A Christian company apologized recently to a man it had defamed.

Salem Media Group distributed a documentary made by former Christian college president Dinesh D’Souza called 2000 Mules, which purported to explain how the presidential 2020 election results could not be trusted.  It showed various Georgia voters, asserting that they were committing a crime by voting illegally. One of those voters was Mark Andrews, an African-American. The Georgia Bureau of Investigation had cleared Andrews of wrongdoing, finding that he was legally dropping off ballots for members of his family.

Mr. Andrews sued Salem Media Company, Mr. D’Souza, an organization called True the Vote, and other related parties for defamation in October 2022, alleging that he and his family received threats of physical harm, including death threats, as a result of the film and accompanying book. This spring, media outlets reported that Salem settled the lawsuit with Mr. Andrews for an undisclosed amount of money. Presumably the settlement also required a public apology from Salem Media Group.

The media reported this past May that Salem posted an apology on its website; I have been unable to find this apology on the Salem Media website. According to media outlets, Salem stated,

“It was never our intent that the publication of the ‘2000 Mules’ film and book would harm Mr. Andrews. We apologize for the hurt the inclusion of Mr. Andrews’ image in the movie, book, and promotional materials have caused Mr. Andrews and his family.” Salem also stated that it “relied on representations made to us by Dinesh D’Souza and True the Vote.”

Thoughts regarding this apology:

• Offender’s intent: not wise to lead with a statement about the offender’s intent. The listener doesn’t really care about the offender’s intent. The victim felt harm whether or not the offender intended to harm.
• Specific harm caused: Good apologies are not vague about the harm caused; they get specific. To say, “the inclusion of Mr. Andrews’ image…” reduces the offense to something innocuous. According to his court complaint, the movie accused Mr. Andrews of being a criminal, one of many “mules” who not only committed ballot fraud but also joined riots in Atlanta, burned people, pulled them out of their cars and beat them up. (Plaintiff’s Complaint, Para 41, p. 16). Although the film didn’t name Mr. Andrews, his face was apparently shown several times, as was his vehicle, including the license plate. The offense was not just the inclusion of Mr. Andrews’ image, but the implication that he was a low-life criminal.
• At least they didn’t say, “for any hurt this may have caused.” They said, “for the hurt…”
• Relying on someone else’s representations: This is actually another offense, not a defense. It’s rather surprising for a news organization to admit that it didn’t verify the truth of what it published. They could have turned this around by admitting that this was another thing they got wrong, and apologizing for this too.
• Future behavior: A statement describing what they learned from this, and what they’ll do to ensure it never happens to anyone else, would have lent more credence to this apology.