Who you calling "pesticide-covered?"

The magazine Fast Company has done a story on golf courses and how they’re trying to “clean up their act.”

It’s probably a bad sign when the descriptions “water-sucking” and “pesticide-covered” are both used in a headline, isn’t it?

Well, they tried to do a story that was positive. And three of their sources — Audubon International, the GCSAA and the Golf Environmental Organization — did a fine job of representing the industry. It’s the in-between that hurts.

Why compare a golf course’s water use with the water use of a family of four? Wouldn’t it be more accurate to compare a business versus a business? Maybe even use a business like golf that depends on water?