2010 may very well go down in history as the year of the apology. This week, we already had two: Congressman Barton's and General McChrystal's. Joe Barton really needed to apologize for his previous apologizing to BP in what can only be called a run-amok-sentence: "It is a tragedy in the first proportion that a private corporation can be subjected to what I would characterize as a shakedown -- in this case a $20 billion shakedown -- with the attorney general of the United States, who is legitimately conducting a criminal investigation and has every right to do so to protect the American people, participating in what amounts to a $20 billion slush fund that's unprecedented in our nation's history, which has no legal standing, which I think sets a terrible precedent for our nation's future" (Huffington Post). Although he better had apologized for "anything I misconstrued this morning," he preferred to use the passive voice, implicating whomever for misconstruing his words: "If anything I have said this morning has been misconstrued to an opposite effect, I want to apologize for that misconstruction" (Politico). While Barton tried to wiggle his way out via the passive voice, McChrystal was "extending my sincerest apology for this profile" (McChrystal), i.e. for an article instead of for his own words. What both have in common is that they offend the audience's intelligence - which would be well worth another apology.
Tuesday, June 22, 2010
And give us our daily apology
2010 may very well go down in history as the year of the apology. This week, we already had two: Congressman Barton's and General McChrystal's. Joe Barton really needed to apologize for his previous apologizing to BP in what can only be called a run-amok-sentence: "It is a tragedy in the first proportion that a private corporation can be subjected to what I would characterize as a shakedown -- in this case a $20 billion shakedown -- with the attorney general of the United States, who is legitimately conducting a criminal investigation and has every right to do so to protect the American people, participating in what amounts to a $20 billion slush fund that's unprecedented in our nation's history, which has no legal standing, which I think sets a terrible precedent for our nation's future" (Huffington Post). Although he better had apologized for "anything I misconstrued this morning," he preferred to use the passive voice, implicating whomever for misconstruing his words: "If anything I have said this morning has been misconstrued to an opposite effect, I want to apologize for that misconstruction" (Politico). While Barton tried to wiggle his way out via the passive voice, McChrystal was "extending my sincerest apology for this profile" (McChrystal), i.e. for an article instead of for his own words. What both have in common is that they offend the audience's intelligence - which would be well worth another apology.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment