- Registration time
- Last login
- Online time
- 3 Hour
- Reading permission
To Seneca and Exportedkiwi:|
Nice to hear your sides of the argument. I realize that we have different assumptions on this issue. Let me explain:
Suppose we somehow steal into Mr. Walton's mind and probably find the following conceptualization:
Since Cafferty's incident, Jim has been closely monitoring the evolving crisis, and deployed some PR efforts to defuse the situation, but eventually he decided that a personal letter to Chinese ambassador stood as the best solution to cool the roiling water down. Then he summoned his legal teams to discuss the drafting details. The advisers put heads together and produced a hierarchy of three versions (in an order from the worst to the optimum for CNN's interests):
1. Tell Caffy to confess his guilt publicly, if he wants to keep his job. Jim follows with the same message via his letter.
2. If Caffy doesn't comply, we can later settle accounts with him, but Jim must explicitly denounce Caffy's bull---- in the letter.
3. If kowtowing to China and Chinese risks losing face among the Western world, then Jim could at least deliberately distance CNN from Caffy's stupidity, and testify to Chinese that CNN and Caffy are two leopards of different spots.
Though Jim tended toward the last one, but he somehow sensed, with his professional experiences and China sophistication, that he can still extract extra leeways in his actual wording. Then he pontificated, "Gentlemen! there is a fourth and probably the best one out there, in which neither I nor CNN nor Caffy need bow to Chinese. A brief one in which I start with one or two appetizers for their knee-jerk ego, deflect their attention from the nature of Caffy's ----, while focus on stroking their grievances." One senior adviser reminded that "apology" or equivalents should appear somewhere in the document. Jim nodded and concluded, "Yeah! Chinese always seem readily content with that crap, then let them have it." Except for a few adviser's reservations about the viability of such approach, all agreed that Jim should give it a shot and see if it takes off.
Then that's the letter we read so far. Sounds surreal or disgusting? Bismarck warns us long before that to retain belief and respect for sausages and laws, one must not watch them in the making.
Still remember, Seneca, during our childhood, how often parents told us the toys they gave us were the best in the world? We may gleefully live with that myth until later in life, but we can't live on it forever.
With CNN, I never dream of getting the best apology, just a decent one.
Others, of course, may settle for the cheapest CNN quotation, but not for me.