Two high-profile apologies caught my
attention this weekend that I thought I’d write about today. The first was Mark Wahlberg’s apology for saying
in an interview that if he and his family had been aboard one of the planes
hijacked on 9/11 – as he was scheduled to be – things would have happened
differently. The second was also
9/11-related when Warner Brothers apologized for running trailers for their new
movie, “Unbelievably Loud and Incredibly Close,” near the site of the attacks. (The trailer includes images of Sandra
Bullock watching the Twin Towers burn.)
I believe both apologies were
unnecessary and I planned on beginning with a snarky comment about how it had
been “X” days since we’ve had a good public apology and that we were simply due. I did a quick internet search for “issued an
apology” and was surprised to find that zero days had elapsed since the last
apology.
We’re up to our necks in apologies –
more than 1,700 news stories about apologies in the past month. We’re either too thin-skinned for our own
good, or we put too many microphones in front of too many dolts.
Here were some of the Apology
Highlights for the month of January, (you can follow the links to read more
about each story, but do come back here to see if I can tie it all up in a bow
at the end):
Vancouver police
have apologized for mistakenly arresting (and roughing up) a man in his
front yard. The police were chasing a
different man who was seen running from a nearby bank. Apparently the cops couldn’t catch him, what
with all the running, so they decided to literally tackle the easier target – some
guy standing still. While officers were repeatedly
lowering the innocent man’s face to the ground, a fleet-footed member of the
force did manage to catch up with the Bank Runner. Interestingly enough, he was released because
simply running is apparently not a crime.
He hadn’t robbed the bank, rather he was just late for something.
An Argentine daily newspaper, Pagina/12,
apologized for a cartoon depicting Hitler running
a concentration camp dance party at which he confided in the DJ that when
the Jews relax and dance, the soap he makes from their corpses is better. Yah.
Katy
Perry’s father, an evangelical minister, apologized for some unoriginal
anti-Semitic remarks he made that seemed to be geared towards bringing Mel
Gibson into his flock.
And in case you think only
anti-Semites say things worthy of apology, the editor, owner, and publisher of
a paper called “The Atlanta Jewish Times” issued an apology for writing in an
editorial that he thinks Israel should assassinate
President Obama to preserve Israel’s future. Also perhaps he should look into whether or
not doctors can now reverse full frontal lobotomies.
Fashion house Dolce
& Gabbana has apologized twice this month. First for racist actions they did not take, and
then a second time for those actions. Uh-huh. At issue are allegations that the D&G store
in Hong Kong allows Chinese and other tourists to take pictures in front of the
store, but does not allow native Hong Kongers to do so. What I loved about both these apologies is
that they convey the sentiments of a certain Cee-Lo Green song.
From the first apology: “…our company
has not taken part in any action aimed at offending the Hong Kong public.” And from the second: “We understand that the
events which unfolded in front of [our store] have offended the citizens of
Hong Kong, and for this we are truly sorry and we apologise.” Well done.
CBS Sports
apologized for announcing that Joe Paterno had died. That’s one of those cases where they meant to
SAVE DRAFT but instead hit PUBLISH. (I
hate when that happens – and now look, between first draft of this column and
publication, he has actually passed away.)
A Cardinal in Chicago apologized for comparing
gays and lesbians to the Ku Klux Klan.
This too seems like a reasonable apology, though after reading his original
statement, the first non-apology, and then the actual apology, I’m not 100% certain
he was making that comparison. I think
he just might be really bad at making analogies.
“Pizza” chain Papa
John’s apologized for a customer receiving a receipt that identified her
with a racial slur. The individual franchise
offered a silly and weak apology, then HQ stepped in and did it right with an unequivocal
apology and instructions to fire the employee responsible. Good for them. And good for them also sticking to their guns
and not apologizing for the pizza itself.
There were other apologies that, like
these listed above, were called for. But
what I really wanted to write about was the unnecessary apologies. I put the Wahlberg and Warner Brothers
apologies in that category. They are
apologies motivated by fear of offending, or regret at having offended people
who generally have too much time on their thin-skinned hands.
The Warner Brothers apology and promise
to pull the ads from public spaces close to the New York site of the 9/11
attacks was either part of a well-thought out publicity effort or much ado
about nothing.
I suspect the film, like the book upon
which it is based, deals with the tragedy and loss around 9/11 in a meaningful
and respectful way. I say “suspect”
because I haven’t read the book and doubt I’ll see the movie. Why? I
don’t feel the need to relive the tragedies; however, I also don’t begrudge
others their right to do just that. Tragedies
just aren’t really my thing, not if I can help it. And if it involves the premature death of a parent
with young children, or children themselves, yeah, I’ll take a pass on that.
If the Warner Brothers trailers were
for the film adaptation of “9/11 The Musical: Let’s Roll…and Rock” I could see
that being upsetting – not just to people who lived through the attacks first
hand, but for most. But they weren’t. They were somber, serious trailers for a
somber, serious film.
Pulling the trailers from locations in
lower Manhattan is silly. If the images
upset people, they’ll upset them everywhere.
Should the marketing department track the location and movement of
everyone impacted by 9/11 to ensure they don’t run the ads near these people? In a way, the implication is insulting to the
rest of us: people who live and work in lower Manhattan feel real pain, the
rest of us are pikers.
The studio overreacted. Or they played it perfectly, earning some
extra ink by using traumatized victims to help build buzz for the film. I hope that wasn’t the plan.
Mark Wahlberg, a proud family man with
a history of real life violence, (as a youth, he was banned from the South
Boston Boys & Girls Club he used to attend and now financially supports),
said, “If I was on that [9/11] plane with my kids, it wouldn't have went down
like it did -- there would have been a lot of blood in that first-class cabin
and then me saying, 'OK, we're going to land somewhere safely, don't worry.'"
He was saying that if the lives of his
children were being threatened, he would be compelled to act, putting his fists
where his mouth is. Now the blood all
over First Class may well have ended up being his, and nothing would have
changed from a historical perspective, but why can’t he express those thoughts?
His apology, which, by the way, was actually
top notch and classy, gives us a clue.
He said, “To
suggest I would have done anything differently than the passengers on that
plane was irresponsible. To speculate about such a situation is ridiculous to
begin with…I deeply apologize to the families of the victims that my answer
came off as insensitive, it was certainly not my intention."
The apology
implies that some were offended because they thought Wahlberg was saying he is
braver and loves his children more than the passengers on the plane. Really?
Do they genuinely think Wahlberg
thinks this? I mean, really and truly. I don’t.
And guess what, it doesn’t matter if he does. He’s just a person, entitled to an
opinion. An opinion I don’t think he was
expressing, and even if he was, it says more about him than about the 9/11
victims.
And guess
what? I’ve had similar thoughts, (without
the First Class bit). And I’ll bet we’re
not alone.
We’ll never know
for sure everything that happened on the planes that were flown into the Twin
Towers; for all we know, some passengers, like those on United 93, did rise up
against the hijackers and were killed for their efforts to get back to their families.
I simply don’t believe
it’s disrespectful to try to imagine how you would have reacted if you had been
placed in that terrible situation. Asking
yourself “what would I do?” is what makes us human. And I think it’s a question every American
asked after the 9/11 attacks. It doesn’t
lessen the memory of those who died, if anything, our reflecting on the horror
they faced keeps their memory and courage alive.
Wahlberg did not need to apologize for what he said. His involvement in “The Happening,” however,
is another matter.
The reality is, I think there’s too much apologizing going on. Public figures and companies are often quick
to apologize for things that will hurt their image or sales, and they usually don’t
really mean them. Not one contrite word.
For example, Mel Gibson’s apologies, (like those of Katy Perry’s father) are
completely hollow. They are not sorry
for what they said. They are sorry we
heard them. And they absolutely
still hold those beliefs, and they always will.
They can, as Susan Ross (Heidi Swedberg) from “Seinfeld” said, “stuff
those ‘sorrys’ in a sack.”
This endless succession of publicly expedient apologies that the politically
correct and easily-outraged demand, and the accompanying hand-wringing, tersely-worded,
and legally-non committal statements, and in some cases the shedding of gallons
of crocodile tears, devalue the genuine apologies. Apologies like Mr. Wahlberg’s.
Before
we demand apologies and threaten boycotts we should ask ourselves two key
questions. First, does this situation truly
merit a public flogging and apology or am I just a little grumpy today? And second, will the apology matter or will I
not believe it? If the answers are “no,”
we should probably just put the incident behind us and get on with our lives.
No comments:
Post a Comment