A Rhetorical Analysis Of Tiger Woods Apology

An apology. It seems like a simple thing, but a poorly constructed one can do much more harm than good. It takes skill to craft an effective apology, which is what apologia is. We need apologia because there has to be a venue with which public figures like athletes or politicians can try to justify their actions themselves or have their actions be justified by others. Apologia gives public figures the opportunity to be redeemed, even if they have done something wrong, because of the good that they’ve already done and/or because of the change they will make in the future. The second chance that can be earned for athletes through successful application of apologia is beneficial for a sport because it allows successful athletes to continue to

While normally something like that should have no impact on the sport as a whole, Woods’ popularity, shining personality, and historic achievements meant that any issues with his image had massive repercussions on all parts of the golf world. So, in his apology, Woods employed many of the core aspects of apologia. As Betsy Hill pointed out in “A Rhetorical Analysis of Tiger Woods’ Apology,” Woods spent 22% of his speech attacking the media to make them seem worse than him, tried to boost his reputation “with the discussion of his foundation,” and tried to move the incident into the context of a private marital affair that nobody should be hounding him about (11-12). These choices, while they seem basic, actually had a solid impact on people. Following the apology, 54% of people said they believed it was genuine. However, because Woods' apology failed to make his wife forgive him, it lost a lot of its effectiveness. Despite doing plenty to defend or justify his actions, Woods' actual apology never had its intended effect, and because of that, he never regained the same popularity or approval he had

It also includes works by those who come up with reasons why an athlete is in the right and should be spared of most punishment. One example is “Pete Rose and Baseball’s Rule 21” by Jeffrey Standen. In it, Standen argues that legendary baseball player Pete Rose should be inducted into the Baseball Hall of Fame despite the fact that he bet on games as the Cincinnati Reds’ manager. He claimed that “the deal Pete Rose made with Major League Baseball can be plausibly analogized to the so-called plea bargain that is the routine disposition of cases in the American criminal justice system,” (95) and comes to the conclusion that “Major League Baseball has not lived up to its end of the bargain” (96). By comparing the scandal to a plea bargain, Standen places Rose’s illegal actions into a new context where he knew he was wrong and just wanted a less severe punishment because of his admitted guilt. He was able to make Rose seem like the victim, making the audience more sympathetic towards him. Tactics like this are what makes apologia effective when utilized correctly, and in this case more and more people have taken Rose’s side over the years despite the fact he’s never apologized himself. According to a poll of over 3,900 people on nj.com, 61.81% of fans believe that Pete Rose should be in the Hall of Fame. When utilized correctly even apologia originating from other sources than a controversial athlete can do wonders to