Let me explain.

Scour the news about Tiger and second only to the TMZ and Us Magazine onslaught, is the popular consensus among those considering themselves PR or Communications experts, that Tiger is improperly “handling” the matter. Or, in the case of Dave Perkins, the blame rests with Tiger’s “handlers.”

Most of the so-called experts profess that Tiger’s defence should have been a more proactive, but especially more timely, offence.

If we were referring to just about anyone other than Tiger, I might have agreed with the arm-chair strategists. In Tiger’s case, and I admit I could still be proven wrong, I am in full agreement with Tiger’s handling of the matter including especially his latest website post.

I say this not as a fan of Tiger – although full disclosure I am – fuelled by my own love of the game, but as a research and communications strategist with 25 years experience.

Those who see fault in Tiger’s handling of the matter – some of the very people and sports-casters who follow him – should know better than most from observing Tiger play golf, that one of Tiger’s most effective tools is his patience. Granted, Tiger knows when to attack e.g., his famous 210 yard 6 iron out of the sand on the 18th hole of the 2000 Canadian Open at Glen Abbey. However I think most connoisseurs would agree Tiger’s ability to be patient by waiting for just the right moment, or to let others fumble, is his greatest asset.

Not everyone will agree the game of golf, including especially the mental side of the game, transcends into everyday life let alone the hiccups along the way. But then again not everyone is attached, understands, or has enough course experience, to appreciate the link.

Many argue that by making a very public appearance and account for recent events, Tiger would accelerate the “recovery” period. Others prescribe a full public MeaCulpa for both substantiated and unsubstantiated accusations. And still others blame Tiger and/or his handlers’ poor handing of the matter as reason or justification for the exercise in tabloid archeology. “Talk to us or we will go find our own version of events” is the implicit and explicit threat from the TMZ/Us of the world to which most celebrities eventually succumb. In this regard Tiger is treated no differently and if recent days are any indication, worse. Much worse.

Beyond Tiger’s latest post on his own website, you can be assured of at least one more certainty. You will never, ever, see Tiger do the hand-holding impression of Bill and Hilary on 60 Minutes or Barbara Walters. Bank on it.

In Tiger’s case and Tiger’s case only, I disagree that Tiger providing more answers will tame the beast or stop TMZ/Us from their current witch-hunt. On the contrary. TMZ and Us are, in my view, Howard Stern on steroids. It’s not about reporting a significant or important piece of news, or uncovering a particular truth or untruth. It’s all, and only, about character assassination. A successful kill involves “bringing down a notch” selected individuals who have, in some form or another, reached greatness.

Under these circumstances any additional crumb of information or explanation Tiger might publicly share about a private matter would not serve as closure but rather as a springboard and a catalyst for further and much deeper intrusion. Tiger knows this and so too his handlers. And while Tiger has the good sense to show an appropriate amount of modesty and contriteness, he also knows enough to appreciate that his situation is truly unique.

It’s not so much that Tiger is the only person who can outlast or will this saga to its natural conclusion, rather it’s Tiger’s own insights into the matter that in his particular case the path he has chosen is his only option.

That so called experts don’t see this is only a reflection of their own inability to see outside the cookie-cutter strategy with which they have advised every other celebrity.

This post is not a speculative commentary about the recent news swirling around Tiger Woods. Instead, it’s a commentary – and a sad one at that – about the seemingly insatiable appetite people have for not just wanting to observe, but for psychologically wanting to “get-off” gawking at the plight of others.

Current events imploding upon Tiger Woods could happen to Joe Blow and nobody would know, notice, or care.

Fine, I get it that Tiger is, well Tiger. I am not suggesting the issue could or should go unreported. But it’s a little more than idle curiosity when half, if not more than half of those following the Tiger story are secretly hoping, if not outrightly cheering along at the prospect of the more salacious outcome. Would we wish the same for Joe Blow?

On Friday afternoon I was driving back from a business meeting in Toronto when shortly after 2pm 680 News was reporting that “Tiger Woods had been in a car accident and was seriously injured.” I admit that within seconds I was on the phone to my good golfing buddy, Ross, to inform him of the news. Difference is, not for a millisecond was I thinking, let alone hoping, this was, or would turn into, a so-called sex-scandal.

Not dissimilar to when I heard the first bits of emerging news about Michael Jackson, when I heard Tiger had been in a car accident I was immediately and immensely concerned for the wellbeing of the person who represents everything he does to a game so near and dear to my heart. It was both a selfish concern I may never see Tiger play again, and a more genuine concern that harms way might have come to a person for whom – while I have never met – I feel a certain sense of friendship and familiarity.

In that instant while on the phone with Ross, I was informing and sharing with a close friend who I know feels the same about golf and Tiger, that something tragic could be in the making.

Tragic indeed.

However the tragedy is no longer about Tiger sustaining physical injuries from a car accident, but rather the ever-growing and incalculable damage that is being [deliberately] inflicted as we breathe, speak, and type.

To the business of Media, and everything good and bad that would flow from it, the salacious versus the innocent outcome is worth hundreds if not thousands of times more than say Anna-Nicole, MJ, OJ, or Monica. Nearly every outlet from the relatively little-known 680 News, to TMZ, to Larry King’s CNN can’t wait to take their best shot at destroying Tiger, but above all, the image of Tiger.

Like everyone else, will I watch and observe this story, a story that has all the makings of “the story of the year?” Of course I will.

But where possible I will also pass along the best piece of advice given by Liam Neeson’s character in the 1995 movie Rob Roy; “…brother, bad enough that it might be so without you wishing it.”

However, according to the 21 APEC leaders failure is apparently an option, if you commit to it early enough in advance.

It does not take a trained eye to see this is all about spin and setting, or rather lowering, expectations. The thinking goes something like this ‘better to announce failure in advance, than be surprised or have to explain it later.’

As a communications strategy there is a school of thought that supports this approach and that’s okay if your talking about say the Toronto Maple Leafs where the worst possible outcome resulting from planned failure is, well, better luck next season.

But where, literally, there might not be a next season, surely world leaders can do better than succumb to defeat.

Some world leaders are still hiding behind the notion they are protecting economic self-interest while others see the task as simply too administratively daunting and impossible to overcome. Both great excuses for the status quo without entirely giving the impression of doing nothing.

John Ibbitson nails it when writing about the outcome of Copenhagen “All will be in, though no one will be able to say what “in” means.”

Had that been the attitude in 1970, the Apollo 13 crew never would have made it home. And yes, the Leafs lost to Calgary last night, 5-2.

Here’s what Camille Labchuk didn’t do. She didn’t wake up one day, and for kicks, try and cheat her way into a spot on CBC’s reality TV show Canada’s Next Great Prime Minister.

So why then, when the 24 year old aspiring lawyer was a shoo-in for next month’s political Boot Camp, did CBC instead give Camille Labchuk the boot? Good question.

I suspect the answer is going to cost the public broadcaster more in damages than the CBC anticipates, much in the same way it cost the Ontario Lottery Corporation to settle with the holder of a wining lottery ticket, not because of the misprint, but because of misinformation OLGC officials conveyed to the winner upon discovery of the error.                                                                                  

Last fall when the CBC was desperate and weren’t sure they’d have enough contestants to run another season of Canada’s Next Great Prime Minister, they went looking for suitable candidates. One such recruitment letter found its way into Camille Labchuk’s inbox. Camille would be known to the CBC, and to others, mostly because for almost two years she served as Elizabeth May’s press secretary.

Camille knew that if she responded to CBC’s interest in her as a contestant, that winning or doing well in the competition wouldn’t simply be a matter of chance. She knew this initiative would involve a lot of hard word, a significant time commitment, and sacrificing other opportunities. However, the $50,000 payoff for winning the competition, plus an $18,000 internship possibly working alongside Magna’s Belinda Stronach was nothing to sneeze at, especially for a young adult still navigating her way between University degrees and the workforce.

Winners of past seasons have also found good industry related employment. For example 2006 winner Deirdra McCracken, was Jim Prentice’s press secretary and was recently promoted to Director of Communications for Conservative cabinet Minister James Moore. Joseph Lavoie, winner in 2007, is now spokesperson for Brian Mulroney.

Flattered, interested and motivated, Labchuk went out of her way to inform the CBC that in 2006, when she was all of 21 years old, she spent a hundred bucks running as the Green Party Candidate in the riding of Moncton-Riverview-Dieppe. With 1,409 votes or 3%, Camille finished a distant fourth behind the NDP, Conservative, and the Liberal candidate, Brian Murphy, who won the riding.

However before taking the final plunge into this unique opportunity, Camille contacted the CBC, in writing, to make sure her brief brush with running as Federal candidate didn’t exclude her from the competition. On November 6, 2008, at 8:02 pm, Camille wrote the following to CBC associate producer, Richard Maerov:

Hello Richard,   

I may be interested in applying for Canada’s Next Great PM, but have a question. I have previously run as a federal candidate and am wondering if this disqualifies me. I know it was an issue two years ago but perhaps the rules have changed.

Thank you,

Camille

Less than 15 minutes later CBCs Richard Maerov wrote back:

Hi Camille, that’s a good question. As far as I know that shouldn’t be a problem but let me check with my senior producer tomorrow morning and I’ll let you know.

Thanks for your interest!

Richard

After verifying with his boss, CBC Senior Producer, Seema Patel, the following morning, November 7, 2008 at 9:47 am, Richard Maerov responded the following to Camille:

Hi Camille,

You’re good to go! as long as you are between the ages of 18-25 as of April 1, 2009.

Would you mind giving me a call at some point to day when you get the chance?

Thanks!

Richardrichard.maerov@cbc.ca | 205 Wellington
Street West, Toronto

Richard Maerov | Associate Producer | CBC Television – Factual
Entertainment | 416.205.3819 |

For the next two months, including throughout the holidays, Camille Labchuk would do nothing but live and breathe campaigning, studying, and preparing for the competition. Countless hours were spent preparing candidacy web-videos, writing policy documents, outlining her position on numerous issues of interest, as well as preparing written responses to potential questions she anticipated might form part of the competition. Not to mention, getting excited, getting her hopes up, and sharing the news with friends, family, and her online supporters.

Before long, Camille was quickly established and remained as one of the frontrunners on the show’s leaderboard website, and was well positioned as the one-in-eight contestants who would advance automatically to the semi-finals based on public voting for the most popular audition video. Throughout this period CBC was regularly in contact with Camille and other contestants providing updates, additional information about the competition, and responding to individual emails.

Never did the CBC indicate to Camille there was a problem with her candidacy, only that she was doing well in the public voting, always in the top 10, and constantly trading places with only one other contestant for first or second place. All other candidates were well in the distance. 

Last Tuesday January 6, 2009, Camille’s aspirations were suddenly burst by a single phone call from Sarah Maywood, a CBC lawyer informing the would-be next great Canadian prime minister of her disqualification because, wait for it, she once ran for Parliament.

Forget the vagueness of the rule 4.3 the CBC legal beanery quoted. How about rule 4.17 indicating the producer’s word, in this case the above noted Seema Patel, is final? Based on the November 6-7 email thread above, why was Sarah Maywood even calling?

I will spare you the details of how Camille’s first conversation went, or the conversation the next day with the same CBC lawyer and producers. All very apologetic but seemingly unable to seize or appreciate the escalating gravity of the matter.

It’s one thing for an honest and inconsequential mistake to slip through cracks, but it’s quite another for the events outlined above to occur, and the CBC not accept responsibility for its own negligence and incompetence. Offering to Camille Labchuk, as compensation, a pair of tickets to the taping of the final show serves only to ad insult to injury. In addition to negligence and incompetence, it appears those behind the scenes at CBC are also void of any feeling.

My interest and involvement in all of this? None, other than the advice and guidance I gave Camille earlier today when we chatted. I met and worked with Camille when I was Elizabeth May’s advisor. Camille is a sweet, intelligent, and very talented young lady who will go far, and for whom I have a great deal of respect.

Something CBC officials – and other sponsors Magna, Fullbright, and the Dominion Institute – may wish to consider; if the Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corporation can, on its own, conclude it’s better to act quickly and fully compensate for its communications blunder over a misprinted lottery ticket, then the CBC had better cough-up another $50,000 pronto before it finds itself in the unenviable position of having to prove that Ms. Labchuk wouldn’t have won the competition otherwise.