Questions are among the best tools a media member has. During Phil Mickelson’s press conference on Monday, questions were the only tools available to dig into the primary character of what has become a full-blown rift in the world of professional golf.
Mickelson was uncomfortable. He was testy and he clearly did not like it when people asked him multiple questions. But people have spent all week dissecting Mickelson’s answers or his lack thereof, so I’m going to look at the questions that were lobbed at Lefty. I’m not doing this to criticize anyone in particular, but with an eye toward seeing what we can learn collectively. We’re going to start with something that I’ve always struggled with: talking too much
I – Rambling
One surefire way to take all the urgency out of a question is to spend an hour getting to it. In the case of Christine Brennan of USA Today, she took thirty seconds explaining the topic for her question:
Q: Phil, Christine Brennan. Hi there. As you know, you’ve been criticized by many people as you referred to. New York Post, Brian Wacker reported that the 9/11 families sent you and others a letter alluding of course to Osama bin Laden and the 15 of 19 hijackers that the Saudis, of course, sent, and that they say now you a partner with them, and you appear to be pleased in your business with them. Terry Strata is the person, of course, who wrote this letter and her husband got on the plane in Boston that flew into the World Trade Center. Umm, and they say that the deaths of your fellow Americans …”
Phil: “No, I’ve read all that. Is there a question in there?”
Q: Yes, there is. How do you explain to them — not to us — but to them, what you’ve decided to do.
Let’s pause right there before we get to Mickelson’s answer. The subject is undeniably important, and Brennan wants him to reconcile his decision to play — and profit from — LIV Golf with these concerns. Does her excruciating attention to detail make that more likely?
Phil: “I would say to the Strata family, I would say to everyone that has lost loved ones, lost friends in 9/11 that I have deep, deep empathy for them. I can’t emphasize that enough. I have the deepest of sympathy and empathy for them.”
Mickelson didn’t answer the question. He spoke to the family, but he didn’t address his decision, and maybe there’s no question Brennan could have asked that would have prompted him to do it. Mickelson is not under oath. There’s no judge to compel him to answer.
However, she would have had a better shot at getting something with a simpler question. Something like: How do you reconcile your decision to play in LIV Golf with the hurt it’s causing families who were affected by 9/11?
II. The double-barreled bogey
Ask one question. Just one. This is true if you have a cooperative subject. Multiple questions create confusing and they lead to longer answers. Asking a single question is especially important, however, when you have an uncooperative subject for reasons that will become apparent:
Q: I’m curious, what does legacy mean to you, and do you think your legacy will change with LIV Golf?
Yep. Two different questions, which is an absolute gift even if Mickelson initially complains about it.
Phil: “I don’t like it when you keep asking multiple questions, but as far as legacy, and I’ll just address that.”
See what he did? He’s answering the easier of the two questions. When you ask multiple questions, you give your subject that choice. Mickelson chose the easier way out.
Phil: “I would say that I’ve been a part of the PGA Tour for 30-plus years, and I have enjoyed my time. I’ve enjoyed the opportunities it has provided. I’ve enjoyed the lifestyle it has provided. I’ve enjoyed the fact that the game of golf — through the PGA Tour — has been able to give me and my family so much …”
He droned on for another 100 words or so about all the ways he’s helped golf, but I got bored and stopped transcribing. To the journalist’s credit, she butted-in to force a follow-up.
Q: Do you think that kind of legacy may have changed or will change?
Phil: “Like I said, I’ve done all I can to help contribute to the game, contribute to the PGA Tour during my time with them, and that’s all I can do.”
The follow-up is significantly better though it is a question that can be answered with a yes or a no. A better option: How do you think joining LIV Golf has changed your legacy?
III. The straw man
It can be tough to get famous people to address criticism they are facing. The famous usually have advisors, and those advisors do things like explain to famous people how best to avoid addressing criticism they may be facing. One trick that media members are known to use is asking the subject to address an opinion being expressed by some unspecified person or persons. There was a noble effort to get Mickelson to stumble into this trap on Monday.
Q: Hi Phil, I appreciate it’s still early in the week, but what sort of welcome have you had and what sort of welcome back are you anticipating you’ll have from your peers, who will feel betrayed by you and lost an awful lot of respect for you.
It’s the last part of that I find hilarious. Now maybe there are some of Mickelson’s peers who feel betrayed, but so far as I’ve seen, none have stated that publicly. I’m not aware of anyone stating that as definitively as it is laid out in this question. Let’s see how Mickelson answered.
Phil: “I have the utmost respect for the players on the PGA Tour. There have been a lot of friendships that have gone on for decades with Amy and myself. There have been a lot of memories that we have shared, experiences that we’ve shared, and many of the players on the PGA Tour are people that I look up to and respect the most. I think that I respect if they disagree, but at this time, this is the right decision.”
A better question: How have you been received by the golfers who remain part of the PGA Tour? It might not get a better answer, but if Mickelson says that everything has been fine, it would be a response that other golfers may react to.
IV. The not-so-subtle suck-up
Now, my favorite question from the press conference came from a bloke with an English accent, who tried a little commiseration to see if Mickelson would bite.
Q: Phil, you’re not the first professional athlete to deal with Saudi Arabia. Motorsport, boxing, horse racing, Newcastle United in the Premier League, the U.S. government even deals with Saudi Arabia. Do you feel the criticism of yourself and others has been maybe unfairly harsh?
Maybe he honestly felt the criticism of Mickelson was overblown. Maybe he just wanted to lure Mickelson into saying the criticism was overblown. Either way, solid effort by our chap from across the pond even if Mickelson opted against this particular piece of bait.
Phil: “That’s not necessarily for me to say. I think the important thing is that everyone is entitled to their opinion. I understand that it brings out a lot of strong emotions for a lot of people and I respect the way they may or may not feel about it.”
V. The even-less-subtle suck-up
Q: Phil, what’s with the facial hair and is it here to stay?
This produced the answer that question deserved.
Phil: “Amy liked it so as long as she likes it, it’s here. And when she says it’s gone, it’s gone.”
In the reporter’s defense, it was as interesting as anything else Mickelson said Monday, and he was so shell-shocked by this point that he delivered his answer in the same understated tones he used for his repeated expressions of respect toward those who disagreed with him.
And honestly, there might not have been a way to get Mickelson to deviate from his talking points no matter how good the questions were. And there were some good ones. My favorite came toward the end: “Are you at peace with the real possibility of never playing on the PGA Tour again?”
It didn’t get Mickelson to open up any more than the question about his beard.
“Again,” Mickelson said, “very appreciative of the many memories, opportunities, experiences, friendships, relationships the PGA Tour has provided, and those are going to last a lifetime. But I’m hopeful that I’ll have a chance to create more.”
