If you're looking for analysis of the Great Tiger Woods Apology of 2010, you've come to the wrong place. Our friends at TMZ, PopEater, and Fanhouse will have it all broken down from a personality, gossip, and sports perspective. No, what I'm here to talk about is the TV aspect of the coverage, and all I have to say about it is... it's troubling.

Why? Think about what happened this morning: all four networks interrupted their regular programming to show the speech. There was pre- and post-speech analysis from sports reporters as well as the news folks. There was a podium and a blue curtain. If you didn't know that Tiger Woods was about to speak, you might have thought that President Obama was about to step out and address the nation. Instead, we got Tiger talking over and over about how he's failed himself, his wife, his friends and his family.

I'm not sure what made me feel dirtier: the fact that the networks made it seem like a presidential address, or that I was actually watching it. Video and more after the jump.

Breaking sports news video. MLB, NFL, NBA, NHL highlights and more.

NBC and ABC both utilized their morning anchors --Matt Lauer on NBC, Robin Roberts and George Stephanopoulos on ABC -- but CBS gave the press conference the full treatment, complete with Katie Couric. But if you step back and look at the situation for a second, it doesn't seem like this speech should have gotten this treatment:

-- The speech didn't involve economic policy or war or anything that was directly related to people's lives. It was a sports figure -- albeit a superstar -- apologizing for sleeping with a series of loose, big-chested women while still married. At least when Bill Clinton had his Monica mea culpa, he was doing so as President.

-- It wasn't a press conference. None of the reporters were allowed to ask questions. In fact, Tiger told the nation that any questions about his marriage or his affairs won't be answered, as it'll be kept between he and his wife Elin. Why were the reporters even there in the first place? Tiger got to control the narrative and what information would be put out there. What happened to the days when news organizations told public figures to go pound salt in those cases?

-- He got to admonish the news media with impunity. He was able to criticize the media for stalking his family and for reporting on possible domestic violence in his marriage and his possible use of PEDs. However, because he wasn't taking questions, he didn't have to undergo the scrutiny of follow-up questions to that part of the speech.

-- It fails the tabloid test. Coverage of this story in the mainstream media has gotten extremely close to tabloid territory, as one floozy after another has come forward to talk about their trysts with Tiger. Instead of covering this as a news story, they've delved into as much speculation and "anonymous source" reporting as the tabloids. I know there's a ton of competition to break stories of this nature, and the folks at the networks are tired of losing out to the TMZs and Enquirers of the world. But, put any other public figure short of John Edwards in Tiger's place, and this story would have died long ago.

For all these reasons, this speech should have been relegated to cable. For the broadcast networks to breathlessly cover this the way they did makes me worry about what's going to pass for news in the near future.