Here’s what Martin said:
Over breakfast for over 90 minutes, Herndon shared his thoughts with regards to my tweets and why he deemed them offensive to the LGBT community, and I reiterated my apology that — that if anyone who construed my comment[s] as being anti-gay or homophobic, or advancing violence, that was not my intent, and for that I was truly sorry.
GLAAD responded supportively, issuing a statement commending Martin’s “willingness to engage with us around these issues. It’s not easy to sit down with a group that has just spoken out publicly in the way we did. It speaks to his character that he is willing to have this dialogue with us and for the comments he made today.” The organization also said that Martin acknowledged “that his words had a negative impact.”
GLAAD rightly emphasizes the positive effects of dialogue, yet the basis for its conclusion that Martin acknowledged “negative impact” is a bit unclear. Martin appears to be using the same non-apology apology that many under-siege public figures deploy in such instances — namely, I’m sorry if I offended anyone. A real apology never carries the word ”if.”
In another portion of his Washington Watch segment, Martin says, “GLAAD had previously expressed that my tweets were homophobic and called for violence against gays and lesbians. As I said that night on Twitter, as well as to Herndon directly, that was not the case and in no way would I even suggest such a thing.”
In other words, nothing particularly new here. Martin is sticking with his soccer-joke defense, come what may.
Refresher on the tweets that kicked it all off:
“If a dude at your Super Bowl party is hyped about David Beckham’s H&M underwear ad, smack the ish out of him! #superbowl”
“Who the hell was that New England Patriot they just showed in a head to toe pink suit? Oh, he needs a visit from #teamwhipdatass.”