“I apologise unreservedly, particularly to Kevin Pietersen,” Strauss said, as his error became public knowledge. “I am mortified and profusely sorry.”
Andrew Strauss expressing his opinion of KP during a break in commentary as he believed he was off air. Unfortunately for him the microphones were still on and his comments were heard by many ….. millions.
What is Andrew Strauss sorry for? Getting caught “on air” for expressing his opinion of Kevin Pietersen? Or is he really sorry he said what he said about KP? That it was in a moment of anger and it was a wrong choice of words.
It appears from empirical evidence that Strauss’ opinion of KP is genuine and it was not a slip of the tongue. Rather it articulated clearly what he thought of KP and it was unreservedly spoken. The only problem was that he was caught on air and heard by a million viewers of a cricket game.
Despite the deteriorating standard of the use of the English language in public, the fact that the expletive was broadcast is considered “not acceptable” in the TV domain. Ironical when you consider the level of invective that is thrown around in modern films and TV shows.
That is not however the point. The question is, what is Strauss apologising for.
It appears that the problem clearly lies with “getting caught” on air.
Would it then have been more appropriate for Strauss to apologise to the many who are perhaps offended by the less than delicate use of language by him? Quite clearly his estimation of KP hasn’t changed. So apologising to KP is meaningless.
Being mortified about getting caught Straussy is a ridiculous reason to apologise for. What it says is that if your distasteful comments were not made public, you wouldn’t have turned a hair, even the few you have.