Hello Tiger

I am not especially interested in Tiger Woods' private life. What happened in the early hours of the morning the other week remains, as far as I am concerned, between him, the damaged car and the fire hydrant. Delighted however to learn that the damaged hydrant is not just a Hollywood construction to make road traffic accidents more exciting for the movie goer. Those things really exist and do get hit. Was there a plume? We should be told.

What I do find worthy of comment, not that unworthiness stops me commenting, is that Woods feels he is entitled to some simple privacy. Is he?

His name is synonymous with a large number of products, not all golf-related, and I believe the sheer ubiquity of his face on billboards puts him more up-for-investigation than most. Do we not have a right to check out if the man who says Gillette is the best a man can get uses an electric from time to time. And if the overall picture is that his squeaky-clean lifestyle is what makes him a good product promoter shouldn't we be able to cry foul if the lifestyle has some unpolished bits?

His family should be off-limits but therein lies a dilemma. The family man image does include others. He can still be a good family man if others in his family err. You don't judge a man's husbanding skills by the behaviour of his wife and kids. But if he strays from his family values it does undermine any claims to take money for product promotion on the basis of those values. Doesn't it?

I am not happy with media intrusion. I watch those X-Factor contestants wanting it more than anything else and then see last years winners and losers being hounded by, and I use the term loosely, journalists. I am not happy with the way celebrity is used to endorse products. But neither is a crime. And one is a symptom of the other.

So, on balance Mr Woods, an apology is not enough. Tell us what happened. Then we will be able to decide if we believe some of the other things you say.

Q and A

Newspapers and magazines seem more than usually full these days of the sort of 'profile' question and answer interviews that they obviously collect and keep available. Fillers, if you like.
I almost always read them. Occasionally an answer seems to manage to betray that the interviewee is a nice person, whilst giving stock answers to questions such as, 'What word or phrase do you overuse?' or 'How often do you have sex?'

Take this from actor Michael Sheen's grilling by Starters in Saturday's Guardian:

Question: Which living person do you most admire, and why?
Answer: Some anonymous Red Cross worker in a war-torn area no one will have heard of.

Now there is a person who is a good actor precisely because they understand the relative importance of actors. And a good person precisely because they know what is important in life. Being well enough known to do a profile interview isn't important. Thanks. Inspiring.