PRIVATE APOLOGY NOT ENOUGH

Apologies seem in vogue.

People are apologizing who don’t need to apologize.  Others are apologizing sincerely because they should. Still more are apologizing insincerely because they must. 

                   “If I told a lie, if I made you cry
when I said goodbye, I’m sorry.
From the bottom of my heart, dear,
I apologize.

The latest round of apologies was brought to public attention in a PAJ Release:

                   “Representatives of the PAJ met with Mr. Milton Samuda                                   and his team on Saturday August 31, 2013…..

                    Both the PAJ and Mr. Samuda have acknowledged that                                     errors were made by the journalists and Mr. Samuda.

                    The PAJ reported that the journalists had apologized to                                    their newsrooms and the journalism body for their actions                                  and this was accepted.

                    Mr. Samuda’s apology at the meeting yesterday was also                                   accepted by the PAJ.

Any of these apologies sounds sincere to you?  Any sounds insincere? 

                   “If I’ve caused you pain, I know I’m to blame.
Must have been insane, believe me.
From the bottom of my heart, dear,
I apologize.

My award for 2013’s most astonishing apology goes to Super Chairman who threw off his alter-ego as Mild Mannered Attorney to issue a cryptic apology in a private August 31 meeting with the PAJ.  But, on August 30, he had issued the following to all media houses:

          “2.     ……I did not select the journalists….

          3.       There definitively was an agreement by the journalists to pre-                           conditions for the interview in that there was an agreement by the journalists to restrict their questioning… If in accordance with their tenets of journalism they could not participate…, I would have expected them to say so….it would have been                              understood and accepted. If the [PAJ’s] journalistic principles are applied to these journalists then they had the option to decline the interview, not to attend or to leave at any point……

14.In response to PAJ assertions that I stood in conflict with the media house of which I am Chairman…., I reiterated the   importance of my duty to protect my clients…. 

15.That at all times I acted…. as counsel. The interview was held at my law office… the journalists… knew the capacity in which I acted.

The meeting, in my view, made considerable progress in tackling issues such as the interpretation of public interest, journalistic integrity, ethics and training….. 

During the meeting the question of payola influence was also raised by the PAJ and should be ventilated.

Permit me to translate.  Less than 24 hours before he’s reported to have issued an unspecified apology in a private meeting, Super Chairman publicly asserted in the clearest possible terms that:

1.    The entire episode was the journalists’ fault.  They breached pre-agreed restrictions on questioning and misunderstood his handover request as coming from Super Chairman when in fact he put on neither cape nor mask at the meeting

2.    Neither Super Chairman nor Mild Mannered Attorney did anything wrong;

3.    “Journalistic integrity” may have been at stake here and “payola” was a relevant issue the PAJ should be ventilating

These allegations were made publicly and in great detail.  Public recoil seems to have forced him to request a hurried follow-up meeting at which it’s said he apologized.  For what?  For his part in the original pre-conditions fiasco?  For the capture and erasure of tapes?  For the imposition of external editorial supervision upon working journalists? For insisting there’s nothing wrong with pre-scripted interviews?  For persistently maintaining his disconnect from wrong-doing in the entire affair?  For trying to shift blame onto the working journalists?  Or for an unfair and unnecessary swipe at working journalists by implying payola might be involved?

                   “I realize I’ve been unfair to you.
Please let me make amends
Don’t say that you forgot the love we knew.
After all, we were more than friends.

William Clarence (Billy) Eckstine, a legendary balladeer, knew how to apologize and he proved it in 1951 with his seminal interpretation of Al Hoffman, Al Goodhart and Ed Nelson’s 1931 creation “I Apologize”. The PAJ may have accepted this private apology but I most definitely do not.  Super Chairman needs to come clean with the public including regular RJR and TVJ listeners/viewers.  Exactly what’s he apologizing about?  What does he admit he did wrong?  Most importantly, will he unconditionally retract that offensive public statement with the cruel potential to implicate working journalists in the most despicable of journalistic crimes?

If not, what’ll RJR and TVJ do?  Will they prove consistently credible or persistently perverse?

Peace and Love

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: