Tiger saga brings out worst in "journalism"

The Tiger Woods saga has unfortunately illuminated what for me is a disturbing trend in journalism that generally emanates from Web sites but is picked up by what should be trustworthy news and entertainment television channels. To steal a popular term from NBA commissioner David Stern, I call it "rogue" journalism. Misinformation is everywhere and it gets repeated by other news entities, and there doesn't seem to be any accountability for mistakes, particularly in the world of the Internet. I've always considered live TV journalism a little suspect, but it has nothing on the Internet.
When Woods first crashed his car, ESPN interrupted programming for a special news bulletin that said he was reportedly in serious condition. He hit a fire hydrant and tree pulling out of his driveway and he was supposedly on his deathbed? Next, the first thing I heard on TV when Tiger's mother in law was taken to the hospital was that she was on life support. How blatantly irresponsible is that? Can't you wait to get official word on a person's condition before reporting it?
What happened Thursday afternoon may be even more ridiculous. The weekly magazine Life & Style posted disparaging quotes about Tiger from PGA Tour members Ben Crane and Charles Warren, a Clemson grad, on its Web site. Crane called Woods a "phony and a fake" and Warren indicated that Elin Woods "had stars in her eyes, and maybe dollar signs too," and suggested that she leave Tiger.
There's one major problem with the story. Thursday night, both golfers said they never spoke to the magazine. Crane's agent, Tommy Limbaugh of 4UManagement, said a magazine official told him the interview took place at the PGA Tour Qualifying tournament last week at Bear Lakes Country Club in West Palm Beach, Fla., and was conducted by a reliable freelance writer. Crane finished 51st on the PGA Tour money list this year and was not at Q-School. Warren said through his agent that he has not given an interview of any kind in two months. I wonder who the writer actually spoke to? If he didn't make it up, they must be having quite the laugh right about now.
I can only hope this "rogue" so-called journalism dissipates, but I don't see it. For all the good things the Internet has spawned, this is not one of them.