8 ms·

How many times are we going to keep hearing the non-apology apology: "We are sorry if some were offended..."? I am so tired of it, it has become a cliche. When

• protomyth 15y ago
  Might be liability, but it seems like PR flacks tend to also work for politicians who have a long history of not actually apologizing.
• spindritf 15y ago
  > How many times are we going to keep hearing the non-apology apology: "We are sorry if some were offended..."? About as many times as we make powerful people apologise in public, especially when they're not really feeling guilty. And it's not always in that form, sometimes it's closer to Clinton's "mistakes were made". While most non-apologies are pretty standard, there is some variation and innovation.
  • jerrya 15y ago
    Well it was either Reagan, or Nixon, but never Clinton. I think you owe the Clintons an apology.
  • philwelch 15y ago
    According to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mistakes_were_made http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mistakes_were_made), some version of "mistakes were made" dates back to Ulysses S. Grant, though it seems that Nixon popularized it.
  • gfodor 15y ago
    The thing I don't understand about this is that it seems to me that when public figures, companies, etc come out with genuine apologies, it ends up being a net positive. They garner respect from their friends and their enemies. They get good press. They often manage to repair most of the relationships that were in question. It almost seems like that even if someone were not feeling guilty, the logical thing would be to pretend like you are and submit a real apology. I find it hard to believe that folks who are already so good at stretching the truth to their own benefit like politicans would somehow let their personal ego and pride get in the way of them making a fake "real" apology if that would benefit them the most. It seems to me that there is some underlying calculus that all these actors have made that issuing a bogus one has a better net effect that a real one. I suppose I should be thankful that if this is the case then at least we are going to be able to tell the bullshitters from the honest people, since only the honest ones will be making genuine apologies despite their potential for harm.
    • spindritf 15y ago
      > It seems to me that there is some underlying calculus that all these actors have made that issuing a bogus one has a better net effect that a real one. This is the reason why I think non-apologies are a genuinely advantageous long-term strategy, especially for men in position of power. I don't believe it to be an entirely concious strategy resulting from some cold calculation but it seems common among leaders, from soccer team captains to presidents. Maybe some alpha/beta atavism. That is not to say that it's optimal. Throwing a sincere apology every once in a while, especially when it's sincere, may work well.
    • aptwebapps 15y ago
      "I find it hard to believe that folks who are already so good at stretching the truth to their own benefit like politicans would somehow let their personal ego and pride get in the way of them making a fake "real" apology if that would benefit them the most." I'm sure a lot of the 'real' apologies you hear are exactly of that nature. But ego and pride don't get checked at the door when someone enters politics - far from it. Not many politicians have the discipline to be perfect PR machines at all times. Many of them seem to oscillate between politically optimized and natural states. "It seems to me that there is some underlying calculus that all these actors have made that issuing a bogus one has a better net effect that a real one." If we're talking about actual politicians rather than corporate spokespeople then there's always the possibility of a little dog-whistling going on. If you trot out the standard pro forma apology then most of the people are somewhat aggrieved and those who actually liked or agreed with your original statement or action can say that the apology is just PR and you don't really mean it. I can't see that happening much outside of actual politics. "I suppose I should be thankful that if this is the case then at least we are going to be able to tell the bullshitters from the honest people, since only the honest ones will be making genuine apologies despite their potential for harm." I don't think it's a reliable guide for the reason I stated at the top.
  • stfu 15y ago
    This is a arguable subject. For me personally I prefer a company that took some risks with their presentation and failed, over one that had some human-bot-figure reading the corporate-lawyer approved cards. Sure, based on the narrative of that visitor the whole story comes across very negative, but then again I would find it utterly amusing to have some insult-comedian perform at a corporate event just to watch all the let-me-tweet-how-offended-i-am faces.
    • rictic 15y ago
      This wasn't someone who was telling insulting jokes just to get laughs. This was someone whose repeatedly stated and well known opinion is that a historically repressed group don't have an equal or valid place in the workplace. It's not a joke by itself, it's joking of a kind with those bully makes while tormenting their victim in other ways.
    • chromatic 15y ago
      I prefer a company that took some risks with their presentation and failed, over one that had some human-bot-figure reading the corporate-lawyer approved cards. That statement almost makes it sound as if those were the only two options for presentations.
    • cgoddard 15y ago
      Theres a thing called professionalism. It is no more appropriate to invite the mocking of women in the workplace at a conference than it would be to mock multiculturalism, and support that only privileged white males deserve good jobs. It is not appropriate, and reflects very badly on the character and judgment of the execs at Dell. I wouldn't be surprised if this severely impacts their ability to recruit competent employees; no self-respecting man or woman should want to be employed by bigots.
  • ryanmolden 15y ago
    >And it's not always in that form, sometimes it's closer to Clinton's "mistakes were made". That phrase far predates Clinton, probably Nixon or earlier was the first I heard it attributed. There is also a great book by that title (Mistakes were made, but not by me) that talks about the psychological drive to quell dissonance and how it can lead to absurd scenarios.
• sambeau 15y ago
  It's either 100% lack of spine or 100% no clue. Look at how well startups apologise when they get things wrong compared to long-established companies. They admit wrong and seek to put things right as soon as they are called on it. This is not just good PR: It's good morality, but it takes backbone. Startups, though, are still run by their founders: people who know what they started their company to achieve and what moral code they were determined to adhere to while they achieved it… …Dell on the other hand is, these days, run by some guy called "Michael Dell". Oh. Hang on.
  • wvenable 15y ago
    I've been on hacker news long enough to know that many startups are just as bad at apologizing. Some established companies are very good making things right. I don't think you can generalize so easily.
• philwelch 15y ago
  Actually apologizing admits to wrongdoing, which opens one up to liability and other consequences. Not apologizing at all is seen as callous and only incites the mob against you. A non-apology apology is still enough to settle the mob but not enough to open one up to liability. The only downside is that it upsets intelligent people like you and I who are capable of actually parsing and understanding these kinds of statements. Most people are content with something that sounds like an apology.
  • petercooper 15y ago
    Not apologizing at all is seen as callous and only incites the mob against you. A non-apology apology is still enough to settle the mob but not enough to open one up to liability. Historically, I'd agree, but my observation (and opinion) is that real time mass communications and an ever dropping attention span mean that half-hearted apologies (or even sincere ones!) merely fan the flames, whereas radio silence lets the storm clouds pass because people's attention spans are so short.
    • philwelch 15y ago
      That would sure be an interesting development, and I'll be on the lookout for it. But there's a very strong niche for people to deliberately sit around and fan the flames of outrage, and if anything that's become even easier as of late.
    • kiba 15y ago
      Somebody should quantify and do research on that. We can't rely on mere conjecture.
  • rsynnott 15y ago
    > Actually apologizing admits to wrongdoing, which opens one up to liability and other consequences. I can't imagine that there are actual liability issues here; it's more than Dell (incorrectly, I suspect) thinks that using weasel words looks better than saying "oops, we're horribly thoughtless and incompetent".
  • hej 15y ago
• cbsmith 15y ago
  I actually think there are lots of cases where it is perfectly warranted. It's a big world; if you are on the world stage, it is quite difficult not to offend somebody no matter what you do. There are experts in the fields of diplomacy and etiquette who devote their careers to getting this stuff right, and usually even then there is someone offended about efforts to be so "proper". ;-) So, I think it is a perfectly valid apology if basically the only thing you regretted about your actions was that it made someone upset. Most people don't get off on pissing other people off, but they do want to live their life and go about their business. That apology is perfect for that context. What's freaky is when it is used for cases where you'd think there'd be a lot more that someone ought to be sorry for. What's even freakier is when someone everyone pretends it is apologizing for more than it is.
  • brown9-2 15y ago
    So, I think it is a perfectly valid apology if basically the only thing you regretted about your actions was that it made someone upset This is what makes it a non-apology.
    • baddox 15y ago
      No, it doesn't. If you say something that offends somebody, what else is there to be sorry about? It's not like you killed somebody and offended somebody else, and are only apologizing the offending part. When you offend someone, that's the only bad thing that happens. Or, as comedian Steve Hughes puts it, nothing happens when you're offended.
      • hej 15y ago
        Uhm, no, that’s not what apologies are about. When you apologize for something, you are also expressing regret for doing something. If you could decide again you would decide differently. In this case, a honest apology would be one where Dell apologizes for hiring that moderator: if we could go back in time and hire a moderator again, we wouldn’t hire that person. Maybe their apology for the offense is supposed to imply that (presumably, since they are apologizing, they want people to not be offended, one option for them to prevent that is to not hire people like that in the future), but why not say that directly? (I think the view that offense doesn’t matter and can be safely ignored is extremely damaging. And besides, it’s not as though offense is the worst thing about this. Dell gave someone the stage who legitimizes very weird views that would be disastrous if they became – even more – widespread in society or even the basis for policy. That’s why people are offended. And that’s a very good reason to be offended. Yes, words do matter.)
• byrneseyeview 15y ago
  But that's exactly what they're sorry for. It's not like Dell's going to say "We're sorry we hired a jerk." That implies that they meant to hire a jerk. "We're sorry you're offended" means "We didn't do this out of malice, but we recognize that it was hurtful regardless, and that's why we're sorry." I always get the feeling that what they're really supposed to do is grovel--to admit that it wasn't an honest mistake, but that they really were being evil, and that they've finally been caught and forced to own up. I don't think people are comfortable with diversity when it means that some people think it's totally okay to do something that other people would find horribly offensive. I'm sorry if that's offensive. But that's all I'm sorry for.
  • DanBC 15y ago
    "We're sorry. We made a mistake." == taking responsibility for what they did. "We're sorry you feel that way." == passing the responsibility back onto the other person.
  • gfodor 15y ago
    > But that's exactly what they're sorry for. It's not like Dell's going to say "We're sorry we hired a jerk." That implies that they meant to hire a jerk. Say what? That doesn't imply that at all. It implies they made an error of judgement, be it due to poor due diligence, a misperception of what is appropriate, weighing the options between "controversy" and "politically correct" and falling too far to the one side, and so on. It has nothing to do with intent, it has to do with making an error and telling your customers/audience that you learned from the error and will not make a similar one in the future.
  • chris_wot 15y ago
    Then it's not enough. If they aren't sorry for blatant sexism (despite Dell global policies) then they should be. And if they aren't they should lose sales. IMHO :-)
• its_so_on 15y ago
  I do think it is the correct response to nutjobs - so whenever I see this, I read it as a statement that the company is REALLY saying "I disagree with your points completely: still, I would prefer if you weren't offended right now!" If a nutjob were to tell you, "Hey gfodor, your comment is extremely offensive to those of us working in public relations. We're the people who are actually trying to placate the population, yet you paint us as disingenuous, calculating, and shallow. Even though we have NO other job than to placate the public after we mess up. That's the ONE THING we do. How can you be so offensive to us?" Then the proper response would be "Well, I'm very sorry if you are offended. I do like companies to take genuine corrective action, and any company that has public relations employees who make true apologies out of regret for the hurt and other negative effects they have caused, especially if these people also have enough power and will within the organization to effect policies to ensure the company can't do such a thing in the future, is a company that I support." see, the nutjob was completely misreading you. You don't have to apologize to them. This is the CORRECT use for "Well, I'm sorry you feel this way." It means you disagree, but still, would prefer the other side see things correctly. You care about them, but you stand by your actions. In summary, I completely agree with you. But given the number of nutjobs out there, sometimes a nutjob-placating response is appropriate. Whenever I see nutjobs attacking a company for completely stupid reasons, I am glad to see this response trotted out. In the present instance, like you, I am not happy to see it. Also, if an intelligent person uses this formula with me, "I'm sorry you feel this way" it means that they are interested in my understanding and feelings, and interested in talking about why I feel this way, but feel that they are justified (without crossing their arms and lifting their chin about it). This is very valuable feedback, and can open the dialogue to where either I or this person modifies their view. It's a lot better than just shutting down or blindly apologizing! No one should apologize 'genuinely' just to placate people, if they feel they did the right thing. They should at least give the reasons for their actions. On the other hand, if they know they did do the wrong thing, then they should take responsibility for it.
• Tichy 15y ago
  What would be the better apology? Giving one million dollars to everyone in the audience, for mental pain inflicted?