A Public Apology makes for good PR

Public apologies don't absolve the accused from their actions (often court cases, divorces and dismissals will follow). But they do alter the public's perception, for better or for worse, about someone who has made a mistake. 

In many cases, people are urged to make public apologies for legal reasons, in order to minimize the severity of a judgment or penalty against them. Often, apologies reflect genuine outpourings of emotion and are meant to convey sorrow and contrition to those who have been wronged or hurt. 

It's hard to harbour judgment against someone who has made a heartfelt public apology, except when the apology appears to be contrived or lacking in sincerity.  

A few weeks ago, South Carolina governor Mark Sandford made a public apology about his extramarital affair with an Argentinean woman. It became something of a soap opera: the longer Sandford talked, the more relaxed he appeared in the spotlight. 

When asked at one point how his wife discovered the affair, he replied candidly: "That's interesting...." and went on to explain how he got caught, as though he were describing a scene from Monday Night Football. 

Is there such a thing as the perfect Public Apology? If there is a manual for this sort of statement, I would think that brevity and honesty would rank pretty high. Some celebrities carry it off better than others. 

Elliot Spitzer, former governor of New York, made a short and well-scripted apology last year after being caught with a high-priced prostitute, but it lacked emotion and tears. It was businesslike all the way.  

David Letterman recently offered an apology to Alaskan governor, Sarah Palin, for making an inappropriate joke about her daughter on TV. He apologized not once, but twice. The first apology morphed into a gag; the second was genuine. 

Peter Rose's situation offers the exception to the rule. In 1989, allegations surfaced that Pete Rose, an all-star baseball player with the Cincinnati Reds, was involved with gambling on baseball.

For years, Rose denied the charges and refused to acknowledge that he betted on his beloved sport. As a result, his public image suffered. In his autobiography, published in 2004, Rose finally acknowledged what major league baseball and fans had assumed all along - that he did, in fact, bet on Cincinnati Reds baseball games. 

Many sports insiders believe that Rose's refusal to apologize for his misdeeds has permanently sullied his reputation and kept him out of the Baseball Hall of Fame. 

In February 2009, singer Chris Brown was arrested for allegedly assaulting his girlfriend, Rihanna. A few days ago, Brown released a taped apology to his fans. Many observers wonder whether the apology is fake or genuine. Either way, people are talking about Chris Brown again. 

Are apologies always necessary? I don't think so. In Canada, Natural Resources Minister, Lisa Raitt, made some insensitive comments to a colleague during a private conversation. Her comments were secretly recorded and subsequently made front page news.

Raitt was pressured into making a formal public apology, but here's where the matter gets tricky. Since her remarks were never intended for public consumption, did she really need to apologize? This raises important questions about what's considered "off limits" for a public figure. 

Personally, I don't think Raitt should have been forced to apologize. We all make silly comments in private from time to time, and we should never have to apologize for them, even if they do find their way into the public domain.