One of my favourite celebrity apologies of all time was that of TV evangelist Jimmy Swaggart, with his tearful "I have siiiiiiiiiinned!" speech in front of a still shocked congregation after his repeated trysts with prostitutes went public. When stars fall, it can be funny and smugly satisfying.
However, sometimes their apologies can be very uncomfortable, especially if they've been forced upon the apologizer by society's most righteous puritans and shame-flinging bullies.
There are many factors that go into whether an apology is warranted or not, and they're not really cut and dried.
For instance Roger Federer's apology to tennis fans this week, which set off the crowd with boos. He was apologizing for being too injured to play in the ATP Finals. His apology was warranted, no matter how unpopular it was.
But popular or not, some apologies need to be made, others... not so much. Some are forced, others, more sincere.
Here now is a look at the last month's worth of apologies, non-apologies, and apologies yet to come.
DR. TAYLOR'S BEST/WORST DAY EVER
The media sometimes likes to feed off of celebrity shame. Other times, the media is the direct root cause of it.
Take for instance #ShirtStorm. Basically where the media chose to focus on a man's shirt, instead of the incredibly amazing accomplishment of a team that landed a probe on a comet flying at thousands of miles per hour.
What should have been a moment of elation and celebration amongst the scientific community and humankind as a whole, was usurped from the actual geniuses who accomplished the feat by the perpetually outraged jeniuses (I'm aware of the spelling error) in the media all on account of this shirt.
The backlash that Dr. Matt Taylor received for wearing a tiki-bar style bowling shirt (made for him by a female friend) that from my perspective went really well with his rockabilly getup, was unquestionably unwarranted.
Tacky as the shirt may have been to some, the sheer amount of attention drawn to it (rather than to the whole landing-on-a-fucking-comet thing) showed us some serious problems we have today with online bullying, and an overboard obsession with all things unimportant and downright petty.
The article that set off the fury of mean-spirited tweets from Social Justice Warriors, was titled: I don't care if you landed a spacecraft on a comet, your shirt is sexist and ostracizing.
That article came from The Verge, and immediately took the discussion away from science, and onto the poor, poor women who would be apparently dissuaded from getting into STEM fields of work on account of "misogyny."
Now, this continued over the rest of the day, and my first reaction was, "'c'mon!"
But it wasn't until the next day's press conference that things got really sad. When asked a question about the mission, Taylor ignored the question completely and instantly started into his apology. Obviously filled with nothing but shame and remorse, Taylor began to weep openly on camera, and show the world the result of inappropriate social justice bullying.
Sadly, this man was robbed of his big moment by attention hogs, and purveyors of outrage. Their claim, that what Taylor chose to wear was damaging, and that he reaped what he sowed. Strange, especially when annual SlutWalks make any discussion about the appropriateness of a women's attire continue each year.
I find it absolutely ridiculous to assume that seeing a guy in a shirt with scantily clad women on it is somehow representing a barrier into the STEM fields. Why? Because there's so much that goes into the courses these professionals take to get to where they are, that anyone determined enough to go into STEM would never be deterred by anything so petty.
If these writers and tweet authors truly believe that women are that weak, it starts to beg the question as to who the real sexists towards women are.
However, while the court of public opinion can be very effective in bludgeoning its targets into submission, other times it can let very real offenders off the hook for substantially worse offences.
JIAN GHOMESHI SHUTS UP, AT THE WRONG TIME
Outside of Canada, the name Jian Ghomeshi will not resonate with many people, as his former radio show 'Q' was really only broadcast on the Canadian national radio network. Possibly the only instance that non-Canadians may have recognized Mr. Ghomeshi, would be from his role in the infamous Billy Bob Thornton blow-up from 2009.
But this man wasn't just any radio personality. Ghomeshi was the radio guy in Canada. While always a little too smug for this writer's tastes, Ghomeshi was for all intents and purposes absolutely beloved. He hosted several awards ceremonies, and was intensely entwined in the Toronto arts and culture scene.
Sadly, it was his popularity that shielded him from repercussions for what was going on behind the scenes in what has slowly been revealed to be a very dark personal life.
So popular was this man, that when he posted the following post on his Facebook feed on a late October night, his supporters leapt at the opportunity to believe his crucially incomplete side of the story with regards to the reasoning behind his firing from the CBC.
As his side of the story went, he was being unjustly persecuted by his employer for his preference of BDSM activities in the bedroom. He claimed that his image was now being tarnished by a solo jilted lover looking to cash in on his fame.
Over the days that followed, Q fans lashed out at his employer in defence of their fallen hero... that is, until the allegationsstartedtopile up.
Slowly the image of the dulcet-toned, charming, cultured icon was falling away to reveal a twisted, violent, narcissistic asshole. Soon there was a bit of apologetic tone from people who rubbed elbows with Ghomeshi quite frequently at galas and concerts, mainly because they'd always known something was up.
A portrait of an angry and dangerous man was being formed before our very eyes. One after another came stories of women who'd dated Ghomeshi (both long term and one-time flings), each involving similar horrible details.
At first it seemed that some of his victims were merely creep-shaming Ghomeshi for his lack of "game" so to speak, and how he'd appear quite insecure at moments, often questioning his own good looks. However, by the end of the first week of the story breaking a total of 9 victims came forward describing multiple instances of Jian beating them up, slapping them around, choking them, and/or slamming their heads against walls or car windows.
One by one, each story swayed more and more people about who this man really was. Soon his plea to the public on the night of the 26th was a distant memory, and for people like me actually fuelled more disgust at this man's actions.
Normally one of the chattiest people in Canada, Ghomeshi has since gone silent in the aftermath. The crisis public relations firm he hired to help him wade through the backlash dropped him shortly after the allegations piled up. And not like it matters, but many of the allegations were coming from prominent women without anything to gain other than justice and the peace of mind that they may be saving others from future harm.
It has been 27 days since Ghomeshi's firing. We've heard from more than nine victims. Not a peep from Ghomeshi who is pretty much now in hiding, other than the following Facebook post (which got thousands of 'likes', by the way).
There has however been an apology from the CBC. Not for this monster's firing, mind you, but for their lack of adequate response to allegations made within their offices of harassment of Ghomeshi's female coworkers.
My own personal issue with this particular case is not only that so many people stayed quiet about his reign of terror, but that he tried to make it seem like the CBC firing him was somehow because they didn't approve of his bedroom life.
This man was cuffing women upside the head for years, and then has the nerve to make it sound like the CBC are somehow prudes that don't approve of his edgy lifestyle? Fuck that!
Thankfully, support for Ghomeshi has grown quiet on all fronts, and now the nation of Canada is asking itself why people didn't say anything for so long. No apology yet from the guy, so I guess he still thinks he's the one being wronged. Strange how narcissism can do that. Speaking of narcissism...
LENA DUNHAM MISSES THE POINT
Shortly after going through what the creator of the hit HBO show Girls called a "rage spiral," Lena Dunham issued an apology pertaining to some controversial entries in her latest bestselling book, Not That Kind of Girl.
The self-proclaimed voice of her generation was responding to accusations that some of the tales spewed in her latest book were actually instances of sexual abuse towards her younger sister Grace.
For someone who has repeatedly bestowed upon herself the burden of being a role model, while shaming other celebrities, Dunham seems to be slinking away from her own misdeeds.
One particular excerpt from the book has Dunham referring to herself (in an attempt at humour) as a "sexual predator."
‘As [Grace] grew, I took to bribing her time and affection: one dollar in quarters if I could do her makeup like a “motorcycle chick.” Three pieces of candy if I could kiss her on the lips for five seconds. Whatever she wanted to watch on TV if she would just “relax on me.” Basically, anything a sexual predator might do to woo a small suburban girl, I was trying.’ - Lena Dunham
After the uproar, it was the sexual predator comment that Dunham would come to apologize for; NOT the acts, but the wording.
She is not sorry for what she actually did to her sister, however she's sorry for any potential harm or triggering effects her descriptions could have had for victims of child abuse.
“I am dismayed over the recent interpretation of events described in my book Not That Kind of Girl. First and foremost, I want to be very clear that I do not condone any kind of abuse under any circumstances. Childhood sexual abuse is a life-shattering event for so many, and I have been vocal about the rights of survivors. If the situations described in my book have been painful or triggering for people to read, I am sorry, as that was never my intention. I am also aware that the comic use of the term ‘sexual predator’ was insensitive, and I’m sorry for that as well. As for my sibling, Grace, she is my best friend, and anything I have written about her has been published with her approval.” - Lena Dunham
To Dunham, this was just a matter of semantics. According to Dunham, this was just harmless child's play. Except, as she also states in the book, this didn't just end when she was 7 and her sister was 1.
Nope, her conditioning of her sister to want to sleep in her bed continued well into Lena's teen years, including at the age of 17 when she would masturbate in bed while her 11-year old sister slept beside her. This is not just a case of innocent child's play, but actually a quite twisted tale of sibling abuse and incredibly inappropriate behaviour. At 17 you should know better.
One does not have to imagine very hard the repercussions that would've been in place if say another hit show creator like Dan Harmon wrote about sleeping next to a sibling and jerking off. There'd be absolutely no defence for this type of behaviour.
But Dunham's strange upbringing and still-fresh sense of celebrity has armed her an incredibly strong case of narcissism. She sees herself immune from criticism or agency for her behaviour. Much like Ghomeshi. Much like Bill Cosby (more to come on him later).
What gets me in this debacle is how Lena Dunham dismissed the first allegations of wrongdoing because of the sources from which they came. Because the blogs that covered her own words were right-wing in nature, apparently their observations didn't count.
She went so far as to try and sue the website TruthRevolt.org which was one of the first to break the story... for quoting her own words.
So, while the "right-wing" outlets did take the ball and run with it, they also inadvertently highlighted the other side's reflex nature to defend Dunham's words.
The fact of the matter was that she admitted to:
A) investigating her sister's vagina while she was 7 and her sister was 1,
B) bribing her sister with candies for long kisses, and to be have her sister "relax" on her,
C) purposely scaring her sister into her arms and bed, so as to become the go-to trust figure in her sister's life,
D) masturbating next to her sister while she slept.
C'mon, Lena. Do we have to really explain why this is bad? Do we have to explain why this can't be just hand-waved away?
Lena Dunham had previously expressed how fellow auteur Woody Allen 'nauseated' her, due to child his allegations of child abuse. Yet, she felt that her own actions were fit to be used for comedy?
Strange how someone like Dunham who is obsessed with her own celebrity, and fashions herself as the champion of many causes (in particular that of modern day feminism), can totally miss the point of why there is an outrage to being with. In her own words, however, she unironically told Jian Ghomeshi in an interview (mere weeks before each of them imploded) the following:
"I feel like we hear so many 'celebrities' say, 'I didn't ask to be in this position. I'm just living my life.' It's like, 'But you are in this position, and you need to make conscious choices.' And, like, sorta, because for better or worse, our celebrities are who we look towards to define our culture and to define the sort of behavioural norms of our time. So, if I'm in any way part of that, I want to do it well." - Lena Dunham
Sorry, Lena, but your book about the "lessons" you've learned along the way has failed at defining good behaviour, and your inability to acknowledge that a 17 year old masturbating next to an 11 year old (that she's scared into bed with her) is at all harmful. I'm going to go ahead and say this is actually, "problematic."
"(T)I'M(E) SORRY"
For some reason, Time.com thinks the idea of banning words is a worthy exercise that should take place on a yearly basis. However, this an annual feature may get cut, on account of this year's results.
It's a silly pop-culture piece that allows Time writers to snarkily dismiss new words that have come into the cultural lexicon. In the past, words such as OMG, YOLO, and twerk were nominated to be banned (although sadly, those words still remain in use).
However, this year a not-so-new word was thrown into the mix, and subsequently ran the table on the other options like kale, bossy, bae and turnt, with a 45% hold on the entire poll before its removal. That word was "feminist."
"You have nothing against feminism itself. But when did it become a thing that every celebrity had to state their position on whether this word applies to them, like some politician declaring a party?" - Time.com
This probably would've been a fine tongue-in-cheek nod to feminism's misuse as of late, however, right on cue the humourlessstereotypical feminists of the internet took the bait and cried foul. The sacred cow of feminism was not to be heckled or made light of, what with all of the inequality and patriarchy still left to fight in the world (like man-spreading... See? Time still cares about the real issues, ladies).
Low and behold, as the internet spoke apparently too loudly within the poll, Time removed the word, and issued an apology.
"Time apologizes for the execution of this poll; the word ‘feminist’ should not have been included in a list of words to ban. While we meant to invite debate about some ways the word was used this year, that nuance was lost, and we regret that its inclusion has become a distraction from the important debate over equality and justice." - Time.com
Of course that nuance was lost, Time. First off, it wasn't funny. I'm not talking about the word's inclusion... I'm talking about the poll itself. It's lame.
What was funny was the inevitable humourless reaction to it. What was even funnier was how the rabble rousers at 4Chan were able to run up the score on a word that really does deserve a bit of scrutiny these days.
Why do I say that feminism needs a poke? Perhaps it's because it's alienating, and outdated. We live in a world today where the majority of university grads are female. Since the 2008 economic crash, more jobs have been recovered by women than by men... (which could be because of the feminist cry movement's rally to block the Obama administration from actually handing out "shovel-ready" jobs).
Instead of tackling real issues that face women in real patriarchal societies such as Afghanistan, here in the West, we're being bombarded with garbage like a non-Time related campaign to ban "bossy." Or what about videos where a woman walks through poor neighbourhoods with a scowl on her face while people tell her to have a nice day? Or how about that other hoax video that made it look like every guy that encounters a hot drunk chick will lead to a sexual assault? Or that video where little girls dressed as princes spewed cuss words at the viewer in order to sell t-shirts? All that crap took place just this year! Perhaps 4Chan had nothing to do with the poll being so skewed.
Maybe it's feminism's turn to apologize? If equality is what we desire, perhaps we can drop the alienating word entirely, and evolve to take on the moniker that I prefer to use for people who care about gender equality: egalitarianism.
But, at least Time dropped the f-word from the poll, so that we as a society could finally get rid of the even worse word that was in second place prior to the change-up: "bae."
PAGING DR. HUXTABLE (AND THE ABSENT MEDIA)
The life of a celebrity has many perks. It also has the heavy cost of being in the public eye, and being subject to intense scrutiny (see: Lena Dunham's comments above). However, there's a hierarchy to celebrity, and not all celebrities are created equal.
In the case of comedy legend Bill Cosby, it appears that the sitcom icon may have been shielded from repercussions due to his status among the entertainment world (kinda like Ghomeshi, but much worse).
Cosby's rape allegations are not new, however, media coverage on them is. You see, it wasn't until a stand-up comic named Hannibal Buress levelled some shocking criticisms on Cosby did the story gain some legs again.
Actually, to say again is incredibly generous. That would imply that the story got the coverage it deserved in the first place. Instead, the story (much like earlier accusations) was completely swept under the rug.
Buress told the crowd to google "Bill Cosby rape," so that they could see for themselves that this was really a thing. What came up was a 2006 case where Cosby settled out of court with a woman named Andrea Constand, right before 12 other accusers were set to take the stand against him. Kind of a big story, right? Wrong.
I googled "biggest stories of 2006" and the Cosby allegations didn't make the cut... while tainted spinach and Paul McCartney's divorce did.
I then googled "Bill Cosby" within the time confines of 2006, and was shocked at how little the story was mentioned.
There was one story from People Magazine's December 18, 2006 issue that went into great detail about the settlement (while refusing to use the word "rape"). The article described much of what we're just finding out over the last couple weeks.
"What Cosby never mentioned was the civil lawsuit he settled just two days earlier with Andrea Constand, 32, a former Temple University employee who claimed Cosby drugged and sexually assaulted her in his Philadelphia-area mansion in 2004. Constand's lawyers Dolores Troiani and Bebe Kivitz ended up with 13 witnesses, most referred to in court documents as "Jane Does," who came forward voluntarily with strikingly similar claims of drugging and or abuse by Cosby. Terms of the settlement, reached before any of the women could testify, were not disclosed."
- People Magazine, December 18, 2006 issue
So, this wasn't just one woman's word against his. It was actually 13 in total, which, I dunno, kinda makes the story a bit newsworthy, don't you think?
From this story, we were introduced to Cosby's alleged method of choice: the bait and switch drug routine.
Story after story from these women include the same element of Cosby handing over some sort of pill to "help" them with a problem, whether it was menstrual cramps, or tension, or cold symptoms. Each story then proceeds to have Cosby have his way with them while they were semi- or unconscious.
Now, either all of these women collaborated together to form a great big lie, or there's some real substance to these allegations.
Strangely, none of those details were shared in the Los Angeles Times version of the settlement. Apparently that publication saw fit to only devote 169 words to the piece.
The BBC apparently didn't see fit to include the kinda important fact of the 12 other woman who were coming forward.
And lastly, CBS news covered the story, but didn't bother to delve any deeper into the judge's denial of Cosby to have a gag order on the other 12 women.
"The federal judge presiding over the case earlier denied Cosby's request for a gag order and the plaintiff's request to shield the names of a dozen other women who say Cosby assaulted them." - CBSNews.com
And that, my friends, was the extent of the mainstream media's news coverage on Bill Cosby's case. Four stories, only one of which bothered to look into the alleged victims, two that didn't mention the other accusers, and one that couldn't even give 200 words on the case (which as your tired eyes are probably noticing, is less than some of my paragraphs in this post).
Which brings us to the present.
Judging by Bill Cosby's reluctance to comment on the allegations, and his seemingly unflinching ability to slough the whole thing off and ask that the media drop the issue, we're not going to be getting an apology from him any time soon.
Instead, we do get an somewhat weak apology from bumbling CNN personality Don Lemon for his mishandling of an interview with one of the accusers.
However, I think the accusers probably deserve a much bigger apology from the mainstream media as a whole. Especially deserving are the 13 who had the courage to come forward in 2006, only to be ignored by practically every news source outside of People freaking magazine.
We're not out of the woods yet. Cosby's seeing a major backlash against him, as more and more women come out to add their paint to the picture of a man who hands out drugs to women, only to allegedly abuse them.
It's a tough call at this stage. Since the last case was settled out of court almost a decade ago, and too much time has passed to gather physical evidence, it's going to be difficult to find out for sure if Bill Cosby really is as bad as these women are saying. But it doesn't look good for the man... even if he's not been convicted by the courts, that court of public opinion has already come back with a verdict.
Please log in to comment.