At last check, golfing mega-star Tiger Woods is nine over par, and counting. That's how many women - so far - claim to have had affairs with him during his married life.

Whether all the claims are valid, who knows? There's likely some piling on in hopes of turning a profit on the misadventures of a famous person.

But however many mistresses he's had, there's no doubt that he hasn't lived up to his image - a good part of it self-promoted - as a strong family man and role model.

In the wake of the frenzied media coverage of the Woods affair, we see the inevitable sniffing from various media outlets about how tacky it is to afford it so much coverage. Who cares, some people say?

Well, it seems just about everybody cares. That's all people were talking about the last few days. Whether they should or shouldn't care is irrelevant. It's a great story. It has everything - money, sex, fallen sports idols, more sex, glamour, the lives of the rich and famous and, oh yes, sex.

Some will say that whatever Tiger does off the golf course is strictly a matter between him and his wife. They say he never pretended to be the perfect family man, so he shouldn't be attacked when turns out he has feet of clay.

Nonsense. I recommend Tiger's own web site from last February 18, celebrating the birth of his second child, Charlie Axel.

It features several pictures of the proud papa and his family, including one with Tiger, the newborn baby, two-year-old daughter Sam, and his wife Elin Nordegren, along with the two family dogs - one of them licking Tiger's face - a veritable Eden of domestic bliss, all the better for Tiger and his sponsors to promote his squeaky clean image, a major factor in the reality that he makes about 10 times as much money promoting products off the golf course as he makes actually playing golf.

It does matter.

That's because both he and his well-heeled sponsors put a lot of currency into his image. And when that image turns out to be phony, the paying public has a right to know.

When news of Tiger's infidelities were first alleged in the National Enquirer, the billionaire golfer opted for complete silence - apart from having his lawyer tell local police he wouldn't be talking to them (which he had every right to do) about the curious early-morning accident outside his Florida mansion.

But as the media frenzy grew, he took full responsibility for the accident on his web site and repeated his favorite mantra that "This is a private matter and I want to keep it that way," adding that published stories about his personal romps were "irresponsible."

Really? When US magazine subsequently reported another affair - and the flood gates opened - the world learned that Tiger had, in fact, been naughty.

His plea for "privacy" was drowned out by the media's desire to pursue and expand the story - and the public's obvious appetite to read about it.

Still trying to downplay the story, Tiger issued a statement admitting he had "let my family down and I regret those transgressions with all of my heart," returning once again to the "privacy" theme.

My experience during more than four decades of journalism is that the only time "privacy" becomes a rallying cry for famous people is when they get caught.

They don't mind publicizing their "private" lives when it's on their own terms, i.e. Tiger's aforementioned web site announcing the birth of his son, and when it's helpful for their careers. But when "private" matters expose the truth, well, that's a different matter altogether don't you know?

Public people can't have it both ways, even though many of them think they can- and too often get away with it.

How many times do we hear Hollywood celebrities railing against the paparazzi for pictures that show them doing something they shouldn't be doing, the same photographers that they frequently invite to take staged photos of them prancing up a red carpet or engaged in some other activity designed to help their careers?

This isn't to suggest that public figures have no privacy rights. Of course they do.

But being famous doesn't give them the right to demand that the media only publish the good stuff, the stories they decide will promote their careers.

The great Canadian media theorist Marshall Mcluhan once quipped that, "publication is a selfinvasion of privacy."

Tiger might have thought of that when he published all those happy family pictures last February.

The chickens, it seems, have come home to roost. And it's nobody's fault but Tiger's.