Perspective from the 19^th Hole is the title I chose for my personal blog, which is meant to give me an outlet for one of my favorite crafts – writing – plus to use an image from my favorite sport, golf.  Out of college, my first job was as a reporter for the Daily Astorian in Astoria, Oregon, and I went on from there to practice writing in all my professional positions, including as press secretary in Washington, D.C. for a Democrat Congressman from Oregon (Les AuCoin), as an Oregon state government manager in Salem and Portland, as press secretary for Oregon’s last Republican governor (Vic Atiyeh), and as a private sector lobbyist.  This blog also allows me to link another favorite pastime – politics and the art of developing public policy – to what I write.  I could have called this blog “Middle Ground,” for that is what I long for in both politics and golf.  The middle ground is often where the best public policy decisions lie.  And it is where you want to be on a golf course.

Those of us who love the Masters Golf Tournament often get effusive in our praise.

• Who doesn’t love it back in 1986 as Jack Nicklaus, the best golfer in history (yes, for me, Nicklaus over Tiger Woods) donned the green jacket after one of the greatest rounds in history at the advanced age of 46?
• Or, when Phil Mickelson, whom I now don’t like as he defected to the LIV Tour, could barely jump two or three inches off the turf as he made a birdie putt to win in 2004, then followed that up with two more wins?

Well, yesterday, many golf fans, me included, almost fainted time after time, as Rory McIlroy withstood so much pressure to win his long-coveted green jacket to gain the Grand Slam of Golf Majors.  He showed incredible resilience as he rebounded from several misses to win the tournament with a birdie on the first playoff hole.

With his final putt fell, he fell onto his knees now that a major objective had been achieved against long odds.

So, according to TV commentators, who tried to digest the round after it was over, called it one of the best Masters ever, coming close to Nicklaus’ victory in 1986, Mickelson’s in 2004, and Woods in 2019 when he fell into the arms of his now-deceased mother and held his son.

I agree.

But, now, rather than write more myself, I choose to devote the rest of this blog to the New York Times story on McIlroy’s win.  Using very apt words, the Times story tells the “whole story.”

*********

AUGUSTA, GEORGIA — A concoction of sweaty bodies and long-lens cameras was deadlocked in the upper left-hand corner of the No. 15 grandstand at Augusta National as Rory McIlroy’s 7-foot eagle putt slid underneath the cup. At that point in the day, the phoneless Masters Tournament patrons were not unfamiliar with the sound of thousands of simultaneous groans. Hearing and participating in them repeatedly, however, was not getting any easier.

A Green Jacket stood up out of his plastic bleacher seat in a frenzy.

“I can’t take much more of this,” the gentleman uttered. He bee-lined toward the steep downward staircase, his sons close behind, fumbling to button the coat that only a select group can sport on this property.

Until it actually happened, McIlroy’s chase of the career Grand Slam and the end to his 11-year major championship drought felt more like if you took the most nauseating roller coaster on earth and increased its speed tenfold. Or stuck yourself in a blender and turned it to the highest setting, making the table shake.

An opening double bogey, a water ball into Rae’s Creek with a wedge in hand, the first sudden-death playoff in the Masters since 2017 — McIlroy gave Augusta National the show it didn’t know it wanted. The patrons on site still aren’t sure that’s what they would have signed up for. Sunday was a ticketed heart attack.

“My battle today was with myself. It wasn’t with anyone else,” McIlroy said Sunday evening, a 38 Regular green jacket slung over his shoulders. “You know, at the end there, it was with Justin (Rose), but my battle today was with my mind and staying in the present.

“I’d like to say that I did a better job of it than I did. It was a struggle, but I got it over the line.”

It might have been an internal waging of the wars for McIlroy, but all of Augusta National felt it with him. They leaned with the wayward drives, hustled to catch a glimpse of the gravity-defying escape routes, and hoped — oh, did they hope — every time the putter face made contact with the golf ball it would find a hole. Just this one, Rory.

Rotation by rotation, they held their breath.

Then, a final roar that could only mean one thing: sweet, sweet relief.

In his 1975 Masters file for Sports Illustrated, the great Dan Jenkins wrote: “There is an old saying that the real Masters doesn’t begin until the back nine on Sunday.” That was 50 Masters ago. It’s still true.

This back nine of the 89th Masters began with a semblance of something that you can never trust at the place: comfort. It is almost always a mirage.

No. 10 crushed McIlroy’s Masters dreams 14 years ago as a naive 21-year-old. Sunday morning, McIlroy opened his locker to a note from Angel Cabrera, the 2009 champion who played with McIlroy that day.

The drive on No. 10 was demonless. The ensuing birdie putt to take a four-shot lead? Electrifying. Patrons surrounded the 10th green and 11th fairway 30 deep, peering through tree branches and shuffling around aimlessly to find a gap where they could see something. Anything. Amen Corner lurked. Lest they all knew, the rug was about to be ripped out from underneath the Northern Irishman.

It all happened in a blur. A bogey on No. 11 — a number that could have been a lot bigger. A par at No. 12. A 3-wood off the tee at No. 13, McIlroy playing it safe with a four-shot lead.

There’s no tighter part of the property for patrons than Amen Corner, tens of thousands pressed together to watch as McIlroy’s ball flew through the air once, then twice. He stood with a wedge in his hands from 82 yards. If he was going to screw this all up, it wasn’t going to be here, with all of Georgia to the left side of the green. Right?

Advertisement

McIlroy’s ball tumbled into the creek. He bent his spine in half and threw his hands onto his knees. There had been plenty of triumphant patron responses at that point in the day. Here, in Amen Corner’s final chapter, the gasps returned. They did not stop.

First, McIlroy’s red 13 came off the nearby manual leaderboard and was replaced by a somber 11. He paused, waiting an additional moment before heading over the 14th tee, almost as if he knew it was coming. Rose suddenly had his 10 switched out for an 11.

Tie score.

No Masters champion has ever won the green jacket with four double bogeys. Is that the kind of history McIlroy was going to make?

Every time it looked as though McIlroy had thrown away the golf tournament for good, he followed it with a shot, a moment, even a bounce in his step that added up to the opposite. He looked like he was in cruise control until the emergency brakes hit. The patrons’ fists in the air were coupled with sunburned faces buried in hands. More new red numbers caused a stir. McIlroy threw another dart. Birdie-par-birdie. Triumph? No. Closing bogey. There it was. All of it would come down to this. A sudden-death playoff against his Ryder Cup teammate, Rose.

Harry Diamond, McIlroy’s caddie and best friend since age 7, looked at his player as they headed to the golf cart that would bring the pair back to the 18th tee box once again.

“Well, pal, we would have taken this on Monday morning,” he said.

The jostled Augusta National audience did not agree. The anguish was becoming unbearable, borderline exhausting, but also the best Masters of the modern era. Either way, it needed to end. McIlroy needed to put himself — and everyone else — out of their misery.

Walk through the white and gold doors of the Augusta National clubhouse, up a winding staircase and through a quaint but decadent dining room, and you’ll find yourself on a porch. It overlooks the giant oak tree, the iconic rows of green and white umbrellas, and in the distance, if you crane your neck just enough, No. 18 green.

But today that view was clouded by a sea of anxious bodies. On the ground, some proposed starting a game of “telephone” to communicate the play-by-play on the green.

Up on the porch, you can rotate 180 degrees and you’re facing a row of white window panes. They lead to a 35-inch television, the only piece of modern technology in a 100-yard radius. A strange combination of Green Jacket wearers, off-duty broadcasters and confused writers gathered around to watch the playoff. Patrick Reed dipped in to order an Azalea cocktail. The incoming USGA president showed up. Everyone was too nervous to utter a word. No one did.

A sound of this force cannot be tape-delayed.  All of Augusta National felt McIlroy’s energy release after that 4-foot birdie putt dropped. And by the look of him — collapsing onto his knees and convulsing with sobs — he felt it, too.

One of the most chaotic final rounds of recent memory ended with pure emotion, a release appropriate for the sixth man to complete the career Grand Slam, and McIlroy shut down a narrative he wondered whether he’d ever escape.

“It was all relief. There wasn’t much joy in that reaction. It was all relief,” McIlroy said after the round, laughing. “And then, you know, the joy came pretty soon after that. But that was — I’ve been coming here 17 years, and it was a decade-plus of emotion that came out of me there.”

We know, Rory. We know.

Perspective from the 19^th Hole is the title I chose for my personal blog, which is meant to give me an outlet for one of my favorite crafts – writing – plus to use an image from my favorite sport, golf.  Out of college, my first job was as a reporter for the Daily Astorian in Astoria, Oregon, and I went on from there to practice writing in all my professional positions, including as press secretary in Washington, D.C. for a Democrat Congressman from Oregon (Les AuCoin), as an Oregon state government manager in Salem and Portland, as press secretary for Oregon’s last Republican governor (Vic Atiyeh), and as a private sector lobbyist.  This blog also allows me to link another favorite pastime – politics and the art of developing public policy – to what I write.  I could have called this blog “Middle Ground,” for that is what I long for in both politics and golf.  The middle ground is often where the best public policy decisions lie.  And it is where you want to be on a golf course.

Anyone who is a fan of the Masters Golf Tournament knows this: 

Those who are on site for the tournament are not to be called spectators.  They are patrons.

But the New York Times shows up today with more banned words at the Masters.  Banned words that I did not know.

Here’s intro to the story:

“Golf Channel TV analyst Brandel Chamblee was on a Barstool Sports’ golf podcast earlier this week, and there is a fascinating clip where Chamblee reviews the words or phrases that TV broadcasters are given guidance not to utter when covering the Masters.

“They are replaced with more hifalutin expressions that are more on-brand for the event and its organizers at Augusta National.”

Here’s the list:

It goes without saying that an event like the Masters won’t ever let announcers name-check other event sponsors [For example, for a past tournament, would never be the Valero Texas Open; it’s just Texas Open.]

• Can’t say:  Fan.  Can say:  Patron.
• Can’t say:  Rough.  Can say:  Second cut.
• Can’t say:  Sand trap.  Can say:  Bunker.
• Can’t say:  Driving range.  Can say:  Tournament practice facility.
• Can’t say:  Back nine.  Can say:  Second nine.

So, there you have it.  I list of the “do’s” and “don’t’s.”

And, many of us also remember the time when golf announcer Gary McCord was told he could not cover the Masters again because he chose to utter a bad phrase – “the greens were as fast as bikini wax” – whatever that is.

“A tradition unlike any other.”  That’s the Masters and there are words you can use to describe the event and words you cannot use.  At least if you are on television.

Perspective from the 19^th Hole is the title I chose for my personal blog, which is meant to give me an outlet for one of my favorite crafts – writing – plus to use an image from my favorite sport, golf.  Out of college, my first job was as a reporter for the Daily Astorian in Astoria, Oregon, and I went on from there to practice writing in all my professional positions, including as press secretary in Washington, D.C. for a Democrat Congressman from Oregon (Les AuCoin), as an Oregon state government manager in Salem and Portland, as press secretary for Oregon’s last Republican governor (Vic Atiyeh), and as a private sector lobbyist.  This blog also allows me to link another favorite pastime – politics and the art of developing public policy – to what I write.  I could have called this blog “Middle Ground,” for that is what I long for in both politics and golf.  The middle ground is often where the best public policy decisions lie.  And it is where you want to be on a golf course.

As a golf fan, this is one of my favorite weeks of the year.  I get to watch the Masters Golf Tournament, as it is called, “A Tradition Unlike Any Other.”

As I get ready for the first round today, I have reflected on words and rules at the Masters, some of which relate to my first and only visit to the tournament in 2015.

Here is a quick summary:

• Persons who attend the Masters are not called “spectators.”  They are called “patrons.”  If a TV announcer makes a mistake and uses the word spectator, either he or she corrects the error immediately or they might be barred from future coverage.

• When you enter Masters grounds for the tournament, you are not allowed to run.  If you do, you might get kicked out, for there are staff people everywhere.

• And, if you choose to watch parts of the tournament sitting on the ground somewhere, fine.  But just don’t lie down.  If you do, you’ll be asked to sit up.

• Also, if you have a golf hat on, don’t wear it backwards.  If you do, you’ll be asked immediately to turn it around.

I said earlier that there are staff people all around the site.  That’s something I noticed clearly back in 2015.

I also noticed a job I would not want to have.  Forgive this clarity, but it was a staff in the men’s restroom who, as you entered the “building” (yes, all such facilities at the Masters are in buildings, not tents), took a moment to tell you where to go next. 

Tough job.  And it lasted all day, each day.

Finally, in this blog, I list my five favorites for the Masters’ winner this time around:  Scottie Scheffler, Rory McIlroy, Jordan Speith, Justin Thomas, and Ludwig Aberg.

So, for the next four days, if you bother me, you’ll be competing with the Masters.  So be it.

Perspective from the 19^th Hole is the title I chose for my personal blog, which is meant to give me an outlet for one of my favorite crafts – writing – plus to use an image from my favorite sport, golf.  Out of college, my first job was as a reporter for the Daily Astorian in Astoria, Oregon, and I went on from there to practice writing in all my professional positions, including as press secretary in Washington, D.C. for a Democrat Congressman from Oregon (Les AuCoin), as an Oregon state government manager in Salem and Portland, as press secretary for Oregon’s last Republican governor (Vic Atiyeh), and as a private sector lobbyist.  This blog also allows me to link another favorite pastime – politics and the art of developing public policy – to what I write.  I could have called this blog “Middle Ground,” for that is what I long for in both politics and golf.  The middle ground is often where the best public policy decisions lie.  And it is where you want to be on a golf course.

To verify that I have too much time on my hands in retirement, even if I play golf most days, consider the following examples.

COUNTING GOLF PLAYER LOOK-UPS:  I often count the number of times pro golfers look up before they hit to verify the direction in which they intend to hit the ball. 

• For Brian Harman, who won the Valero Texas Open last week, he gets twitchy over his golf ball, looking up quickly at least six times before he swings.  Yes, I counted the look-ups!  Six!

• Or consider Patrick Cantlay.  As he stands over a putt, he also gets twitchy, shifting his feet multiple times.  Yes, I counted the twitches!

• And, it always is tough to watch Ryder Cup Captain Keegan Bradley who seemingly can’t control all kinds of moments before he finally hits his golf ball.  Yes, I counted the times he twirls the club in his hands before he hits.

Yes, see, too much time on my hands, though each of the above qualify as examples of why pro golf leaders should start penalizing players for slow play.

They also call to mind the time in the past that many of counted the times Sergio Garcia twitched before the hit the ball.  The number for to more than 20!

AS FOR BASKETBALL:  I have spent a bit of time watching college basketball for a few days as teams grappled during the final four in March Madness.

The title eventually went to Florida, but, with too much time on my hands, I noticed this:

• When players are guarding an opponent, referees consistently let them “hand guard.”  What I mean is that players with the ball are pushed away from the basket by hand.  Back when I played, albeit, not in a “final four,” hand-guarding used to be a foul.

• Or, remember what used to be called “palming the ball?”  That means that, when dribbling, a player had to keep his hand on top of the ball, not on the side – thus the term “palming.”  Now, players  with the ball often take four or five steps as they “palm” the ball.  And that used to be called; not now.

Enough for this morning, but two things are true:  (1) I have illustrated that I have too much time on my hands, and (2) I am old and wish for the better past days – for golf and for basketball.

Perspective from the 19^th Hole is the title I chose for my personal blog, which is meant to give me an outlet for one of my favorite crafts – writing – plus to use an image from my favorite sport, golf.  Out of college, my first job was as a reporter for the Daily Astorian in Astoria, Oregon, and I went on from there to practice writing in all my professional positions, including as press secretary in Washington, D.C. for a Democrat Congressman from Oregon (Les AuCoin), as an Oregon state government manager in Salem and Portland, as press secretary for Oregon’s last Republican governor (Vic Atiyeh), and as a private sector lobbyist.  This blog also allows me to link another favorite pastime – politics and the art of developing public policy – to what I write.  I could have called this blog “Middle Ground,” for that is what I long for in both politics and golf.  The middle ground is often where the best public policy decisions lie.  And it is where you want to be on a golf course.

Guess what?

This is Masters Golf Tournament week, one of my favorite weeks all year long.

See, I love the Masters and it is a joy – yes, a joy! – to watch it on TV every year.  Also, in 2015, I had the privilege of attending the event with my daughter who also loves the Masters.  We made memories for a lifetime!

Most years, my daughter and I sit in our Masters’ chairs in the two locations where we live – Woodinville, Washington for her and Salem, Oregon for me – even as we share texts during the tournament to compare notes on how the tournament is going.

So, given my joy this week, no better use for my blog today than to reprint a story by Gary Van Sickle that ran in one of my on-line golf publications and appeared under the headline I used for this blog.  It recounted the history of the Masters lead TV commentator, Jim Nantz. 

The story also included this intro:

“The 2025 Masters will be the CBS Sports announcer’s 40th.  He’s been a conduit to several generations’ memories of the major, and that’s worth celebrating — even if he would prefer we not do so.”

So, here is Van Sickle’s story.

*********

Jim Nantz may be slightly annoyed by this story, although he seems like such a force for good in the world that it is impossible to imagine him being annoyed.

So maybe he’ll just be disappointed by this story. Because it is about him.

Nantz will be working his 40th Masters Tournament next week for CBS Sports. He’s still a couple of Masters behind me but that hardly matters. By joining the 40 Masters Club, Nantz just made that an even bigger honor for those of us already in it.

The Masters is “a tradition unlike any other.” Nantz coined that phrase. Augusta National Golf Club trademarked it. Nantz is also a tradition unlike any other. He is The Voice of Golf for us, just as he was The Voice of NCAA Basketball until last year and just as he is still The Voice of NFL Football.

He is more than that. He is the soundtrack of our lives. Nantz has been omnipresent delivering sports commentary for multiple generations. Time marches on, but we remember the voices that come and go just as we do. Mel Allen. Jack Buck. Dizzy Dean and Pee Wee Reese. Bob Costas. Vin Scully. Bob Uecker. Chris Schenkel and Byron Nelson. Pat Summerall and Ken Venturi. Jim McKay.

When CBS president David Berson kicked off a network media conference call the other day by mentioning Nantz’s 40th Masters, it was a reminder to pinch myself about being lucky enough to live in this era of golf that stretched from Arnold Palmer and Jack Nicklaus to Tiger Woods and beyond. Nantz has been there for all of it, a reassuring voice, measured when needed, bursting with energy when called for. His serene tone is as sympathetic as a psychiatrist and as knowledgeable as a NASA technician.

He is also real. If you think he seems syrupy at times, well, that’s Nantz being Nantz. When he utters his familiar opening line, “Hello, friends,” he actually means it. Jim Nantz is the walking definition of sincerity.

“He lives and breathes the sport,” Berson said. He mentioned that Nantz’s first Masters was the 1986 epic won by Jack Nicklaus. “Some way to start,” Berson added with a chuckle.

A recent report said Nantz plans to retire after the 2036 Masters. Nantz doesn’t want to be the story at any Masters. The tournament is always the story, he insists, but he did want to offer a correction. Someone on the internet took an old comment in which he said he wanted to be at Augusta in 2036 for the 100th Masters. That’s all. The quote was revived and twisted, the usual internet way to draw views.

“I’ve always said it with a wink in my eye and a little whimsy that if all things worked out, I would like to be there in 2036,” Nantz says. “I never wanted any attention on me and my longevity at Augusta. It is an honor beyond words. We’ll see what the good Lord has as far as plans for me.

“Maybe it’s 2036, maybe it’s beyond, maybe it’s earlier than that. I don’t’ know. I’m locked in on one thing — this edition of the Masters. I love being in the moment. It’s the greatest feeling in this business, being there and sharing it with this team and preparing every day for these shows. Every single shot that is on the air is a reflection of guys like (producer) Sellers Shy and (director) Steve Milton. It is the ultimate report card on all of us as professionals, just like every shot you strike as a player at Augusta, you want it to be your best. It’s a part of your record. I love the fact that’s the way we approach this tournament. This is our attempt to be at our very best.”

That kind of earnestness is to be admired. The point about this being Nantz’s 40th Masters is that you should enjoy him while you can. He’ll turn 66 in May. Like Scully and Uecker and the rest, he is a national treasure. Not that he’d ever claim that. After Berson mentioned his 40th, Nantz immediately tried to turn the spotlight elsewhere.

“It’s such an honor to be at that number (40) alongside the great Verne Lundquist, so we’re the first two to ever reach 40, and it’s beyond my wildest dreams in a lot of ways,” Nantz said. “What made me fall in love with the Masters was watching and listening. I was smitten by what I saw and riveted by what I heard. I was completely enraptured and ever since I was 11 years old, I wanted to be one of those voices. Sounds like good copy. It’s true. It’s heartfelt. I call every Masters with an outpouring of gratefulness that I’m able to live a boyhood dream.”

His Masters story began at the 1986 Masters. Nantz was already doing NCAA basketball but, he recalled, “I could not believe I was entrusted to be a part of Frank Chirkinian’s golf team.” Chirkinian was the long-time director who perfected the modern golf telecast and hired the likes of Ben Wright, Gary McCord and Peter Kostis. Nantz arrived in Augusta in early March to film some Masters promotional commercials that would run during the NCAA tournament.

“Frank had this theory that no one knew who I was, which was accurate, and he wanted me facing the camera shooting these promos so when I showed up to this Masters, I wasn’t some stranger,” Nantz says. “We shot the promos, I stood in front of the 16th green for most of them and Frank said, ‘Son, I brought you here to 16 because that’s going to be your hole.’

“I couldn’t believe it. To be there for the 70th hole of the Masters on Sunday, that was a very weighty assignment. I tried to act appreciative but unfazed, that the moment was not too big for me. Inside, I wanted to say, ‘Mr. Chirkinian, I was just in the college dorm not even four years ago. Are you sure?’ I was scared out of my wits.

“When that tournament ended and Jack [Nicklaus] made, of course, a pivotal birdie at 16 on Sunday, I went back to the CBS compound and we were all euphoric. We had just documented arguably the greatest golf tournament of all time, April 13, 1986. I’m 6-feet-3, Frank was probably, 5-5 or 5-6, he gave me hug. I leaned down, and he whispered in my ear, ‘You’ve done well, son. You’ll be coming back here for a long time.’

“I was just so grateful that I had not screwed it up, that I was going to get to see it for a second time. So I never lose that thought, that feeling, the gratitude of having another one. That’s why we take them one at a time and we put everything we have, everything we’re trained to do into one show without looking down the road. This is a gift, after all. It’s a gift for all of us.”

Whatever it is about the Masters that makes it different from other tournaments and the other major championships, Nantz is a true believer. He is part of why the Masters does feel different. There are no discussions of FedEx Cup points or exemptions or how much a specific putt at the end might be worth in prize money. That’s just not done in Augusta, not on Nantz’s watch, and that’s just how Tournament Chairman Fred Ridley and the Augusta National members want it. The Masters is all about winning the green jacket.

“When you have the Masters, there’s never a discussion about money, it’s about a jacket. It’s about a coat that you win,” Nantz says. “Tell me something else that compares to that. In a world filled with NIL and guaranteed contracts — playing for a green jacket. Yes, there’s money involved. I couldn’t even tell you what first place pays and I don’t care. Nor do the players. You know what it is? It’s immortality in golf. You achieve it, man, you have found a place in history. It’s permanence. It’s forever.

“It has truly been the greatest joy of my career to have been at Augusta all these years. I can’t wait to share that moment. Just being on this conference call today, I feel like the Masters is actually starting right here, right now. I’m super stoked.”

Nantz is a team player, something that isn’t always common in the cutthroat business of television. He looks out for his broadcast partners, his crew, his network. At the 1996 PGA Championship at Valhalla in Louisville, Kentucky, Kenny Perry lost a playoff to Mark Brooks. Perry finished his round early, then spent the next 30 minutes in the booth with Nantz and Ken Venturi. After Brooks rolled in the tying putt on the final green, Perry left the CBS tower and went right to the playoff without hitting a single warmup shot or practice putt. There was criticism that CBS kept Perry in the booth too long.

After Brooks won the playoff, I hustled to the CBS compound just in time to flag down Nantz and Venturi as they began to pull away in a limo. Informed about the potential controversy regarding CBS’ role, Nantz and Venturi recounted how they repeatedly asked Perry if he wanted to leave to get ready for the playoff. Venturi said he strongly suggested it. But Perry preferred to stay and wanted to see Brooks finish. Perry’s drive on the first playoff hole found the rough, he butchered the hole and lost. Nantz thanked me effusively and enthusiastically for coming to them to get the facts. He was relieved that Venturi, his beloved friend, and CBS would not be unfairly blamed.

Nantz is a believer in friendships, loyalty, traditions. One at Augusta is in saying farewell to past champions who are retiring. This year, it’s 67-year-old Bernhard Langer, a two-time winner. “Bernard’s goodbye is a big one,” says Nantz, who put together a tribute to Langer that will air in the hour preceding CBS’ Sunday coverage.

Arnold Palmer’s farewell Masters was another big one. Nantz felt it was important to do something special as Palmer played the final hole.

“We made the determination that we were going to let people feel like they were walking from Arnie from the time he teed off until the time he putted out,” Nantz says. “There was not one word uttered, not one. I was with Ken Venturi in the tower at 18 and it took a long time because what we didn’t know was that Arnie was going to be shaking hands as he walked up the 18th. He would go over to the ropes where there were friends waiting to greet him. It became just a long celebration.”

Palmer was brought to the Butler Cabin for an interview and Nantz had heard from former President George H. W. Bush, a close friend, that he wanted to wish Palmer good luck. After the interview, Nantz dialed Bush’s number and handed the phone to Palmer. “Arnie played with 10 Presidents in his lifetime, he was tied to all of them, red and blue,” Nantz says. “After he hung up the phone, he couldn’t even get words out. That was the first time I really saw him crack. It was a magical day at Augusta.”

Nantz has seen a lot of magical days during his CBS run. He stood right behind Gene Sarazen as an honorary starter at 97 and watched him hit a nice, but short, drive. Sarazen died less than two months later. Another time, Nantz was meditating early in the week by the 12th green when he saw an older couple walking along the 11th fairway. It was Byron Nelson, using a cane, and his wife, Peggy. Nantz picked them up in his golf cart and gave them a ride to the bridge over Rae’s Creek that is named in Nelson’s honor. With his wife’s help, Nelson reached out to touch the memorial plaque there. Nelson died later that year in 2006. Thanks to Nantz, Byron crossed the Nelson Bridge one last time.

The pervasive reverence that goes with those occasions is what sets the Masters apart. It is why Nantz annually visits Amen Corner sometime Wednesday afternoon while the par-3 contest is in progress. He goes there to say a prayer, give thanks and reflect. He is also usually seen doing something similar Monday morning after the tournament is over.

When Hideki Matsuyama won the Masters, his caddie went out on the 18th green, pulled the flagstick out, removed his cap and carefully, reverentially bowed. That is how Nantz feels about the Masters, that’s how he treats the occasion.

It isn’t about Amen Corner, it’s about simply saying, “Amen.”

Perspective from the 19^th Hole is the title I chose for my personal blog, which is meant to give me an outlet for one of my favorite crafts – writing – plus to use an image from my favorite sport, golf.  Out of college, my first job was as a reporter for the Daily Astorian in Astoria, Oregon, and I went on from there to practice writing in all my professional positions, including as press secretary in Washington, D.C. for a Democrat Congressman from Oregon (Les AuCoin), as an Oregon state government manager in Salem and Portland, as press secretary for Oregon’s last Republican governor (Vic Atiyeh), and as a private sector lobbyist.  This blog also allows me to link another favorite pastime – politics and the art of developing public policy – to what I write.  I could have called this blog “Middle Ground,” for that is what I long for in both politics and golf.  The middle ground is often where the best public policy decisions lie.  And it is where you want to be on a golf course.

Those who know me know that I like words and try my best to use them correctly, not always perfectly though that is my goal.

So, two stories in national publications caught my attention in the last couple days.

• An essayist for the Wall Street Journal, Joseph Epstein, showed up recently with a story about hackneyed words that have outlived their usefulness.
• A Columbia University linguist, John McWhorter, according to the Washington Post, published a witty book entitled, “Pronoun Trouble: The Story of Us in Seven Little Words.”

It was good for me to read both stories because they called to mind two issues for me – words I often use that have become hackneyed and the trouble with knowing what pronouns to use these days.

Here is the introduction to what Epstein wrote under this headline:  “The Incredibly Massive Number of Hackneyed Words Is Surreal; Overused, meaningless phrases fall out of fashion:

“A hackneyed phrase is one characterized by its unoriginality, overuse and, not least, imprecision.  The air seems filled with such phrases just now.

“Consider how the often-used word ‘focused’ has taken on the adjective ‘laser,’ to become the fully hackneyed ‘laser-focused.’  Not all hackneyed language comes in full phrases; some single words also qualify. How they catch on remains a bit of a mystery but catch on they do.  ‘Incredible,’ you might say.

“You might say it, that is, if you have no ear for language and don’t mind sounding like everyone else who currently avails himself of this hackneyed word.  Incredible, a synonym for unbelievable or surpassing belief, has become the hackneyed word of the day.  The word has a hackneyed history.”

For me, there also are words I use too often.  And my wife often points them out.  Good for her.  Bad for me.

I won’t bore you here with my hackneyed words and phrases because, you see, I would have to use them again to outline them.  Not worth it, but, upon reflection, here are two:

• “In the category of more than you may want to know…”
• And, when I play golf and someone asks me how I am, I often answer, “I am on the right side of the turf.”

As for the book on pronouns, here is how the Washington Post characterized it:

“Back when McWhorter started his book, the subject must have sounded a bit abstruse, but in a weird coincidence with reactionary politics, pronouns now feel hotter than climate change.  After Trump’s executive order ‘Restoring Biological Truth,’ government employees were ordered to scrub pronouns from their email signatures.  Suddenly, ‘they’ could get you fired.

“’To mess with our pronouns,’ McWhorter writes, ‘is to mess with our sense of the order of things, what’s up and what’s down — life itself.’  We’re naturally possessive about our pronouns. But he acknowledges early on, ‘My positions on these matters do not stem from any ‘conservatism’ with which I am sometimes associated.’  Indeed, he’s a descriptive linguist, a scholar interested in observing the evolution of language, not railing against its perceived misuses.”

For me on this issue, I have continued to encounter it over the years I was in government and as lobbyist, and even now as volunteer.  Especially in the case of women.

Do they want to be called “she, her, or they” – though the latter sounds bad to me, if not, at least, awkward.  On this, I’ll just continue to muddle through and use the pronoun for a woman that woman wants me to use – if, of course, they tell.  I also don’t want to make a mistake that comes back to bite me.

So, there you have it – two issues about words. 

To write about this, I could have opened one of five departments I run as director, the Department of Words Matter.  But I chose simply to write about the words, not open the department because I, like Elon Musk, am cutting my form of government.

Happy reading and make your own decisions about overused words and the proper use of pronouns.

Perspective from the 19^th Hole is the title I chose for my personal blog, which is meant to give me an outlet for one of my favorite crafts – writing – plus to use an image from my favorite sport, golf.  Out of college, my first job was as a reporter for the Daily Astorian in Astoria, Oregon, and I went on from there to practice writing in all my professional positions, including as press secretary in Washington, D.C. for a Democrat Congressman from Oregon (Les AuCoin), as an Oregon state government manager in Salem and Portland, as press secretary for Oregon’s last Republican governor (Vic Atiyeh), and as a private sector lobbyist.  This blog also allows me to link another favorite pastime – politics and the art of developing public policy – to what I write.  I could have called this blog “Middle Ground,” for that is what I long for in both politics and golf.  The middle ground is often where the best public policy decisions lie.  And it is where you want to be on a golf course.

If I were a Democrat, I’d be looking for ways to oppose Donald Trump and his ilk by trying to build relationships with all those – especially all Democrats, as well as some Republicans – who cannot stomach Trump.

The notion above is stupid because I am a registered Independent who wants this country, in politics, to get back to something other than Trump hucksterism.

Hill.com reports that Democrats may have found one way to get off the ground.  It is to capitalize on what has come to be called “Signal-Gate,” the process by which Trump’s so-called national security experts discussed war plans over an insecure group chat line. 

And, not only that – they unwittingly invited a journalist, Atlantic Editor-in-Chief Jeffrey Goldberg, to participate on the call.

[By the way, I have called this “Chat-Gate” in previous blogs, not “Signal-Gate,” but know this – either works, using the Watergate moniker, to call attention to something hugely stupid, if not criminal.]

It also is possible that today, given what Trump did to impose huge tariffs that are roiling all world economies, the Ds will have a new edge.  As tariffs increase prices and slam the stock market, give Trump all the credit – read, debit – he deserves.

Here is how hill.com started its story mentioned above:

“Democrats and their embattled Senate Leader Chuck Schumer have received a welcome change to rebound amid the controversy surrounding the Signal group chat that entangled a number of Trump Cabinet members over the past week.

“Signal-Gate, in which a journalist was inadvertently included in a Trump administration group chat that included sensitive information about a military strike against the Houthis in Yemen, effectively served as a reprieve for Schumer.

“Instead of being besieged by questions about Democrat divisions — and Schumer’s vote to advance a GOP funding bill — the week was dominated by queries of how The Atlantic’s editor in chief ended up getting invited by Trump’s national security adviser to a group chat that included Vice President Vance and other top officials.

“GOP senators were the ones fending off questions over why the Trump team, including officials traveling overseas, were discussing sensitive information on Signal, while Democrats were the ones going on offense.”

So, back to my question – what should Democrats do now to capitalize on their “good fortune,” if it could be called that?

Three thoughts.

• First, don’t let Signal-Gate or Chat-Gate die a merciful death.  Continue trying to hold Trump and Republicans responsible for this national security debacle, given the huge importance of this step that risked American military lives, as well as the U.S. standing in the world.  And, continue to do this as new evidence emerges that those who participated in Chat-Gate are also using routine e-mail structures to share information that should be kept secret.
• Second, find a way to be FOR something, not just AGAINST something.  [This was advice I gave to my lobby clients who often didn’t like proposals at the Capitol in Salem, Oregon, but I suggested that opposition wasn’t enough.  Advocacy in favor of proposals also was critical.]
• Third, don’t protest Trump, for all that does in infuse him with more instinct to go even farther.

Just wait him out.

It’s difficult to know how to engage in political discourse in regard to Trump.  He doesn’t play in the normal way, contending only for his point-of-view and never being willing to negotiate for smart solutions.

With him, it’s always his way or the highway.  And, if persons are hurt because of his actions, he doesn’t want to know, and he doesn’t care.  He always blames others.

So, at base, again I say wait him out in the hope – a realistic one, I think – that all the ways Trump and his ilk are setting out to hurt people will come home to roost, making him what he is, a pariah.

Perspective from the 19^th Hole is the title I chose for my personal blog, which is meant to give me an outlet for one of my favorite crafts – writing – plus to use an image from my favorite sport, golf.  Out of college, my first job was as a reporter for the Daily Astorian in Astoria, Oregon, and I went on from there to practice writing in all my professional positions, including as press secretary in Washington, D.C. for a Democrat Congressman from Oregon (Les AuCoin), as an Oregon state government manager in Salem and Portland, as press secretary for Oregon’s last Republican governor (Vic Atiyeh), and as a private sector lobbyist.  This blog also allows me to link another favorite pastime – politics and the art of developing public policy – to what I write.  I could have called this blog “Middle Ground,” for that is what I long for in both politics and golf.  The middle ground is often where the best public policy decisions lie.  And it is where you want to be on a golf course.

Anyone who knows me knows that I oppose the idiotic idea that Donald Trump could run for a third term.

Of course, after zero analysis, he has suggested he has “methods” for seeking a third term.

Constitutional law scholars are at least skeptical, if not opposed.  The headline on this blog makes that point strongly.

The Washington Post performed a service by writing a detailed story on the idea of a third term because Trump, with bombast and dishonesty, has started talking about it.

And, goodness knows, he is not more than a few months into his second term, which, under U.S. Constitution, should be his last.

Here is how the Post started its story:

“… Trump has suggested that ‘methods’ exist by which he could attempt to serve a third term in the White House, an act that is barred by the 22nd Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

“’I’m not joking,’ Trump said, in a Sunday interview with NBC News, when asked to clarify speculative comments on the possibility.

“Constitutional scholars say any third run for the presidency would violate both the spirit and the letter of the amendment, which was passed after World War II as a protection against ‘elective monarchy.’”

The 22nd Amendment explicitly prohibits any president from seeking more than two terms, either in consecutive or non-consecutive sequence.  It states:  “No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice.”

The amendment was passed by Congress in 1947 and became part of the Constitution in 1951, when it was fully ratified by the states.

So, what could Trump do to stay in office?

• First, as was the case as his first term ended, he could just stay in office, even to the extent of fomenting a riot at the Capitol as he did last time.  Could something be done to oppose this?  Perhaps, but look at last time and hold your breath.
• Second, he and his acolytes could contend that the 22^nd Amendment bars three “consecutive” terms and his first and second were separated by four years out of office.  Scholars say this won’t fly, but what scholars say won’t stop Trump.
• Third, some of his supporters have suggested that someone like J.D. Vance could run for president with Trump in the vice president slot and then, if he won, Vance would resign, leaving Trump as president.  Scholars also say this won’t fly.
• Fourth, the most direct route for Trump would involve repealing the 22^nd amendment.  But the Washington Post says it would be a “painstaking and likely lengthy process that would require the passage of another amendment.  Proposed amendments must be passed by two-thirds of both houses of Congress, then ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the states.”  Not likely.

From the Post, back to what Trump has said about three terms and reasons why he has said it.

“He has repeatedly floated the possibility that he could run for a third term — although previously couched it in more indirect terms.  In 2019, he suggested in a social media post that his supporters might ‘demand’ it.  In February, he again raised the prospect by asking the attendees of a White House reception whether they would support him running for a third term.

“Over the weekend, Trump made among his most direct public comments to date about the prospect — directly referencing the question of how he could seek a third term and insisting he was not joking.

“In a phone interview with NBC News’s Kristen Welker, he suggested that there were plans in circulation to enable him to run for a third term.  ‘A lot of people want me to do it,’ he said.”

Well, don’t count me as one of those “a lot of people.”

One reason why Trump raised this again over the last few days is that his action diverts from the adverse effects of his economic policies – especially huge tariffs – that threaten various economies, especially the one in the U.S.

Again, Trump says whatever happens to pop into his mind and, thereby, controls media coverage.

Late night TV hosts had a field day with the three-term issue.

One comment came from Jimmy Fallon:  “And, finally, Trump ’28:  If You Vote for Me, I’ll Add You to the Top-Secret Group Chat.”

Perspective from the 19^th Hole is the title I chose for my personal blog, which is meant to give me an outlet for one of my favorite crafts – writing – plus to use an image from my favorite sport, golf.  Out of college, my first job was as a reporter for the Daily Astorian in Astoria, Oregon, and I went on from there to practice writing in all my professional positions, including as press secretary in Washington, D.C. for a Democrat Congressman from Oregon (Les AuCoin), as an Oregon state government manager in Salem and Portland, as press secretary for Oregon’s last Republican governor (Vic Atiyeh), and as a private sector lobbyist.  This blog also allows me to link another favorite pastime – politics and the art of developing public policy – to what I write.  I could have called this blog “Middle Ground,” for that is what I long for in both politics and golf.  The middle ground is often where the best public policy decisions lie.  And it is where you want to be on a golf course.

The latest edition of Links Magazine came up with an interesting list this week – the longest par 3 holes in championship pro golf.

Based on the summary that appears below, I would not have remembered the extreme length of many of these holes, though I have seen them on TV over the years.

For me, an amateur golfer – perhaps better described as a “recreational golfer” – many of these holes should be par 4s, not par 3s.

The course where I play most of my golf, Illahe Hills Golf and Country Club in Salem, Oregon, has four par 3s, but none measure huge distances, though from deep tees, one gets to 221 yards (and a former pro at “my” course said he carried a special golf club just for that hole).

• Hole 5/155 yards-120, depending on the tee you choose to play
• Hole 9/221 yards-169
• Hole 13/172 yards-140
• Hole 17/182 yards-138

So, even for me, these distances are manageable, though, at my advanced age, I don’t often play the deep tees, choosing to abide by Jack Nicklaus’ advice, which is to “play it forward.”

For contrast to where I play most of my golf, consider these the following huge par 3s identified by Links Magazine, with, first, this introduction:

“Par 3 holes don’t have to be long to play tough.  Just look at the blood that was shed in the 2024 Open Championship at Royal Troon’s celebrated 8th hole, the Postage Stamp, where 123 yards and a necklace of deep pot bunkers were all that was needed to make the world’s top players dial 911.

“Or the annual drama at Golden Bell, the 12th hole at Augusta National, which only stretches to 155 yards, but has drowned the dreams of many a Green Jacket hopeful in Rae’s Creek.  Those holes, and others like them, are plenty difficult without being long.

“But there’s another species of par 3 — the kind where a combination of brute length and accuracy over distance are required to escape them unscathed.

“Nine of the 10 longest of these major championship holes are from U.S. Open venues — as if brutal rough and hardpan greens aren’t enough to identify the world’s best player.  The other top-10-longest par three plagued players at a PGA Championship.

“Across the pond, prospective Champion Golfers of the Year have had to face several long one-shotters, too.  Masters contestants have had to do battle with just one truly lengthy par 3, but as we all know, danger takes many forms at Augusta.

“It should be noted that along with length, each of the holes on this list have other features that add to their difficulty.  Dastardly bunkers.  Greens with false fronts and/or steep fall-offs.  Slick putting surfaces where saving par from 10 feet is a magician’s trick.”

Now, the list:

• Oakmont Country Club, 8th Hole—300 yards 
• Los Angeles Country Club (North), 11th Hole—297 yards
• Los Angeles Country Club (North), 7th Hole—284 yards
• Merion Golf Club (East), 3rd Hole—256 yards
• The Olympic Club (Lake), 3rd Hole—256 yards
• Valhalla Golf Club, 14th Hole—254 yards
• Merion Golf Club (East), 17th Hole—254 yards
• Shinnecock Hills Golf Club, 2nd Hole—252 yards
• Chambers Bay, 15th Hole—252 yards 
• Erin Hills, 6th Hole—252 yards
• Carnoustie Golf Links, 16th Hole—248 yards
• Royal Troon Golf Club, 17th Hole—242 yards
• Augusta National Golf Club, 4th Hole—240 yards 
• Royal Portrush Golf Club (Dunluce), 16th Hole—236 yards

So, if you are a recreational golfer like me, take your driver to play these holes or others like them.  Or, just go to the forward tees.

Plus, this footnote.  When you hit a golf ball on a par 3, do you tee it up or play it off the ground?

Golf Digest says this:

“On a par 3 hole, using a tee provides an extra 5-12 yds depending, of course, on the club.”

And, no less an authority than Jack Nicklaus always advises using a tee when you can, on any drive.  That will guarantee you get a good lie.

Perspective from the 19^th Hole is the title I chose for my personal blog, which is meant to give me an outlet for one of my favorite crafts – writing – plus to use an image from my favorite sport, golf.  Out of college, my first job was as a reporter for the Daily Astorian in Astoria, Oregon, and I went on from there to practice writing in all my professional positions, including as press secretary in Washington, D.C. for a Democrat Congressman from Oregon (Les AuCoin), as an Oregon state government manager in Salem and Portland, as press secretary for Oregon’s last Republican governor (Vic Atiyeh), and as a private sector lobbyist.  This blog also allows me to link another favorite pastime – politics and the art of developing public policy – to what I write.  I could have called this blog “Middle Ground,” for that is what I long for in both politics and golf.  The middle ground is often where the best public policy decisions lie.  And it is where you want to be on a golf course.

These days, when the word “gate” is attached as a suffix, it’s because there is a controversy, political or otherwise.

Remember Watergate?

On that occasion, “gate” was the last few letters in the name of the building where Richard Nixon’s staff committed a political burglary that has gone down in history – for reasons that it was so bad.

This time, “Chat-Gate” refers to the incredibly stupid decision by Donald Trump sycophants to include a journalist in a chat over an insecure line about plans to bomb Yemen.  Two problems:  The first is that national security and military lives were threatened by Trump clowns using the insecure line; the second is that a journalist, inadvertently it was contended, was included.

Thus, I and others are using the term “Chat-Gate” – shorthand which is easier than describing the Trump staff’s stupidity.

The Washington Post performed a service this weekend by going behind the scenes to describe the conduct by the journalist involved in “Chat-Gate,” Jeffrey Goldberg, editor of The Atlantic Magazine whose positive reputation is clear and decisive.

That’s another fact I appreciate about “Chat-Gate” – it is the account of the brilliance and maturity of a journalist whose conduct brings credit to that craft.

For this blog, as is sometimes the case for me, a story in a national publication – this time the Style section of the Washington Post – is so good that I choose to reprint it in its entirety.

*********

HOW THE ATLANTIC’S JEFFREY GOLDBERG MADE NOISE WITH A SIGNAL SCOOP

The Trump administration tried to paint the veteran journalist as a liar, so he felt compelled to prove them wrong — and he had the receipts.

The world might never have gotten the whole story.

There would have been no details of Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth confiding to the “Houthi PC Small Group” his minute-by-minute plan:  “TIME NOW (1144et):  Weather is FAVORABLE.  Just CONFIRMED w/CENTCOM we are a GO for mission launch.”

No precise details about what was to happen at “1215et,” the moment when “F-18s LAUNCH.”  Or that it would be “1536” when the “F-18 2nd Strike Starts.”  Or that in the exact same moment the “first sea-based Tomahawks” would launch.

Jeffrey Goldberg, the editor in chief of Atlantic magazine, had already decided to keep such details secret, because he already had written a story that, on its face, would be shocking enough:  Bizarrely, Goldberg found himself earlier this month inadvertently included in a chat group on Signal — an encrypted but potentially vulnerable commercially available messaging app — with Hegseth, Vice President J.D. Vance and the national security and foreign policy heads of the Trump administration.  Rather than communicate via secure government channels, the team discussed plans to kill suspected terrorists in Yemen in a March 15 strike.

With Goldberg reading along, not quite believing his eyes.

In his article, Goldberg laid out how he’d been inadvertently invited to join the Signal group by national security adviser Michael Waltz, where plans for the attack were being discussed.  At first, he explained in his article, he thought the invitation was a hoax.

But he became convinced that it was the real thing when the attack took place just as it had been discussed in the Signal group.  He watched the discussion in real-time as the attack was happening on a Saturday afternoon, Washington time, while he was sitting in his car at a grocery store.  (Because no detail about Goldberg’s reporting now seems too small, people have asked which grocery store, he said. It was the Safeway on Connecticut Avenue NW, near Chevy Chase.)

Goldberg’s article was about how government officials had been recklessly talking about sensitive matters on Signal rather than via secure government channels.  In writing his piece, Goldberg held back much of the text thread, and did not reveal some details and specific wording related to the types of military equipment involved and the times they would be deployed.

That might have been it.  A scoop for the ages, and another win for the Atlantic, which in recent years has piled up journalism awards, including its first Pulitzers, lured top talent from competing publications and become an essential read for both Beltway insiders and the general public.

Error! Filename not specified.But within hours of the story’s publication (headline: “The Trump Administration Accidentally Texted Me Its War Plans”) the White House started diminishing and rebutting Goldberg. Hegseth complained Monday to reporters that “nobody was texting war plans.” The next day, Tulsi Gabbard — Trump’s director of national intelligence — testified in a Senate Select Committee on Intelligence hearing that she didn’t recall specific weapons being mentioned.

By Wednesday morning, Goldberg had had enough.  He decided it was in the public interest to prove them wrong. He published the entire text chain.  (He did, however, hold out the name of a CIA officer at the agency’s request.)

“The impetus for publishing the full text chain was that the administration said we were lying about the texts, about the nature of the text and about the texts themselves,” Goldberg said Thursday in an interview with The Washington Post.  “And so obviously that presented us with kind of a dilemma.  I wasn’t looking to publish these, but if the president and his people are going to take the position that we are lying about this and that this somehow has to do with my character or the character of the Atlantic, I felt compelled to respond.”

James Fallows — a former White House speechwriter for President Jimmy Carter, prolific author and former Atlantic colleague of Goldberg — calls the Signal reporting “a remarkable journalistic coup,” not just because of the information it revealed, but also because of the way Goldberg and the Atlantic handled the complexities of the situation.

“Jeff was very, very careful the first time about not revealing anything that might be sensitive,” Fallows told The Post.  “And then when sort of faced with what appears to have been an avalanche of lies from administration officials, he brought out the actual text and was in position to say, ‘Well, actually,’ and, to prove it.”

It was the kind of reporting that students should study to learn a lesson in the value of patient journalism, David Boardman, a former executive editor of the Seattle Times who is now the dean of Temple University’s school of media and communication, said.

“It is a unique moment in American history,” Boardman said of Goldberg’s reporting.  “This story is a great demonstration of why legitimate, fact-based, thoughtful, careful, informed journalism matters.”

Goldberg’s reporting has led to calls for investigations by Democrats.

Representative Jerry Nadler (New York) called for Gabbard and CIA Director John Ratcliffe, who testified before the Senate committee on Tuesday that no classified information was discussed, to be prosecuted for perjury.

Amid the clamor, Republicans have sought to undercut Goldberg’s credibility.  White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said in a post on X that the report was a “hoax” written by a “Trump-hater.”

“If this story proves anything, it proves that Democrats and their propagandists in the mainstream media know how to fabricate, orchestrate, and disseminate a misinformation campaign quite well,” Leavitt said at the White House press briefing Wednesday.  “And there’s arguably no one in the media who loves manufacturing and pushing hoaxes more than Jeffrey Goldberg.”

Leavitt has sought to convince Americans that the Atlantic has been walking back or softening some of its story because its first piece used the term “war” plans; its second story used the term “attack” plans.  Goldberg said he was doing no such thing.  In fact, he said, “attack” plans are even more damning because they include specific information, such as the details disclosed in the Signal chat about the types of planes and the timeline.

“Let me be blunt,” Goldberg said.  “They didn’t have much in the way of credible response options to the text.  So they came up with this semantic game. All right. You know, I think most intelligent people can see through it.”

Goldberg knew he was onto something big with the Signal story, but even he couldn’t imagine the impact it had this week.  Perhaps, he said, it resonates because so many of us know what it’s like to accidentally text the wrong person.

“I mean, obviously not everybody is talking to each other about bombing Yemen,” he said.  “But yes, in one sense it’s relatable.  In one sense, it’s extremely not relatable.”

Trump has defended the officials in the Signal group, dismissing the controversy as a “witch hunt” and calling Goldberg “a sleazebag.”

Error! Filename not specified.

That word — sleazebag. Goldberg has heard it before.

In September 2020, two months before Trump lost his bid for re-election, Goldberg published a much-read article about Trump describing U.S. soldiers who died in World War II as “losers” and “suckers.”  Trump said it wasn’t true and called Goldberg a “sleazebag.”

New Yorker magazine editor David Remnick described Trump’s remarks in an interview with The Post this week as part of a “continuing playbook.”

“These are the tenets of Roy Cohn that were passed down to Donald Trump and that everybody around him practices, which are never apologize, never admit a mistake. And, you know, try to smear the messenger,” Remnick told The Post, referencing the notorious McCarthy-era lawyer who was a mentor to Trump when he was young.  “This is a very familiar playbook. And not just in this country. And you see it in incipient or aspiring autocracies around the world.”

Goldberg said he is unfazed by the verbal attacks.

“It means nothing to me,” he said.  “These attacks are designed to get people to stop probing and asking questions … that’s why it’s important to double down on accountability journalism in times like these.”

Goldberg, 59, began his career as a police reporter at The Post.  Known for his tenacious reporting and deep sourcing, he would later serve as New York bureau chief for the Forward and as a Washington and Middle East correspondent under Remnick at the New Yorker.

He also worked as a guard at the largest prison camp in Israel in 1990, and wrote the book “Prisoners: A Story of Friendship and Terror,” about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

He joined the Atlantic in 2007 as a national correspondent and became its editor in chief in 2016.  While trying to persuade Goldberg to leave the New Yorker, the Atlantic’s then-owner, David Bradley, sent ponies to Goldberg’s home to entertain his children.  The magazine has been majority-owned by Emerson Collective, an organization led by entrepreneur and philanthropist Laurene Powell Jobs, since 2017.

The Atlantic is that rare publication that seems to have found a way to marry digital and print success.  It surpassed 1 million subscriptions in 2024 and reached profitability; it now has more than 1.15 million subscribers, a 14.7 per cent increase year-over-year, according to an Atlantic spokeswoman.  It also announced in October that it would be adding two more print issues yearly, the first time in 20 years that it has published monthly (which used to be part of its name until 2004).

When the Atlantic announced its print expansion, Goldberg outlined a new direction for the staff:  “One new initiative I would like to share with you today,” he wrote then, “is a dramatic new commitment to report stories at the intersection of national defense, technology, and global conflict.”

His Signal group mega-scoop landed exactly at that intersection.  And he makes no apologies for that.

“Michael Waltz can label me a loser if he wants,” Goldberg said.  “But at least I know how to text.”