What if a joke, not delivered in a
mean-spirited manner, has offended people? Is an apology necessary? That was
the predicament with Don Imus and his infamous “nappy headed hoes” line in
April, 2007. And that was the predicament with David Letterman recently making
a sexual wisecrack about Alaskan Governor Sarah Palin’s teenager daughter, as
well, as on a California talk
radio show on KFI 640 AM with regards to comments made about the Armenian
genocide.
On the radio show on May 13, Bill
Handel and his co-host Lara Hermanson were accused by the Armenian community of
making degrading comments about deporting the Armenians from California,
and making distasteful jokes about the Armenian Genocide.
Handel’s words were: “get rid of the
Armenians,” as well as other groups, as a lighthearted solution to the cost of
healthcare in America.
Greg Garabedian a local listener who heard the comment wrote to the station to
express his concern and disappointment with the remark.
In responding to the letter on the
air the next day, the situation was made worse when studio colleague Lara
Hermanson quipped, “what the Turks started, Bill will finish.” The statement
referenced the Armenian genocide of 1915 and outraged the Armenian American
community.
My first concern was that these
were not risqué stand-up acts in a private room. These were publicly broadcast
jokes on public airwaves. Any jokes of an ethnic nature have the potential to offend. Whether for better
or worse, we have to live with society’s inescapable modern politically correct
sensitivities.
Eventually, the radio host and the
station managers met with representatives of the Armenian community to discuss
the matter. A month later, Hermanson
and Handel broadcast their apologies.
Waiting a month is unacceptable,
and there was no reason given for the delay. (Had they, for example, explained
that their meeting with the Armenian representatives couldn’t be scheduled
until a few weeks later, that might be how we could excuse the delay.) So the first
part of the ESP rule for a kosher apology, being expeditious, is not fulfilled.
Not racing to make an apology
demonstrates lack of caring, callousness, and indifference. A person, or
people, were inconvenienced by emotional pain and suffering, yet these two
radio hosts decided they would apologize when it was convenient for them.
But there is hope for someone who
does not come forward quickly with remorse. It doesn’t mean their apology is
null and void; rather, they must fulfill the other two requirements for a
kosher apology even more (specificity and promise through words and actions not
to do it again.)I do not think all of
the requirements were accomplished. Neither apology was very good.
My analysis, below.
“Hi, my name is Lara Hermanson. I’m
the board op on the Bill Handel show. And I want to apologize for something
that happened a couple of weeks back.”
The
offending remarks were on May 13. The on-air apology was on June 12. Lara
diminishes her apology, first and foremost, by lying about how much time has
gone by.
“I regret that I took so long to
apologize for this but during the course of conversation I made a really
hurtful remark about the Armenian genocide.”
It’s nice of her to admit to, and apologize for,
taking so long. It behooved her to tell us why she sat on her hands for a
month, or be gallant enough to admit it was inexcusable.
Notice,
too, how this sentence has two unrelated parts. She starts to apologize for the
delay, and then says “but … I made a really hurtful remark.” But?
“It was meant to be satirical but I know that as it
stood, it didn't come off that way. It came off as hurtful and I really regret
this comment. And I appreciate our Armenian listeners sharing with me their
feelings about this and I'm really glad that I get the opportunity to apologize
for it.”
There is no
specificity in the word “it.” She says it five times. What, then, is she sorry for? Recall, that the requirement of
being specific means that a person who isn’t aware of the case should be able
to tell what is being apologized for.
“I feel horrible for the comment and once
again I'm really, really sorry."
Saying
the words “really sorry” have no weight if the apology wasn’t expeditious,
specific, and does not outline steps that it will never be repeated again.
And,
the host of the show’s apology:
"Hi. I'm Bill Handel and you
just heard our board operator on the morning show apologize for a comment that
simply shouldn't have been made, that clearly went over the line. And this is
the Bill Handel Show, it has my name on it, and inevitably the buck stops here.
We should have, I should have, cleared that up within a couple of days, if not
the following day, and it simply wasn't done.”
True, he also admits wrongdoing in lacking
expeditiousness. Casually mentioning such a regret, in hindsight, without an
explanation means he started on the wrong foot.
“But more importantly than that, I
want to point out something that has been part of my entire broadcast career,”
This is dismissive. It’s as though he’s telling us
that his failure to act on the issue for four weeks isn’t really important at
all.
“…frankly part of my entire life, I
have always been fanatic about not forgetting the Armenian genocide. I have
been a champion of never ever letting that be forgotten in history.”
It’s too bad we have to take his word for it.
Besides, it still doesn’t exculpate him from his insulting words.
“My grandparents perished in the Jewish
holocaust. My dad is a Holocaust survivor so I'm particularly sensitive to this
issue. And if you ever listened to my show, now or 20 years ago, it has never
changed, I always will, I always have, been a champion of the fact that we can
never forget, ever."
Appealing to his own connection to the Holocaust
likely makes his insulting words all the more worse. He did not make those insulting
comments out of ignorance.
And so, we don’t have expeditious, specific, or a
promise never to repeat it.
