The headline seems a bit misleading... he didn't actually apologize for the cartoon, but for the fact that some were "offended" and misunderstood his stated goals for the presentation (showing off VR and the partnership with Red Cross).
In other words, a classic non-apology. The issue is that people did understand the true goal of the presentation: self-promotion.
This has become an standard PR stunt. I agree with you that journalists should point that out.
Also, why public figures could not apologize for real? Like "I am sorry, this was not a great communication campaign after all. We'll do better next time." Is this really difficult?
Potential liability, and/or massive egos.
I got my "law degree" from watching TV, so take this with a grain of salt, but when you apologize you are admitting fault, which could be legally binding if a lawsuit is brought upon you.
So if he were to apologize, Red Cross could then potentially sue over a down tick in donations due to the join campaign, etc.
Again, not a lawyer, have no real interest in law, but this has played out on TV shows a few times.
This could be partially true. CA, MA, and a few other states have laws protecting against this kind of liability, but it's still probably a best practice against major liability.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-apology_apology
You’re not wrong, and even when it isn’t about admitting fault/responsibility outright, you don’t want your apology read out in court, or worse, the video of you apologizing played.
I am also not a lawyer, but for my sins all of my first-order relatives are.
Probably because he's not really sorry. It's not like he did anything horrible here. This is a Public Relations problem, not a moral problem, so you get a Public Relations apology.
Why is the quality of apology such a concern these days? Obviously they're apologizing for PR reasons, as should be expected. You're just creating an environment where people learn to be better liars.
Why is integrity such a concern these days? Obviously they're pretending to have integrity for PR reasons, as should be expected. You're just creating an environment where people learn to fake integrity.
Personally I find apologies of any kind from companies worthless. I don't get why people are so bent on squeezing apologies out of everything they can. It's a power thing most likely.
I prefer actions and we should incentivize the right actions from companies. Apologies are worthless, what people actually believe is worthless. Behavior is the only thing that matters.
>Why is integrity such a concern these days?
It's phony integrity. Social media has turned the entire world into gabbing Sunday churchgoers where everyone has to pretend to think and act in acceptable ways otherwise they'll incur the wrath of church gossip.
It's definitely possible that people complaining about phony apologies are doing a power thing... Hmm, maybe they want to take away power from people who do bad things?
It would be nice if there was some kind of way to signal true remorse, like a way of speaking with our bodies, a "body language".
No one says the behavior doesn't matter - but without an expectation of social cost (apologies, and further criticism and reputation loss when the apology is tone deaf and insincere), why would anyone care about behaving well? Demanding apologies isn't worthless - it's a power thing.
The problem is that moral indignation is rarely about improving the state of things. Further, attempting to change the behavior of corporations through moral indignation is the least effective option. Getting CEOs to issue apologies or to be driven out of their companies is about power--the feeling that the mob gets when its crusade is victorious. But this is only loosely related to improving the state of the world.
People follow incentives, and this goes even moreso for amoral corporations. The most effective way to change the behavior of corporations is to create the right incentives such that its in their best interests to behave in ways that are in all of our best interests. Insisting on "true belief", which this obsession over genuine apologies seem to indicate is the goal, just isn't needed. The behavior will follow when the incentives are aligned. But this shows its less about behaviors and more about the feeling of righteousness people get from moral indignation.
I think the backlash has been too sensitive.
Of course there is a rubbernecking feeling to it, but it's not all that different from the NYT sending Nachtwey ot someone of equal caliber to a devastation zone to bring viewers closer to the action.
I'm sure we'd be outraged if it happened with regard to the ongoing North Bay fires, but you know what, five years hence, this will be an ordinary way to bring the news to your environment.
People are "shocked" because they are not used to the medium. One day they will be and this reporting will be ordinary.
It's not the technology so much as the tone of the video that was off-putting, I think. The Times also did some 360 video of PR devastation and nobody was shocked.
It's not the tone - it's the fact that one uses a natural disaster for self-promotion while the other does it to inform the populace about the extent of damage.
How can using any new medium in such a context NOT be seen as self-promotion? It can't. But the benefits of the new medium also shouldn't be sidelined over the fear that folks like you might get outraged over a non-issue.
I feel like it'd help to avoid saying features of your product "are really cool" as you use it to present disaster footage. Also the upbeat cartoon avatars were probably not a good choice.
Do you agree that TechCrunch's headline (and, by extension, HN's) is misrepresenting what the apology was actually for?
Regardless of if the criticism is justified, my point here is that there was no apology made for the planning/execution of the presentation itself -- just for the offense it caused to those who misunderstood the goals of the presenter.
It's one thing to believe an apology wasn't necessary. It's another thing to believe it's OK for "journalists" to massage this corporate non-apology into something more palatable.