Fareed Zakaria
1. Fareed Zakaria, a TIME magazine columnist and CNN host, has plagiarized in one of his recent article.
Zakaria has issued a statement and in it apologize for his action.
I basically like what I read of Zakaria's statement and like to briefly explain why.
2. The text of the apology:
http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/2012/08/10/a-statement-from-fareed/
A statement from Fareed
Media reporters have pointed out that paragraphs in my Time column on gun control, which was also a topic of conversation on this blog, bear close similarities to paragraphs in Jill Lepore's essay in the April 23rd issue of The New Yorker. They are right. I made a terrible mistake. It is a serious lapse and one that is entirely my fault. I apologize unreservedly to her, to my editors at Time and CNN, and to my readers and viewers everywhere.
3. When someone has committed an offence and is offering an apology, certain elements must be present in order for the apology to be genuine:
(a) The offender must take responsibility for his action by stating that he has committed an offence.
(b) The offender must take responsibility for his action by naming the specific offence in his apology.
If the apology does not name the specific offence or just refer to a vague and generalize offence, then the offender has not taken responsibility for his action and the apology is not genuine.
(c) The offender must take responsibility for his action by stating the offence is wrong or a mistake.
If the apology does not state the offence is wrong or a mistake, the offender need not consider his action to be wrong or a mistake and the apology is not genuine.
Some people apologize for convenience and all sorts of other reasons.
(d) The offender must be sincere in his apology by naming the specific person or groups of persons offended.
An undirected or vaguely directed apology is not a sincere or genuine apology.
(e) A genuine apology must be categorical and not hypothetical.
A hypothetical apology like "If you are offended by my action, then I apologize” is not a genuine apology.
In a hypothetical, the offender leaves open the possibility the antecedent of the hypothetical may be false.
If the antecedent of the hypothetical is false, then no one is offended.
If no one is offended, then the offender need not apologize.
If no one is offended, then the hypothetical does not commit the offender to an apology.
A hypothetical apology is not a genuine apology.
4. Let's look at Fareed Zakaria statement.
(a) Zakaria has taken responsibility for his action by stating that he has committed an offence: "They are right. I made a terrible mistake. It is a serious lapse and one that is entirely my fault."
(b) Zakaria has taken responsibility for his action by naming the specific offence in his apology: "Media reporters have pointed out that paragraphs in my Time column on gun control, which was also a topic of conversation on this blog, bear close similarities to paragraphs in Jill Lepore's essay in the April 23rd issue of The New Yorker."
(c) Zakaria has taken responsibility for his action by stating the offence is wrong or a mistake: "I made a terrible mistake."
(d) Zakaria is sincere in his apology by naming the specific person or groups of persons offended: "I apologize unreservedly to her, to my editors at Time and CNN, and to my readers and viewers everywhere."
(e) Zakaria's apology is categorical and not hypothetical: "I apologize unreservedly".
5. The statement by Fareed Zakaria contains all the elements of a genuine apology.
All-in-all, a brief but well-crafted statement.
And I do not have any reasons to doubt the sincerity of his apologizing.
End.
