When will @beschizza apologize for to Aaron Sorkin for confusing him with Andrew Ross Sorkin? And which blog will analyze said apology the best?
Creative Remixinâ, Corporatist Version 1.4. Luuurv how the Times refuses to go quietly.
I hereby apologize unhesitatingly for confusing Aaron and Andew Sorkin in the headline, which has been corrected! This was not done accidentally on purpose.
Apologies mean never having to say youâre sorry. Wait, what?
I donât buy it. The world is scattered with companies that couldnât compete when someone else entered the market. SorryWatch doesnât have an exclusive right to this particular niche. They donât seem to understand competition: â⌠the fact that we were there first, and the fact that their new venture could damage our old one.â It doesnât work that way. They need to create better content and outperform ApologyWatch. If they canât they will go the way of the dodo.
Who else wants to bet that this one will end up setting the world on fire to about the same extent as the similarly imitative âJust like wikileaks, except weâll probably tell on youâ venture they set up some time back?
For the record, both of these are predated by the âApologies of the Weekâ on Harry Shearerâs âLe Showâ - âa copyrighted feature of this broadcastâ since 2008:
Just sayinâ.
he called out Mr. Sorkin on this weeks show as well -> http://wwno.org/post/le-show-feb-9-2014 [@41:10]
Accitentionally.
I can never tell if Shearer is joking or serious when he says various segments are âa copyrighted featureâ of his broadcast. But heâs persistent about it and seems serious when he calls people out for copying his ideas, so I guess thatâs my answer.
SorryWatch does not claim to have an exclusive right to this particular niche:
(But suing? Us? Pssh. Weâre not talking legality. Weâre talking morality.)
And they do understand competition:
Sumac and I get that we live in a free enterprise system. (GO CAPITALISM WHOO.) We do not claim to own apologies â weâve always given props to Harry Shearer, who reads apologies on the air on his radio show, and to Retraction Watch, a blog that focuses on science journal retractions and is so awesome I was forced to write about it in Beastie Boys lyrics.
Theyâre making a moral â not legal! â case that NYT should acknowledge their existence (just as they acknowledged the existence of other media outlets that likewise discuss corporate apologies). Since corporate apologies are themselves not mandated by law but prompted by moral concerns this seems relevant to the mission of both blogs. An NYT blog on corporate apologies would be pretty hard to take seriously if NYT cannot abide by basic moral principles. And of course, your âthe weak are meat and the strong do eatâ routine ignores the fact that NYT has a rather large legal team on retainer and if it came to any kind of legal proceedings could simply bury SorryWatch in legal costs â even if SorryWatch had a better case. All of this is perfectly legal as SorryWatch acknowledges right along â SorryWatch is arguing that NYTâs actions here arenât moral which is a somewhat different thing than legal.
One might argue that you donât understand competition as SorryWatch is absolutely legally entitled to make a stink out of this and thus raise their own profile as a result of the ensuing âcontroversyâ. Some might call that savvy marketing of the sort that could help SorryWatch outperform ApologyWatch. In other words, you almost seem to be criticizing SorryWatch for taking your own advice.
OK ⌠now do it in a walk and talk.
I still donât buy it. Of course it isnât a legal issue, unless SorryWatch was claiming trademark infringement (and I think they might have a good case if they wanted to assert a trademark and argue that ApologizeWatch dilutes their mark).
But as far as competition goes, a new competitor doesnât have a moral obligation to credit, or even acknowledge, a competitor. I didnât see anyone giving Facebook a hard time because they didnât apologize to Myspace. Even Engadget, which basically jumped into the exact same blogging niche as Gizmodo, had nothing to apologize for.
But I do agree with your point about SorryWatch using this to get some attention for themselves. They certainly have that right. Lots of people get attention for trivial things, and SorryWatch shouldnât be any different.
I read Sorkinâs ApologyWatch piece on Tim Armstrongâs blunder over health care costs and 401(k) contributions. Sorkin quoted Armstrong out of context in a way that hid what was wrong with Armstrongâs apology. Then he vouched for Armstrongâs sincerity. He buried the basis for discussing the quality of the apology and then gave his own unsupported judgment.
I donât think @snarly and @sumac need to worry about this competition. They understand what theyâre doing, theyâre much better writers than the Times people are, and theyâre funny.
He also mentioned that CBC suspended podcasting during the Olympics due to rights restrictions (and apologized for it). WTF?
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
