Tiger Woods Adequately Contrite in Friday Press Conference

Tiger Woods spoke publicly, apologizing. He mentioned discussions with his wife and insisted their relationship is private, off-limits to the press as well as are his children. He refuted the press' attacks on his wife.

He was blunt on his responsibility about allowing his fame and wealth to tempt him to stray from his childhood
Buddhism and the attitude of entitlement that influenced his decisions, thinking that he was above the rules. He noted that it was important to develop good character, to behave with decency, and to act with integrity. He pledged to work on this and apologized for his failing.

What really struck me was the way he said what he said. In the job that I do, I encounter a lot of people from different walks of life and cultures with varying stories that I need to discern whether they're telling me the truth or not, because what I say to them or how I decide about them can have far reaching consequences far beyond
just the two of us.

It is still my distinct impression that he was being truthful. He was forthright and didn't equivocate or transfer blame. He was having a very difficult time with what he was saying and struck me as being genuine.

My impression was backed up by a local article about a retired FBI profiler, Joe Navarro, and his impression on what Tiger had to say. "Navarro found Woods' words to be credible." That, "This is a very humbled, contrite individual and that's the message that's being delivered." Joe Navarro interrogated spies and terrorists, was on a SWAT team for 17 years, and a criminal profiler for 12 years.

I believe that Tiger accomplished what he set out to do, which is to apologize to and to acknowledge the pain and difficulty that his behavior has inflicted upon his family, friends and colleagues.

I also understand that another reason he made the apology public was because he feels a justified responsibility for the children who have been following in his footsteps. That they needed a public acknowledgment of the breach of trust that his actions have caused.

This is what I believe his primary goal was, that making a public statement about his actions was an amends and setting straight the facts and situation for those who are close to him and to those whom his actions would cause the most damage to.

I don't believe it was about salvaging his reputation, or he would have included the press into the room to prove that he was worthy of his reputation.

Having been in the position of the betrayed wife, myself, I would say that his wife was in on his decision to make this public statement. Her humiliation was public, and he could do no less to prove to her that he was genuine.

But he also needed to get her approval to go forward with this so public a statement. That's an important part of reconciliation. This was really about his wife and his family and not about his reputation. If it were about his reputation, he would be denying this and would not have gone into therapy.

I believe that he and his wife are already in the process of reconciliation and that this public statement was a part of that. They needed to agree on this. His obvious pain during his speaking is testament to the fact that he wasn't in on this alone. He was representing both of them.

It has been similar with my husband and me. However, I will say, that it will never be the same for them. Her sensitivity in that area will always be hyper vigilant, and she will need to learn to balance that hyper vigilance with reasonable doubt and to make conscious decisions to sometimes trust instead of peeking around every corner.

There is a healing in it for both of them if they are willing to go through the tough stuff. It won't be easy, and it will take a long time to accomplish. But with mutual determination they can do this.

My husband's infidelity occurred during the seventh and eighth years of our marriage. We're coming up to our thirtieth anniversary. So, it is possible to reconcile and to salvage the marriage. It depends upon the individuals in the relationship and their commitment to their vows.

Tiger's public statement wasn't that long after the Thanksgiving incident, and the fact that he went into therapy right away are all very positive signs. The fact that he's doing this not that long after his incident with the fire hydrant, more than just the words, speaks loudly that he is seriously pursuing this.

On the other hand, with recent continuing revelations about John Edwards and his behavior toward his wife, the public and his mistress and their child, he has seriously damaged his credibility in all his efforts to cover his butt and to save his reputation. To me, it appeared to be all about his reputation and not at all about his wife or
their relationship or even about the mistress whom he claims to love.

Another public figure that comes to mind is Bill Clinton. His denials got to be so creative that he challenged his interrogators to define the meaning of the word "is" in relation to whether he had had sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky or not.

He was trying to salvage his reputation and his job. There was no consideration of Hillary or Monica in all of this. If he had taken the initial step at the beginning, to do anything similar to what Tiger Woods has done, he would not have been impeached, and, in my opinion, he most likely would not have bombed an innocent pill factory and not have taken our country through the damage.

Of course, the best course Tiger could have done is not have done what he had done at all. The next best thing he could have done is to admit to his wife what he had done before it got to the point of the Thanksgiving incident.

However, when a person goes down this path they are usually in denial and won't deal with the situation of their own choosing until they encounter some obstacle like the fire hydrant. Then they have a decision to make, whether to come clean and to seek help, which Tiger did or to do as both Bill Clinton and John Edwards did, denying until they absolutely had no choice but to admit it.

It's way too early to predict whether this marriage will last or even how long it will take to deal with the damages since they go to the core of everything this marriage should have been about. It also doesn't help that their marriage isn't private, due to the fact that Tiger isn't exactly private. But he was right in telling the press to back off.

I mean, get real, he bats around a teeny little ball with a stick for a living. Granted the majority of us couldn't do so well. However, my point is that his profession isn't going to influence our lives such as some of the policy decisions of John Edwards and Bill Clinton could directly impact our lives to the detriment of our freedom. So,
of course they ought to be held to a higher level of scrutiny than Tiger Woods.

I took journalism in school and am the author of a newsletter for an organization. We were taught to treat the subjects of our articles with respect and to not do anything that was unethical or untruthful. The press has definitely strayed far from that, in my opinion.

There is a nightly news anchor who claims that they always consider what we want to know when they ask their questions. This sounds like the Inquirer. What happened to considering whether we even have the right to know the answer to that question, in the day of instant fame and "reality' tv?

Being in the ministry, I'm often asked impertinent questions. But being the transparent motormouth that I am, I answer them instead of telling them that they are prying. But that's my choice, because I would put ministers in the same category as politicians when it comes to accountability.

What we say and do can have a direct impact on someone else's life and what they do can reflect from that. So when we step out of line, yes, there does need to be scrutiny because of our influence.

After Tiger's remarks, Katy Couric interviewed David Feherty, a CBS golf correspondent who has worked around Tiger for most of his career, for his understanding of the situation. He said that he'd never seen Tiger so vulnerable and hoped that he might be more available when he returns to the sport, which he expects him to do, perhaps not this year.

He also answered the other reporter's criticisms on Tiger's timing, considering the first corporate sponsor to drop him, Accenture, is holding their golf tournament during this same time. He said that if he really wanted revenge he would either be playing in the event or giving his statement Sunday afternoon during the final.

He also said that he understood that the timing was due to the therapy Tiger is undergoing. He had to work with the schedule that he'd been given. Of course he could have given his statement earlier in the week and exposed himself and his family to intense paparazzi harassment the rest of the week.

If I were in his position, I wouldn't have made the public statement. I would have made it privately without the camera and have issued a written copy. Considering how private he is reputed to be, this took a lot for him to do.

I believe that he is genuinely sincere in what he spoke on. However, it is my experience that an individual can be very sincere and walk out the door and not exercise the strength that it takes to complete the steps required to effect a turn around.

This is also something that's going to take time to accomplish. I'm not talking about the fidelity issue. I'm talking about everything that has come out of that issue. I'm talking about the good character, decency and integrity. Those take a lifetime to develop.

Sources:

http://www2.tbo.com/content/2010/feb/19/body-language-expert-finds-tigers-words-credible/

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=5441195

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Edwards_extramarital_affair

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewinsky_scandal

CBS Special Report