Only White Men Get to Do Apology Tours

June 2, 2017 8:02 AM

Within days of each other, two television stars...mounted separate but similar redemption campaigns to revive dipping careers. At the heart of the issue with Bush and Fallon’s redemption tours is the fact that society allows the most privileged of white men to stumble over and over again, despite the gravity of their errors and the continued ignorance of their ways.
posted by Emmy Rae (43 comments total)

It was no doubt a Very Bad Decision for Fallon to softball the Trump interview in terms of his ratings and reading the room re: his audience's political POV. But putting him in the same class as Billy Bush? That seems like a bit much. Fallon merely failed to ask cutting questions and conduct a hostile interview. Bush was totally complicit in Trump's misogyny, egging him on and agreeing.
posted by grumpybear69 at 9:09 AM on June 2, 2017 [16 favorites]

Well, but I don't think it's only a question of his ratings and misreading the room. He deliberately presented a monster and a tyrant as entertainment. While of course that wasn't the only reason Trump got elected, it certainly didn't hurt. And even worse, Fallon sat there giggling while Trump pushed his "biased media" propaganda. Fallon deliberately was a party to that. In that regard, I don't think it's outrageous to equate him to Bush. At least Bush wasn't pretending Trump was something he's not.
posted by holborne at 9:16 AM on June 2, 2017 [11 favorites]

At least Bush wasn't pretending Trump was something he's not.

The entire media and political establishment in our country is guilty of this, if Fallon is.

Remember the Pied Piper Strategy email? Even the Clinton camp did not take Trump seriously for what (we now know for certain) he was.
posted by turntraitor at 9:18 AM on June 2, 2017 [5 favorites]

I'm not familiar with Billy Bush's career beyond that tape, and I am not sure how comparable Fallon and Bush are in their errors. I am more interested in whether women and POC are extended the option to make a comeback after alienating their audience through bad behavior.

For example, I don't care about Kathy Griffin except to the extent that I wonder if she'll ever have this type of "I'm sorry, please watch me again" narrative available to her.
posted by Emmy Rae at 9:24 AM on June 2, 2017 [14 favorites]

For example, I don't care about Kathy Griffin except to the extent that I wonder if she'll ever have this type of "I'm sorry, please watch me again" narrative available to her.


I find it pretty hard to get worked up over the future career prospects of millionaires at all. That white dudes get to redeem themselves after being shits is just evidence of the same privilege white dudes get everywhere. Using 1%ers to illustrate it seems like it doesn't advance the project of equality too well.
posted by turntraitor at 9:39 AM on June 2, 2017 [4 favorites]

White men enjoy privilege everyone else does not. OK, tell me something new. Skewering Bush and Fallon again for their sins seems like beating a dead horse. I shed no tears for those two, yet I also find no satisfaction scapegoating them for the Trump shitshow. Hell, if anything, the Bush video exposed us to the degree of shit Trump admits to being.

The people who really deserve to be kicked in the balls are the ones who saw that episode, and decided Trump was still a better vote than that snooty bitch Hillary. Line them up, and I'll lace up my steel toe boots for the occasion.
posted by 2N2222 at 9:44 AM on June 2, 2017 [10 favorites]

From the article cited as the basis for the 'statistic' that men are allowed to fail 11 times:

Rose McGee, a professional storyteller, came forward with a powerful statistic: White male entrepreneurs endure failure at least 11 times in their career. Wow. I was struck both by the high rate of failure as well as the subtext of the comment. White men are allowed to fail. But are women and minorities given equal opportunity?

Armed with only a hypothesis that white men have more access to risk-taking than women and minorities, I began to do some light field research.

There appears to be zero concrete basis for the articles assertions. Its a very weak article.
What is the figure for women and minorities? Is this even a measurable thing?
posted by therubettes at 9:48 AM on June 2, 2017 [7 favorites]

I agree with this article, but there is one sentence that really made me cringe:

And therein lies the perpetual problem; intent does not negate impact, and Fallon will seemingly never learn the significance of this difference.

This is such loaded freshman-year-of-college bullshit. If somebody intentionally goes out of their way to harm you, that's fucked up. There's a moral issue there. If somebody intentionally wants to hurt you they probably aren't your friend. If there's a lack of intent and somebody really didn't know your feelings would be hurt, you may still be hurt, but it's so much easier to forgive and to move on with the understanding that people make mistakes.

I don't profess to know what went on in the back rooms of either Fallon or Bush's shows after each of their issues. It's entirely plausible that Fallon's people thought it'd be cutesy and funny to have Trump on because they thought he was a huge joke candidate, and were too stupid to see the ramifications of that. In that case, they're merely idiots who made a shitty mistake (and unless there's data proving me wrong then I highly doubt Trump's appearance on Fallon normalized anything or even helped in the election). If their backroom plan was to intentionally help Trump then fuck them (which, by the way, WAS the plan at places like Fox News).

It'd be interesting if this piece had thrown in the CEO of CNN or whoever it was, who ran the election like it was sports, which demonstrably helped Trump. How's that for intent vs. impact? Pretty sure there was a big piece about him recently, too.
posted by gucci mane at 9:52 AM on June 2, 2017 [7 favorites]

It's also weird how contemptuous this article and some of the comments here are of the very concept of forgiveness or redemption.
posted by Sangermaine at 9:53 AM on June 2, 2017 [2 favorites]

> I find it pretty hard to get worked up over the future career prospects of millionaires at all. That white dudes get to redeem themselves after being shits is just evidence of the same privilege white dudes get everywhere. Using 1%ers to illustrate it seems like it doesn't advance the project of equality too well.

Opening up spaces for wealthy/famous women/POC to get similar treatment as wealthy/famous white dudes allows a greater chance of the very few minority role models that end up in a bad PR situation to get their message out and not be blackballed within their industry. Whether either they or their white male counterparts deserve that chance is another matter, and depends on their unique circumstances, but there is no defense for separate standards for rich white dudes.

> It's also weird how contemptuous this article and some of the comments here are of the very concept of forgiveness or redemption.

Of selective forgiveness and redemption, yes. What is being asked for is equal opportunities for redemption, and that clearly isn't what exists today. What exists today is a media ecosystem that's quick to rush to the defense of certain celebrities to rehab their image while letting others fend for themselves. I'm not sure why noting that fact seems "weird" to you. "Weird" to me is the "LEAVE JIMMY AND BILLY ALOOOOOONE" attitude of some of the comments here because people are daring to ask for one standard.
posted by tonycpsu at 10:02 AM on June 2, 2017 [9 favorites]

I don't care if Fallon or Bush are redeemed or forgiven. I pointed out that the original and supporting articles rely on a citation of a partial statistic which I can't find reference to. It is an opinion piece, and that is fine. However it is being misrepresented and misinterpreted as something factual. Even in the comments on here:

That white dudes get to redeem themselves after being shits is just evidence of the same privilege white dudes get everywhere.
posted by therubettes at 10:10 AM on June 2, 2017 [1 favorite]

I'm sure if you just keep on nit-picking this one line you'll finally disprove the idea that white dudes have massive amounts of privilege in the business and entertainment world once and for all. After all, if this one statistic is wrong, clearly the advantages in both opportunity and leeway for them are minor. Maybe they don't exist at all, and are just the invention of people who are clearly racist and sexist against white men!
posted by zombieflanders at 10:20 AM on June 2, 2017 [24 favorites]

> I pointed out that the original and supporting articles rely on a citation of a partial statistic which I can't find reference to

I don't know that there are that many sociologists out there specialized in studying celebrity apology tours, so demanding a bulletproof empirical case before considering that this might be a problem seems a bit of a high bar to clear. But hey, let's be the change we seek and see if we can do our own compilation of prominent image rehab apology tours to see if there's a difference.

White Dudes
Jimmy Fallon
Billy Bush
David Letterman
Mel Gibson
Hugh Grant
Alec Baldwin
Ryan Lochte
Michael Richards
Brian Williams
Justin Bieber
Shia LaBeouf
Lance Armstrong
Arnold Schwarzenegger
Anthony Weiner

Not White Dudes
Paula Deen
Ariana Grande
Tiger Woods
Reese Witherspoon

I picked ones that I distinctly remember what seemed like a concerted effort for both the celebrity and the media to get them out in public on as many outlets as possible with their side of the story, but there are probably more in both categories that aren't coming to mind right now because I'm not the most astute follower of celebrity culture, so by all means feel free to include any I've missed or challenge the ones I listed.
posted by tonycpsu at 10:34 AM on June 2, 2017 [8 favorites]

Thanks for this post. The privilege of public figures who are white men to get their second act is so evident that having a fall from grace and subsequent comeback is a stardom cliché at this point, a given.
posted by Aya Hirano on the Astral Plane at 10:35 AM on June 2, 2017

@tonycpsu - I think you'd also need to include the list of folks that remained pariahs after a public screw up and weren't deemed worthy of, or chose not to bother with, an apology tour for that list to show anything useful.
posted by zeoslap at 10:47 AM on June 2, 2017 [3 favorites]

Idk, I've made some bad judgment calls in my life, and certainly some bad mistakes. Occasionally I've been too kind to people that I realized later were far more malicious or otherwise terrible than I originally realized. None of that is a good thing! But also, we all make mistakes. Most of us aren't in a position to do this in a way that affects a presidential election, but our mistakes do still have consequences for others sometimes. Finding a path (and I do mean a path, that involves steps, such as a proportionate amount of remediation) to forgiveness and/or redemption seems sensible, and kind, and human.

Maybe forgiveness and second chances is a privilege that's only extended to white dude celebrities right now. Personally, if that's true, I'd rather broaden that circle than restrict it even further. It's okay if other people choose to have different opinions, but I strongly disagree with the implication that people who look for the good in complex people who do both good and bad things are somehow unaware of those bad things.

I guess what I'm saying is - in my view, people generally aren't poopshakes.
posted by R a c h e l at 10:50 AM on June 2, 2017 [2 favorites]

I'm not saying that Fallon is absolved or whatever - from what I've seen he really hasn't done enough to address and (to the best of his ability) fix whatever damage that skit caused (although any voter who was swayed by a hair-touching skit, well, wow) - but I think the notion of genuine apology and remediation is valuable.
posted by R a c h e l at 10:53 AM on June 2, 2017 [1 favorite]

R a c h e l, I'm not sure who your argument is with. The DAME piece is saying that these two men in particular haven't come close to settling their debt to society, and that they're being given a pass for it because of their privilege. I don't see it making a case against the idea of redemption, and I don't see anyone else doing that here, either.
posted by tonycpsu at 10:58 AM on June 2, 2017 [3 favorites]

Michael Vick and Chris Brown have both made very public apologies for their misdeeds and been granted a second lease on their public life. See also: Mike Tyson.
posted by grumpybear69 at 11:24 AM on June 2, 2017 [3 favorites]

therubettes: There appears to be zero concrete basis for the articles assertions. Its a very weak article. What is the figure for women and minorities? Is this even a measurable thing?

Only professional storytellers know for sure.
posted by dr_dank at 11:26 AM on June 2, 2017 [2 favorites]

Sounds odd to try and force this into another "white men are the worst" angle.
If that's your agenda then may as well just say "white men make more mistakes than anyone, so they have more to apologize for."
posted by Liquidwolf at 11:45 AM on June 2, 2017 [2 favorites]

> Michael Vick and Chris Brown have both made very public apologies for their misdeeds and been granted a second lease on their public life. See also: Mike Tyson.

Those are some good ones to add to the "Not White Dudes" pile, sure.

> Sounds odd to try and force this into another "white men are the worst" angle.

How is this your takeaway from the article? Or did you even bother to read it? It's not saying white men are the worst, it's saying that Jimmy Fallon and Billy Bush are among the worst, and they're getting away with it because white men generally speaking get more breaks, even within the rarefied air of celebrities.

> If that's your agenda then may as well just say "white men make more mistakes than anyone, so they have more to apologize for."

There may be some truth to this, but that only underscores the moral hazard of them rarely being held accountable for making those mistakes. If there were more serious consequences for those mistakes, it stands to reason that they would want to make fewer of them. That's kind of the point of understanding privilege. It's not an all-powerful force that keeps you from failing, but a constant wind at your back that pushes you in the direction of better outcomes. The article is just saying "hey, maybe some other folks can get some of that wind blowing in their direction?", so I don't see why that statement is causing such a visceral reaction among some commenters.
posted by tonycpsu at 12:15 PM on June 2, 2017 [7 favorites]

@grumpybear69 - I thought of Mike Tyson too, although I believe he has maintained his innocence despite being convicted and serving time.

Recent apology tours where the results were neutral or negative: Nate Parker
Recent apology tours where the results were positive: Casey Affleck (did he even apologize?)

Personally Fallon's comeback attempt mostly annoys me. I don't think he influenced the election. But, as a result of his treatment of Trump he lost a portion of his audience (and for good reason - laughing and joking with my oppressor while I am at risk from them isn't something I find funny). The comeback he is attempting is to have his audience connect with him again. I think the article about him aims to paint him sympathetically so we forget his previous tonedeafness.
posted by Emmy Rae at 12:22 PM on June 2, 2017 [2 favorites]

Also, Kobe Bryant, who still is, last I checked, one of the most popular celebs in the world and the US's main export to China.

> they're getting away with it because white men generally speaking get more breaks, even within the rarefied air of celebrities

I think it's because the article makes this point while citing nothing. It seems to me that this is more broadly an issue with celebrity - that is, celebrities are allowed to make all manner of mistakes and then come back from them with easy platitudes and half hearted apologies. If this article was reporting on a study or something, it might be more interesting, but it seems like such an easy Hot Take with nothing to back it up that it's kind of just another piece of random 'White men are the worst amirite' content that is so easily consumed and consumable these days.

I mean, this is the headline, right?

All the Rage
Only White Men Get to Do Apology Tours

Jimmy Fallon and Billy Bush were Trump's willing enablers—until Fallon's ratings plummeted and Bush lost his job. Will their disingenuous apologies be rewarded with forgiveness?

And then it goes on to not prove it's thesis or even try to.

I mean I get to this paragraph

At the heart of the issue with Bush and Fallon’s redemption tours, however, is the fact that society allows the most privileged of white men to stumble over and over again, despite the gravity of their errors and the continued ignorance of their ways. According to Rose McGee, a professional storyteller, white male entrepreneurs are allowed to fail at least 11 times in their careers, a rate that is much higher than any other group. That omnipresent feeling of safety and security, even amidst particularly rocky moments, comes through loud and clear in Fallon’s interview. When asked about his tumbling ratings, Fallon remarks, “I never, ever care. I’ll know when someone fires me.” Indeed, there’s no real fear of losing his job because Fallon knows there will likely be another one quickly lined up for him elsewhere. That’s because as a member of the most dominant group in society, his professional safety net has historically been the most reliable from which to bounce back.

So, the cite there of the 11 times thing leads you to no citation at all, and then later, there is an uncritical statement that Fallon isn't worried about his job because of his white privilege, or something. Fallon isn't worried about his job because he's the popular host of one of the top two network talk shows, that's why he's not worried about his job. He's already as rich as he'll ever need to be, and he knows that they can't really replace him.

But then the article turns from that stuff to pointlessly take some snipes at Bernie Sanders and Co., and Joe Biden, in a way to uncritically try to link the two idiots from the top of the article to the people disliking Hillary Clinton!

But then I see the byline and it's by Sarah Lerner, and I am not in the least surprised that this is an 'article' she wrote.
posted by durandal at 12:33 PM on June 2, 2017 [1 favorite]

If this article was reporting on a study or something, it might be more interesting, but it seems like such an easy Hot Take with nothing to back it up that it's kind of just another piece of random 'White men are the worst amirite' content that is so easily consumed and consumable these days.

People would still be coming in here with their own Hot Takes regardless of figures. Indeed, that's pretty much happening already. I could cite the fact that only 4% of F500 CEOs are PoC and 7% are women, and there would still be ways that people would try to come up with reasons that white men are somehow 12x-24x as qualified to run those companies. I mean, you've come up with a handful of black celebrities, and somehow the overall point is invalid. Like, Kobe makes money, therefore it's really about celebrity and not race and/or gender? That's the kind of argument that renders any scare quotes around the word "article" hypocritical at best.

And let's face it: this isn't really about the numbers. In the end, it never is. Even if there had been a study around the 11x number, the argument would then be that 12x is the real point at which it becomes a problem. Or that, unless someone actually provides 11 white men for each Kobe, the statistic is questionable. Or that the study is biased. Or any of a hojillion reasons that basically come down to the claim that women and PoC don't really have it as hard as the rest of us are saying, so therefore we're just picking on white men. This happens all the fucking time--and I can just see someone getting ready to type "But does it actually happen all the time?"--and it's a really shitty way to minimize the problem.
posted by zombieflanders at 12:57 PM on June 2, 2017 [10 favorites]

And let's face it: this isn't really about the numbers. In the end, it never is. Even if there had been a study around the 11x number, the argument would then be that 12x is the real point at which it becomes a problem. Or that, unless someone actually provides 11 white men for each Kobe, the statistic is questionable. Or that the study is biased. Or any of a hojillion reasons that basically come down to the claim that women and PoC don't really have it as hard as the rest of us are saying, so therefore we're just picking on white men.

I have been making it about the numbers only. You are putting words in your opponents mouths with the suggestion that no amount of evidence would satisfy them. I would be satisfied with evidence were it provided or available.
posted by therubettes at 1:18 PM on June 2, 2017 [2 favorites]

Repeated experience with sealioning tactics and the fact that you are harping on a single line out of the article leads me to believe otherwise.
posted by zombieflanders at 1:24 PM on June 2, 2017 [8 favorites]

I really should really bow out now, but I am sincerely not sealioning. The line is pivotal to the article and amounts to hearsay.
posted by therubettes at 1:37 PM on June 2, 2017 [2 favorites]

I don't see how it's at all pivotal to the article, which describes a real and demonstrable problem of significant magnitude. Demands for this one aspect to be quantified is exactly the issue I described in my comment upthread.
posted by zombieflanders at 1:49 PM on June 2, 2017 [1 favorite]

I think a major failing here is not acknowledging that the two white men in question are explicitly MEDIA figures -not just famous people with carefully crafted public personas to be rehabilitated, but folks who work in (soft/barely) news reporting/reality-based-entertainment (as opposed to athletes or actors or musicians etc).

The efforts to absolve Fallon of his responsibility seem, to me, inextricably linked to the entire obsession with forcing Hilary Clinton to 'own' the disastrous outcome of her campaign and the collective failure of the media and electorate to take serious how unhinged our president had shown himself to be. I'm not on team-jimmy by a long shot but I think there is a collective desire to look back and say "we didn't know better so its not our fault" which he embodies.

Bush, on the other hand, laughed when a powerful person told him he was a serial rapist basically, and well fuck that guy forever and there aren't enough bad things that can befall him, imo.
posted by Exceptional_Hubris at 1:53 PM on June 2, 2017 [5 favorites]

"Failing Fallon" seems almost the flip side of the "Failing New York Times". He didn't lose the #1 spot (suffering the indignity of being second and still relatively close) because of that interview, he lost it because people are looking for political content, and his milketoast ways aren't cutting it. If CBS decided against giving Colbert more leeway for harder political content*, I'm pretty sure Fallon would still be number one.

Also, as I've mentioned before, if Fallon deserves being egged on, a lot of late night comedy figures should have apologized for their role in feeding the ego of Trump. The only one that seemed to carry some guilt over 2015-16 is Meyers, who's really working hard on being more or less of a daily John Oliver with his "A Closer Look" series. The others are apparently happy in seeing Fallon take the blame for everything while saying he's a friend and a good guy etc.



* just as an aside, the idea that they could take the Colbert from Colbert and still have him as a great late show host. NBC failed when they tried to make Conan less weird for the earlier slot, and while he's on basic cable he gets to do what he wants - very weird jokes.
posted by lmfsilva at 1:56 PM on June 2, 2017 [3 favorites]

@zombieflanders Look, I think you mistook my critique of the article, or just decided to layer a lot on it that wasn't there. My critique of the article wasn't the one line only, it was the line, and the effort to link this back to the election, and the ignoring of the fact that this is a pervasive problem with celebrity and not just a white celebrity problem (though, it probably is easier for white celebrities to arrange these tours).

Fuck Jimmy Fallon and fuck Billy Bush. But beyond that I think the article doesn't try to prove it's thesis, and instead falls back on lines like this:

And then there’s Bernie Sanders, who lost by 4 million votes in the 2016 Democratic primary, has had limited success in endorsing down-ballot candidates or advancing his agenda legislatively, and continues to shadowbox as a leader of a party in which he is not a member. If Sanders were not a cisgender, heterosexual white man, would we put that person on such a high pedestal? I think not.

Which doesn't surprise me because of the author, and the fact that she posts stuff on twitter like this. This is why I put scare quotes around the word article. Because of the author's well known public views.

Which is not to say that this isn't even a valid potential point - maybe it is, I don't know. But the author doesn't even try to prove it.

Anyway, sorry If I've come across as a willing idiot or anything. I'm certainly not trying to be. Regarding your points about CEOs, I'm not sure what your trying to do there? That is a problem. There's nothing to dispute, nor would I want to engage in any whataboutism over it. It's a travesty and that is all.
posted by durandal at 2:22 PM on June 2, 2017

@durandal I don't think being a public Hillary Clinton supporter discounts her commentary on white male media figures.
posted by Emmy Rae at 2:30 PM on June 2, 2017 [7 favorites]

I agree with the author (broadly), but what a dumb article. durandel is right about the author.
posted by Joseph Gurl at 6:20 PM on June 2, 2017 [3 favorites]

(one reason that I disliked the article is that I was hoping it would give me something I could use to help convince non-believers. It doesn't. That may be more on me than on it, but that's always a risk (inevitable result?) of evaluating a text.)
posted by Joseph Gurl at 7:01 PM on June 2, 2017

Mod note: A couple deleted. If you want to discuss if it's okay/not okay for people to use certain words, that should be brought up in Metatalk, rather than distracting and derailing by making accusations here.
posted by taz (staff) at 12:06 AM on June 3, 2017 [2 favorites]

It's not that it disqualifies her opinion, Emmy Rae, but it does explain why she brings up and compares Bernie Sanders and Joe Biden to the guy who laughed at Trump's jokes about sexual assault and the guy who toussled Trump's hair. In what world are these two things related enough to draw a line between them?
posted by durandal at 8:14 AM on June 3, 2017 [2 favorites]

@durandal I saw that as comparing HRC with Biden and Bernie, not comparing Biden and Bernie to Bush and Fallon. We'll never know if, for example, Biden's role in the Clarence Thomas hearings would have been hung around his neck the way Hillary's Iraq War vote was, but it seems unlikely to me.

Overall I agree with the folks pointing out the lack of evidence. There are probably a lot of Hollywood statistics that bear this out - I know I've read about male directors whose movies flop or inexperienced male directors getting tons of chances to try again, while similar graces are not extended to female directors. Stats like that would have made it much stronger.
posted by Emmy Rae at 5:44 PM on June 3, 2017

That's interesting - because I'm not sure that is necessarily the case when it comes to say, politics. Think Weiner, Spitzer, Abramoff and Mark Sanford to name a few. Maybe the type of "crime" and the occupation of the perpetrator plays into it too?
posted by Toddles at 6:08 PM on June 3, 2017

@Toddles can you say more about the connections you're making? Sanford won reelection and Spitzer has (had?) a TV show. Weiner had a single comeback chance and immediately fucked up and he doesn't seem to be getting any more of them, which is good.

I live in MN and a few years ago one of our Republican house reps (female) was having an affair with a staffer (male) - they were both married. It became public and they both resigned their positions, I believe. Since then I've heard him interviewed as a political expert multiple times. I've never heard of her again.
posted by Emmy Rae at 8:06 PM on June 3, 2017 [1 favorite]

@Emmy Rae - Gasp, you are right! I guess *I* never forgave them...
posted by Toddles at 3:06 PM on June 4, 2017 [1 favorite]

We'll never know if, for example, Biden's role in the Clarence Thomas hearings would have been hung around his neck the way Hillary's Iraq War vote was

The important part is "we'll never know," of course (there are no ifs in history zuh), but these things are hardly comparable...
posted by Joseph Gurl at 3:09 PM on June 4, 2017

@Joseph Gurl You're right. A better comparison would be Joe Biden's vote for the Iraq War vs Hillary's vote for the Iraq War.

Or Hillary Clinton's public support for the '94 crime bill vs Bernie actually voting for it or Biden actually helping to write it.
posted by Emmy Rae at 3:31 PM on June 4, 2017 [3 favorites]