Legal Commentary

I must admit that I have been following the Tiger Woods story. Not seeking it out, exactly, but not turning away from it, either. I haven't purchased a copy of "Us," but I did a read a copy of "People" in the doctor's office.  Pretty eagerly, in fact. Perhaps I am a bad person.

Anyway, one of the things I find fascinating about the story is how your more fancy media sources find backdoor ways to cover it. On NPR they seemed to have decided that the business angle is legitimate, but the purely personal one is not. So "All Things Considered" runs stories about Tiger losing his sponsors, but not straight up stories about infidelity.  Now whatever ethic makes "Tiger Woods Loses Accenture Sponsorship Because of Infidelity" a legitimate story but "Tiger Woods Commits Infidelity" an illegitimate one is lost on me. It seems a stab at decorum, but without any defining principle. And a lot of coverage by old-line media sources seems this way to me?trapped in an ethic that makes no sense. But I am happy to be convinced otherwise.

So what say you, folks? Is there nothing to this distinction, or does it indeed express some useful principle?