Who is entitled to what?

This is about Tiger Woods; stop now if you couldn't care less.

Tiger keeps talking about how he felt entitled, how his fame and power led him to feel as if he deserved to act the way he did. He claims he is in the process of learning his lesson, and I believe he deserves a chance to prove that he is learning it.

But there is a new sense of entitlement being demonstrated by members of the mainstream media and the sports press who are pissed that they're not being granted these interviews. These folks believe they're somehow... gulp... entitled to (A) receive an interview, and, more importantly, (2) know the details of what Tiger Woods insists on telling them are personal details that are between him and his wife.

But no one, not one person, has made anywhere close to a compelling argument as to why they or anyone deserve, are entitled, to know personal, private details.

In other words, all these media "experts" want is "the scoop." This is what is at the heart of this whole thing: who gets the story. This is what our fast-food-media culture feeds on: the titillation factor, dishing the dirt, spilling the beans, knowing the inside story, getting the gritty gory details.

So, then, who is really entitled to what, here?

That's easy. Tiger is entitled to keep private details private, and no one outside him, his wife, and eventually his children, is entitled to this information. Get up off the guy and move on.

As a test, all anyone has to do is ask, "What would I do if I were in this situation? Would I want to share probably embarrassing and possibly humiliating aspects or would I want to keep these aspects private? Would anyone else be entitled to know those details?"

We all know how we'd answer, and we all would be perfectly entitled to feel this way.