What is Brian Katrek reading from Peter Kostis that I am not?

Listening to Brian Katrek, host of the XM Radio show Teed Off, one might question how he reads an article. He criticized Peter Kostis for writing an interview follow-up article on Golf.Com. Normally we like to read follow-up articles, as they give us an opportunity to provide opinion on questions and answers. The circumstances surrounding this interview apparently stirred the bile in Katrek’s belly.

To wit, Peter Kostis had interviewed Tiger Woods on Masters Sunday. Tiger had provided answers to questions in typical Tiger fashion. In his follow-up article, Kostis questioned the lack of consistency between Tiger’s claim to improve his self and behavior and two of the answers that Tiger gave.

Brian Katrek wondered aloud if the proper journalist wrote the article, since Pete Kostis had conducted the initial interview. I don’t have a problem with either option. If the Golf.Com editors deem that Kostis has a right to tackle such a subject, then do it.

Katrek also inquired as to the motive behind Kostis’ article. The radio host suggested that Kostis was unsatisfied with Tiger’s answers and that he was proposing proper ones to the great champion. I am fairly confident that Tiger will not memorize the way according to Kostis as his life-path text, so I can only endorse Kostis’ suggestions as literary ones.

What I know to be true are the following points: since the accident and disclosures, journalists and other golfing figures have some fodder for Tiger Woods investigative pieces and they seem to be emboldened in their quests for information. Before Thanksgiving 2009, this was not the case; Tiger Woods has been on this earth for 34 to 35 years. I am confident that he has been swearing and tossing clubs for two-thirds of them. He may tone down his outbursts, but he will not eliminate them. They are too connected to his performance at the highest level of sport.

As fans, we want happy-middle stories like Phil Mickelson’s Masters triumph. We don’t know the ending, but we consider this victory to somehow be a reward for his support of ill family members. Remember, though, that we don’t ALWAYS want happy-middle stories. We like carnage and demolition, too. Tiger by 15, Tiger by 10, Tiger by eight played pretty well on our television sets and they may do so again. We can’t expect our wants to be monotonous and monochromatic, so why does any one of us even suggest that Tiger comport himself that way?

My problem with the Kostis piece is that it is bland and banal. He doesn’t challenge Tiger; he does a complete 360-degree turn around the issue and suggests that some people (read: not Peter Kostis) were unsatisfied with Tiger’s answers. He suggests that Tiger might have answered the questions better and even provides a few alternate responses that some people (read: not Peter Kostis) would consider more palatable. This Kostis piece is a protective one. Kostis works for CBS and for Golf.Com. He has a good thing going and makes buckets of money. He doesn’t want to risk his job, which means he can’t alienate Tiger.

Contrary to Katrek’s conclusion that Kostis might be showing some guts in the writing of the Tiger piece, I find that Peter Kostis is showing us the type of expected and consistent, monochromatic and monotonous behavior that some people (read: not Peter Kostis) elicit from Tiger Woods.