In other words, a classic non-apology. The issue is that people did understand the true goal of the presentation: self-promotion.
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?
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.
I am also not a lawyer, but for my sins all of my first-order relatives are.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.