The humiliated Maryland city council member noted by Grim earlier this week has thought it over and decided he was completely wrong in his eccentric view that newspapers needed his permission to use his name. Not that some people might have thought he was wrong and been inexplicably offended, but just that he thoughtlessly blew it, plain and simple. His
apology is completely appropriate, a refreshing example of the genre:
"Of course, as I am an elected official, the Frederick News-Post has the right to use my name in any article related to the running of the county — that comes with the job," he said. "So yes, my statement to the Frederick News-Post regarding the use of my name was wrong and inappropriate. I'm not afraid to admit when I'm wrong."
I liked
Volokh's take:
Uh, Council Member: In our country, newspapers are actually allowed to write about elected officials (and others) without their permission. It’s an avantgarde experiment, to be sure, but we’ve had some success with it.
10 comments:
It's sort of missing the "I'm sorry" part that is customary in an apology, but I suppose we can grant partial credit for admitting he was wrong.
I'm not actually a big fan of saying one is sorry unless there has been some actual injury to the other party.
The nature of the offense here was that he voiced an utterly toothless and silly threat that no person in their right mind would take seriously.
It might have been better for him to say he's sorry, but I do think flat out admitting you were wrong works too. Most of the injury in this case was inflicted on the perpetrator, by the perpetrator. I don't think either the Fredneck News-Post or the journalist in question were ever in any serious apprehension of being sued :p
What Grim said. Admitting, without caveat, his error is a major plus. But there was no apology for that error.
I score it an 80, but you can't dance to it.
Eric Hines
I would rate it higher if it read more like "I recognize that I did wrong, and I regret doing wrong," and less like "I recognize that I did wrong, and I regret looking stupid." :)
I wasn't distinguishing between an apology and an abject admission of error. Most of the time, I don't much care about the "I'm sorry" part; I agree with Cass that there's no injured party here. What struck me about the councilman's statement was that he didn't weasel. He simply admitted he had been a complete bonehead, and explained it well enough that it's clear he does now understand the appropriate standard of action. That's good enough for me, and miles better than most apologies/admissions of error.
True enough, the man didn't weasel, and the lack of an actual apology really could be just an oversight.
But there was damage: he brought ridicule on his office and the City Council of which he is a member.
You may think that's trivial, and in fact it may be, but there was sufficient damage done to warrant an "I'm sorry," too.
Eric Hines
Maybe so, but I think "I was 100% wrong" is good enough. I don't think he brought disrepute on anyone but himself. For me, the lack of weaseling is more important than a careful investigation of harm he may have done, when no one is complaining.
The apology I might be looking for is to the reporter, for threatening a lawsuit.
Maybe so, but I think "I was 100% wrong" is good enough.
Well, you've always been a better person than me. [g]
Eric Hines
That's a good apology. The "I'm sorry if I offended you" schtick is a non-apology, and thus best not used if one truly admits a mistake.
I will admit that I have apology fatigue, big time.
I"m so sick of seeing people apologize for breathing, and I'm one of those folks who has always believed better to apologize when you don't really need to than be a jerk. But the current political climate has definitely affected my aesthetics in this area :p
I'm pretty sure I'd feel that way if he were a Dem, too. It means more to me that someone will admit they were wrong, than that they will attempt to assuage my feelings. But I do see the point.
Post a Comment