Frederick County (Md.) Councilman Kirby Delauter backtracked on Wednesday from his threat to sue The Frederick News-Post for using his name without his permission.
Sounds good, right? Someone admitting when he’s wrong, which seems all too rare in this day and age, and doing so soon after committing the epic gaffe that turned him from locally known at best into a First Amendment villain sounds admirable.
Not so fast.
Delauter’s screed in response to the outcry he caused by threatening to sue reporter Bethany Rodgers was no apology. Hell, it wasn’t even a non-apology apology, which I’ve written about in the past.
“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,” Delauter said in a statement.
“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.”
Not afraid to admit when he’s wrong, perhaps. But nowhere in the statement do I see the words “I’m sorry.” There’s an acknowledgement of letting his temper get the best of him, and an admission that it sometimes escalates rather than calms tense situations.
But there isn’t the most important, most basic element of an apology. The words “I’m sorry.” Hell, even “I apologize” would have been more welcome than their absence. Saying you made a mistake but then not pledging to take concrete steps to ensure that mistake doesn’t happen again is only doing part of the job.
Perhaps acknowledging the First Amendment was a good step in the right direction for Delauter, but with this statement not truly being apology, just merely a backtrack, it reads as more like a snarky response to the sudden dragging of his name through a much larger swath of mud than Frederick County, Maryland. Instead, Delauter’s statement was reminiscent of former congressional staffer Elizabeth Lauten’s non-apology in the wake of her criticism of first daughters Sasha and Malia Obama.
If there is one good thing to come from this episode, it’s the prospect that media -- both traditional and otherwise -- still can hold elected officials and those who work for them accountable. That’s something that journalists around the world need to continue doing to prevent the next Kirby Delauter from picking a fight with the media and the people he represents.
Wednesday, January 07, 2015
An act of terror strikes France
Two armed gunmen stormed the Paris office building of a satirical newspaper and killed 12 people in a brutal attack early Wednesday morning.
The gunmen allegedly shouted "we have avenged the prophet!" during their assault on the Charlie Hebdo headquarters, as they symbolically took aim at a newspaper that has been accused of "mocking, baiting and needling French Muslims" by a Financial Times columnist.
Obviously, they did more than kill 12 people, including the top editor and lead cartoonist. This cowardly act is an affront against the principle of freedom of expression. Even though the attack seemingly happened a world away, it is an attack against all journalists, especially ones who turn a critical eye toward religious figures.
Unfortunately, this sort of attack is far too common. Not just the act of shooting people dead itself, but the act of seeking retribution for insults against the Prophet Muhammad, be they real or perceived.
One of the few pieces I wrote in years past on this blog that remains in place is a piece I wrote when an Islamic group took offense to cartoons published by a Danish newspaper back in 2006. As much as I try to be respectful of other people and other cultures, I can't wrap my brain around being so thin-skinned as to take offense to any insults to any religious figure. That sort of hypersensitivity is far worse than any sense of "political correctness running amok." It's far more dangerous than any so-called "pussyfication" of society.
Lives are at stake. People have lost their lives due to jihad over insults. Even if Charlie Hebdo were "baiting" French Muslims, it's a satirical newspaper, possibly akin to the French version of The Onion.
Rather than take offense to any real or perceived insults to any religious faith, a far more productive response to cartoons or criticism of the faith would be defending the faith by making counter arguments in support of the faith. Might doesn't always make right.
My heart breaks for the families and friends of the victims, the 12 people who lost their lives and the five others who were critically injured. We must all take this as a call to action to ensure that people of conscience can feel free to express themselves without fear of retribution.
The gunmen allegedly shouted "we have avenged the prophet!" during their assault on the Charlie Hebdo headquarters, as they symbolically took aim at a newspaper that has been accused of "mocking, baiting and needling French Muslims" by a Financial Times columnist.
Obviously, they did more than kill 12 people, including the top editor and lead cartoonist. This cowardly act is an affront against the principle of freedom of expression. Even though the attack seemingly happened a world away, it is an attack against all journalists, especially ones who turn a critical eye toward religious figures.
Unfortunately, this sort of attack is far too common. Not just the act of shooting people dead itself, but the act of seeking retribution for insults against the Prophet Muhammad, be they real or perceived.
One of the few pieces I wrote in years past on this blog that remains in place is a piece I wrote when an Islamic group took offense to cartoons published by a Danish newspaper back in 2006. As much as I try to be respectful of other people and other cultures, I can't wrap my brain around being so thin-skinned as to take offense to any insults to any religious figure. That sort of hypersensitivity is far worse than any sense of "political correctness running amok." It's far more dangerous than any so-called "pussyfication" of society.
Lives are at stake. People have lost their lives due to jihad over insults. Even if Charlie Hebdo were "baiting" French Muslims, it's a satirical newspaper, possibly akin to the French version of The Onion.
Rather than take offense to any real or perceived insults to any religious faith, a far more productive response to cartoons or criticism of the faith would be defending the faith by making counter arguments in support of the faith. Might doesn't always make right.
My heart breaks for the families and friends of the victims, the 12 people who lost their lives and the five others who were critically injured. We must all take this as a call to action to ensure that people of conscience can feel free to express themselves without fear of retribution.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)