How inventive and innovative can one get while tendering an apology which has the feel and taste of a non-apology? Ask Serena Williams. What she said in the manner of an apology has gone way beyond the meaningless, “If what I said has hurt your sentiments …”
What did she say, exactly? Well, I would not want to go over it in detail but in a Rolling Stones magazine piece [1] titled "Serena Williams: The Great One" she appears to have made a 16 year old rape victim culpable in the incident. A classic case of balming the victim. This, from the "Great One". Go figure.
When the usual ruckus reached the threshold, Serena responded [2]:
I am deeply sorry for what was written in the Rolling Stone article. What was written – what I supposedly said [my emphasis] – is insensitive and hurtful, and I by no means would say or insinuate that she was at all to blame.
I want to focus on “…what I supposedly said …” This is a huge step up from “I was misunderstood / misquoted”. It actually questions the veracity of the writer of the article. It is almost an implicit assertion that she did not say what has been attributed to her. The article writer, in response, said that what appears in the pages of the magazine is precisely what was said and it was from a taped conversation [3].
The author of the article, Stephen Rodrick, assures that the interview was taped, and that those were her comments.
My question: Knowing that it was a taped interview, why did Serena jump off the cliff, denying what she did say? Did she think that the readers are that gullible? The fact is she will be facing the press after every match at the Wimbledon, to start in a few days. Will the press be gagged, not to ask questions on the magazine article? The article hints at this when it says that Serena Williams is quite ruthless, does not care for anyone. What kind of freedom of press would she tolerate? Oh, freedom of press is for all those small mortals, and not for stars of Serena’s stature!
One last question: How would the world have responded had the same words been muttered by a male athlete?
This is a stark instance of an athlete behaving like a runaway train. Their apologies are not worth even the few bytes in which they are expressed, so ambiguously, so insinuatingly, so threateningly. Prima donnas of sports cannot be tethered. That, in effect, is the source of an athletic apology.
Raghuram Ekambaram
References
1. http://www.rollingstone.com/culture/news/serena-williams-the-great-one-20130618
2. http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2013/jun/19/serena-williams-statement-steubenville-rape-case
3. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jun/19/serena-williams-rape-comments-what-learn
What did she say, exactly? Well, I would not want to go over it in detail but in a Rolling Stones magazine piece [1] titled "Serena Williams: The Great One" she appears to have made a 16 year old rape victim culpable in the incident. A classic case of balming the victim. This, from the "Great One". Go figure.
When the usual ruckus reached the threshold, Serena responded [2]:
I am deeply sorry for what was written in the Rolling Stone article. What was written – what I supposedly said [my emphasis] – is insensitive and hurtful, and I by no means would say or insinuate that she was at all to blame.
I want to focus on “…what I supposedly said …” This is a huge step up from “I was misunderstood / misquoted”. It actually questions the veracity of the writer of the article. It is almost an implicit assertion that she did not say what has been attributed to her. The article writer, in response, said that what appears in the pages of the magazine is precisely what was said and it was from a taped conversation [3].
The author of the article, Stephen Rodrick, assures that the interview was taped, and that those were her comments.
My question: Knowing that it was a taped interview, why did Serena jump off the cliff, denying what she did say? Did she think that the readers are that gullible? The fact is she will be facing the press after every match at the Wimbledon, to start in a few days. Will the press be gagged, not to ask questions on the magazine article? The article hints at this when it says that Serena Williams is quite ruthless, does not care for anyone. What kind of freedom of press would she tolerate? Oh, freedom of press is for all those small mortals, and not for stars of Serena’s stature!
One last question: How would the world have responded had the same words been muttered by a male athlete?
This is a stark instance of an athlete behaving like a runaway train. Their apologies are not worth even the few bytes in which they are expressed, so ambiguously, so insinuatingly, so threateningly. Prima donnas of sports cannot be tethered. That, in effect, is the source of an athletic apology.
Raghuram Ekambaram
References
1. http://www.rollingstone.com/culture/news/serena-williams-the-great-one-20130618
2. http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2013/jun/19/serena-williams-statement-steubenville-rape-case
3. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jun/19/serena-williams-rape-comments-what-learn
2 comments:
It's not only athletes (male or female) who make this mistake of putting their foot in the mouth... And the apology - yes, it shows the mindset little more clearly. That they meant what they said but...
but what Matheikal? They just cannot admit, to themselves, that they have succumbed the the foot-in-the-mouth-disease? That is precisely right.
This was a particular instance, most egregious because it was a female athlete and it was about rape; and that is the reason for my picking on athletes, the prominent ones among them.
RE
Post a Comment