That warranted a punishment and a one-week suspension. It has to do with probably being a 1^st time offender. Obviously, she stated that was she was sorry and that wasn't her. She made no excuses but called what she did inappropriate and not representing the network in any way, shape, or form.

Worse

Both are just plain wrong depending on viewpoint. The difference was that one was drunk and the other was sober. The "lynching" comment was completely unnecessary but what was worse than that was the Golf Digest Magazine Cover. The bashing of religion was completely unnecessary. There was no need to say that in the 1^st place but both are just as equally wrong no getting around it. The best way to put it is whether or not the people that were offended accept the apologies in question. It will mainly depend on a person's viewpoint. If there was one item that if it was the #1 worst comment to make, probably the "lynching" comment would win #1 but a close 2^nd would be the comment with (explicative) Jesus comment more so than the Notre Dame comment.