It’s pretty simple.  I don’t think anyone can look at this cover and not be taken aback.  At least I don’t think I know anyone that wasn’t startled a bit by the cover.
Now, I’ve been surprised by the number of people that don’t think it was a big deal that a television announcer would say that a black man should be “lynch[ed] in a back alley.”  Maybe people just don’t get it.
Or maybe they do.  The best way to find out–ask some of those defenders what they thought when they saw that noose on the GolfWeek cover.  If they think it’s too much, if they think it’s incendiary, then I wonder how they could think talking about a lynching wasn’t a big deal in the first place.
This is a show and prove moment for a lot of people.  That joke wasn’t a big deal?  Then what’s the big deal about the cover?  Sure, Tilghman said what she did in what I suppose was a stream-of-consciousness moment.  GolfWeek did something premeditated.
However, Tilghman actually thought that was funny.  GolfWeek certainly does not.  That’s enough reason for me to be OK with the latter.
Now, the article itself?  Needed more discussion of the history of lynching and exactly why that image they’ve used is so provocative.  Not a bad cover story, and definitely a good attempt.  Just fell a little bit short, but I don’t blame the magazine for trying.