When is an apology not an apology?
This tidbit ran in our local rag a couple of days ago:
Denmark: Newspaper apologizes for Muhammad cartoon
The Danish newspaper that published cartoons of the prophet Muhammad linking Islam with terrorism has apologized for offending Muslims around the world. "We apologize for the fact that the cartoons undeniably have offended many Muslims," Carsten Juste, editor-in-chief of Jyllands-Posten, wrote late yesterday in a letter on the paper's website. But he said the newspaper wasn't sorry for running the cartoons. The apology came after Middle Eastern and North African countries demanded a boycott of Danish goods, protesters in the Muslim world burned Danish flags, and Islamist groups called for attacks on Scandinavia. The 12 cartoons published in September included one showing Muhammad wearing a bomb in place of a turban. Any visual depiction of Muhammad is considered blasphemy, according to the teachings of Islam.
It's been percolating around the edge of my consiousness since then -- not so much because of the subject matter (which is interesting enough in its own right), but because it encapsulates a growing trend: the apology that doesn't apologise for anything.
Clearly, the editor (and many of his colleagues, based on the fact the cartoons have been reprinted in several European countries) does not believe the newspaper has done anything wrong by publishing these cartoons. But he still felt obliged to offer an apology. So, the question is, what was he actually apologising for?
As far as I can tell, the editor's apology says nothing more than, "this paper is saddened by the fact that you (the Muslims offended by the cartoons) are upset." In other words, "I feel your pain." This apology, in sum, is simply an expression of sympathy (and a calculated and insincere one at that).
I don't know about you, but I see this type of apology all the time - both from public figures ("I'm sorry if my remarks offended anyone") to Joe and Jane Average ("I'm really sorry you feel that way").
So, my question is this: Is this kind of apology a cop-out? Is it just a sneaky way of denying responsibility for the consequences of one's actions? Or is it sufficient simply to acknowlege that someone is hurting because of something you have (or have not) done?
Ok, so that was more than one question. Still, what do you think?
posted by ink @ 12:45 PM
Dip your quill - (4)
4 Comments:
Quite the copout. Unfortunately nobody seems to have the backbone to stand up for their actions anymore.
I didn't see the cartoon, but if they aren't apologetic, they shouldn't have bothered with what they did say.
Although, from what I've read about it, they certainly should have been sorry.
I hear that sort of half-apology all the time, in all sorts of situations, like you said. I think it is in vogue at the moment, because it is PC, and because it lets the offending party off the hook in a relatively un-messy fashion. I think it's the equivalent of settling out of court. My feeling is that if you have a strong enough opinion or stance to do something that could possibly be offensive, then you should take responsibility and not apologize at all. Simply stating something to the effect of, "It is solely my opinion, and I take responsibility for it's impact" would be more clear and forthright. Cuz we all know you aren't really sorry---you got a respnse, and wasn't that the point? By the way, sorry if this is hurtful to anyone. :)
Sister - I agree. To be honest, I expect the editor is closing the blinds and doing a little happy dance. After all, he's received international publicity and is now being touted, among some circles anyhow, as a defender of free speech.
While I agree free speech is a legitimate question -- and an important one -- what really pissed me off in this case was his half-hearted "nudge, nudge, wink, wink" attempt to back away from the (equally legitimate) consequences of this deliberate action. It showed contempt both for the people who support his viewpoint, and for those whom he has profoundly offended.
St. D - I hope there are still a few rare souls who say (and mean!) "I screwed up and I'm sorry" out there, but I agree this wimpy I'm-sorry-you-feel-the-way-you-do is a very disturbing trend.
I haven't seen the cartoons either (and have no interest in doing so from the way they're described). I strongly suspect this was deliberate attempt to garner exactly the response he received.
Susan - I really like your "settling out of court" analogy. Pretty much hits the nail on the head all round. I suppose it is way for everyone to walk away with their pride intact -- but, like you, I wish people did have the fortitude to be honest at least.
I think the inability to apologize (not in this case, and not in personal cases), comes from us being such a litigious society. I had a friend who worked in the communications department of the Ontario government and they were never allowed to use the words 'problem, issue' and so on.
Post a Comment
<< Home