This article was downloaded by: [SUNY State Univ of New York Geneseo]

On: 17 October 2014, At: 11:47

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Communication Quarterly
Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rcqu20

Hugh Grant's image restoration

discourse: An actor apologizes
a
William L. Benoit
a
Professor in the Department of Communication , University of
Missouri , Columbia, MO, 65211
Published online: 21 May 2009.

To cite this article: William L. Benoit (1997) Hugh Grant's image restoration discourse: An actor
apologizes, Communication Quarterly, 45:3, 251-267, DOI: 10.1080/01463379709370064

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01463379709370064

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the
“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,
our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever
as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any
opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the
authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of
the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with
primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses,
actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities
whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in
relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms
& Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/
terms-and-conditions
 Hugh Grant's Image Restoration
Discourse: An Actor Apologizes
William L. Benoit
Hugh Grant was arrested in Hollywood for lewd behavior with a prostitute. He
appeared on "The Tonight Show," "Larry King Live," "The Today Show," "Live
with Regis and Kathie Lee," and "The Late Show" both to defend his image and to
promote his new film, "Nine Months." Grant used mortification, bolstering,
Downloaded by [SUNY State Univ of New York Geneseo] at 11:47 17 October 2014

attacking one's accuser, and, to a lesser extent, denial to help restore his reputation.
This essay uses this case as a springboard to contrast entertainment image repair
with political and corporate image repair, arguing that important situational
differences can be identified.

KEY CONCEPTS Hugh Grant, image restoration theory, political image

repair, corporate image repair

William L. Benoit (Ph.D., Wayne State University, 1979) is a Professor in the

Department of Communication, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO
65211.

O ur face, image, or reputation is so important to us that threats to our image

I impel us to attempt to restore our reputation. "Image" is the
perception of a person (or group, or organization) held by the audience, shaped by
the words and actions of that person, as well as by the discourse and behavior of other
relevant actors. Higgins and Snyder (1989) explain that "people have a basic need to
maintain positive images" (p. 74). Schlenker recognizes that predicaments can
"damage" one's identity, "adversely affecting relationships with the audience" (1980,
p. 131). Thus, Goffman concludes that "When a face has been threatened, face-work
must be done" (1967, p . 27). Threats to one's image often prompt image restoration
discourse.
Actor Hugh Grant's brush with the law illustrates this notion. His career was
definitely on the upswing, with a new, major motion picture ("Nine Months") about
to open when he was arrested for lewd behavior with a prostitute. Prior to this incident,
he had a generally favorable reputation. The New York Times characterized him as
"charming" (Weinraub, 1995, p. Bl). Favorable comparisons have been made with
Cary Grant, another handsome English actor. Corliss suggested that expectations for
actors like Grant contrast sharply with what we expect from others: "Snarly muscular
and tortured teen types, the Stallones and Depps, are supposed to misbehave; if s part
of their public profile." Grant, on the other hand, is "an Oxford grad peddling a boyish,
domestic charm" (1995, p. 58).
After Grant's arrest, the picture was decidedly different The New York Times

Communication Quarterly, Vol. 45,No 3, Summer 1997,Pages 251-267

 printed his mug shot on page one of its "Living Arts" section. Specifically, Grant "was
charged with engaging in lewd conduct in public in his white BMW with a 23 year-old
woman named Divine Brown, identified by the police as a prostitute" (Weinraub,
1995, p. Bl). Hollywood sometimes seems to be filled with scandals, but as the New York
Times explained, "the misfortune of Mr. Grant, with his charming and even somewhat
innocent persona, is particularly striking" (Weinraub, 1995, p. Bl). USA Today's
headline stressed the damage his action had done to his girlfriend, Elizabeth Hurley:
"Hugh charged; Hurley hurting" (1995, p. 2D). The tabloids had a field day with this
story: on July 18 National Enquirer front page shouted "Showdown with angry
Girlfriend! Hugh Grant How he faced the music," and the Star flaunted "High Grant's
kinky secret sex life." Lane notes that the shame arising from this predicament might
be particularly sharp for Grant "Bear in mind that this guy is English and that he is
therefore liable to be embarrassed by things that most Americans would regard as
Downloaded by [SUNY State Univ of New York Geneseo] at 11:47 17 October 2014

pleasurable" (1995, p. 8). The potential threat to Grant's image was clear, as was his
need to resolve his clouded reputation.
Grant was scheduled for a round of the talk shows to promote his new film, "Nine
Months": "The Tonight Show," "Larry King Live," "The Today Show," "Live with
Regis and Kathie Lee," and "The Late Show." He decided not to cancel these
appearances, but to use them as a forum to attempt to repair the damage to his image.
Promoting his film and restoring his reputation became inextricably intertwined in
this context. As Grant explained, "I want to publicize the film. If s as simple as that.
I don't, and never have, wanted to talk about this business. But I realize it would be
absurd to pretend it hasn't happened" ("Larry King Live"). Each of these appearances
began with questions about the incident, and then moved to discussion of "Nine
Months" and other films (his earlier work in advertising also came up on "Live with
Regis and Kathie Lee"). This essay uses Grant's experience as a vehicle for discussing
the possibility of situational differences in image repair. Specifically, this essay will
take up the question: Does the image repair situation facing entertainers differ notably
from that facing politicians and corporations?
First, I discuss the theory of image restoration discourse, used as a critical lens for
viewing his discourse. Next, I extend this theory by discussing possible situational
differences between political, corporate, and entertainer image repair efforts. With
this analysis in hand, I analyze and evaluate Grant's discourse. To provide a direct
contrast, I also briefly analyze a political (President Clinton's cuts in the drug czar's
office) and a corporate (Isuzu Trooper) image repair effort Finally, I discuss
implications of this analysis.

THE THEORY OF IMAGE RESTORATION DISCOURSE

Several typologies have been articulated for understanding self-defense discourse
in both communication/rhetoric and in sociology (Burke, 1970; Ware & Linkugel,
1973; and Scott & Lyman, 1968). Benoif s (1995a) typology of image repair strategies
synthesizes this material into a more comprehensive theory (see also Benoit, 1995b;
Benoit, 1997; Benoit & Anderson, 1996; Benoit & Brinson, 1994; Benoit & Czerwinski,
1997; Benoit, Gullifor, & Panici, 1991; Benoit & Hanczor, 1994; Brinson & Benoit, 1996;
Kennedy & Benoit, in press). I summarize the strategies available to rhetors here.
A persuasive attack (Benoit & Dorries, 1996; Benoit & Wells, 1996) has two key
elements: (1) the accused must be seen as responsible for an act; (2) that act must be
viewed as offensive by a salient audience. The theory of image repair offers five broad

252 Benoit
 TABLE 1

Image Restoration Strategies

Denial
Simple denial
Shifting the blame
Evasion of Responsibility
Provocation
Defeasibility
Accident
Good Intentions
Reducing Offensiveness of Event
Downloaded by [SUNY State Univ of New York Geneseo] at 11:47 17 October 2014

Bolstering
Minimization
Differentiation
Transcendence
Attack accuser
Compensation
Corrective Action
Mortification

categories of image repair strategies, some with variants. Each strategy will be
discussed briefly in this section.

Dental
A person accused of wrong-doing may simply deny committing the offensive
action (Ware & Linkugel, 1973). One can also deny that the act occurred (Schonbach,
1980; Schlenker 1980; Semin & Manstead, 1983; or Tedeschi & Reiss, 1981). It is also
possible to admit performing the act while denying that it was in any way harmful
(Brinson & Benoit, 1996). Any form of denial, if accepted by the audience, should help
restore the rhetor's image.
A related option is for the rhetor to attempt to shift the blame. Burke (1970) labeled
this option victimage. If someone other than the accused actually committed the
offensive act, the accused should not be blamed.

Evade Responsibility
Attempting to evade responsibility for the offensive act has four versions. Scott
and Lyman (1968) suggest that the accused can claim that his or her action was merely
a response to another's offensive act, and that their own behavior can be seen as a
reasonable reaction to that provocation.
In defeasibility (Scott & Lyman, 1968) the accused alleges a lack of information
about or control over important elements of the situation (Schonbach, 1980; Tedeschi
& Reiss, 1981; Semin & Manstead, 1983). If accepted, this claim should reduce the
blame for the offensive act and repair the damaged reputation.
A third option is to claim the offensive action occurred by accident (Scott & Lyman,
1968; Tedeschi & Reiss, 1981; or Semin & Manstead, 1983). We tend to hold people
responsible only for factors under their control. If the rhetor can show that the act
happened accidentally, he or she should be held less accountable, and the damage to

Hugh Grant's Apology 253

 his or her image should be reduced.
Fourth, the rhetor can suggest that the offensive behavior was done with good
intentions (discussed by Ware & Linkugel, 1973, as a part of denial). Here, the audience
is asked to reduce the accused's responsibility because the act was done with good
intentions. Those who do wrong while trying to do good are usually not held as
accountable as those who intend to do bad.

Reduce Offènsiveness
Reducing the perceived offènsiveness of that act has six versions. First, a rhetor
may use bolstering to strengthen the audience's positive feelings toward the accused
offsetting the negative feelings toward the wrongful act (Ware & Linkugel, 1973).
Rhetors may describe positive characteristics they have or positive acts they have done
in the past
Downloaded by [SUNY State Univ of New York Geneseo] at 11:47 17 October 2014

A second option is to minimize the negative feelings associated with the wrongful
act If the audience agrees that the act is less offensive than it first appeared, the
amount of damage to the rhetor's reputation should be reduced (Sykes & Matza, 1957;
Scott & Lyman, 1968; Schonbach, 1980; Schlenker, 1980; Tedeschi & Reiss, 1981; and
Semin & Manstead, 1983).
Third, the accused can employ differentiation (Ware & Linkugel, 1973),
distinguishing the act he or she performed from other similar but more offensive
actions. In comparison, the act performed by the rhetor may seem less offensive.
Fourth, one may employ transcendence (Ware & Linkugel, 1973), attempting to
place the act in a more favorable context A rhetor could point to higher values to
justify the act (Sykes & Matza, 1957; Scott & Lyman, 1968; Schonbach, 1980; Schlenker,
1980; Tedeschi & Reiss, 1981; and Semin & Manstead, 1983). A positive context may
lessen the offènsiveness of the act
Fifth, rhetors may attack their accusers (see Rosenfield, 1968; Sykes & Matza, 1957;
Scott & Lyman, 1968; Schonbach, 1980; Semin & Manstead, 1983; and Tedeschi & Reiss,
1981). If the rhetor reduces the credibility of the source of allegations, damage to the
rhetor's image may be limited.
In compensation the rhetor offers to reimburse the victim to help mitigate the
negative feeling arising from the act (Schonbach, 1980). If the compensation seems
acceptable to the audience, the rhetor's image should be improved.

Corrective Action
Corrective action promises to repair the problem, which includes restoring the
state of affairs existing before the offensive action and/ or promising to prevent the
recurrence of the offensive act Goffman (1971) treats this as a component of an
apology, although it can occur without one. A willingness to correct and/or prevent
the problem can help the accused's image.

Mortification
Another option is to confess and beg forgiveness, which Burke labels mortification
(1970, 1973). If the audience believes the apology is sincere, they may pardon the
wrongful act Schonbach (1980) discusses concessions, in which one may admit guilt
and express regret

254 Benoit
 POLITICAL, CORPORATE, AND ENTERTAINMENT IMAGE REPAIR
How might the kind of situation confronted by an entertainer such as Hugh Grant
differ from political or corporate image repair? I want to consider several possible
differences. However, I want to stress that I offer these as differences in degree or
emphasis, rather than as stark differences in kind. I agree that exceptions to these
contrasts exist, but believe that in general, this situational analysis holds true.
Furthermore, we must not lose sight of several important similarities in our search for
differences: reputation is important in all three realms; discourse can be a remedy for
threats to image; and although which strategies are used most often, or which are most
appropriate, may vary, the same options are open to all rhetors.

Entertainment Versus Political Image Repair

First, politics is by its very nature partisan, so members of the opposition party are
Downloaded by [SUNY State Univ of New York Geneseo] at 11:47 17 October 2014

prone to attack one another. In Hugh Grant's case, the news media reported on
criminal charges. On the other hand, for example, Bill Clinton not only faces media
reports on possible offensive actions relating to Whitewater, but also the attacks of
Republicans like Senator Al D'Amato, who initiate, repeat, and rehash allegations of
misconduct Hugh Grant did not have to worry that Tom Cruise or Richard Greer
would start holding press conferences to vilify his reputation.
Second, not only do politicians have opponents who initiate attacks, but these
partisans may attempt to sustain how long the offensive act remains in the public eye.
Arguably Senator D'Amato has worked to keep these accusations in the limelight for
as long as possible (the Whitewater hearings are the longest ones in U.S. history1). The
news media report on items that are current, and offensive actions may quickly
become less newsworthy as time passes. Again, Grant did not have to worry that Tom
Hanks or Jim Carrey would harp on his fall from grace for months.
Third, actors like Hugh Grant are expected to read (and act) from scripts.
Ordinarily, they don't write the scripts, nor do they usually decide which scripts will
be made into movies (although they do decide which jobs to accept). This means that
doing their jobs does not have a serious impact on our lives. Politicians, on the other
hand, make decisions on a daily basis that affect all of their constituents. Depending
upon the office held by a given politician, he or she may make decisions that literally
involve life or death, saving or spending millions of dollars. This is important because
whenever a person admits to making a mistake, auditors may think about what might
happen if the rhetor makes another mistake in the performance of their job. Hence, if
an actor says, "Hey, I guess I made a serious mistake" the potential future conse-
quences don't seem very serious. On the other hand, if a politician says, "Hey, I guess
I made a serious mistake" the potential future consequences can seem quite serious.
This means that it may very well not be as hard for entertainers to engage in
mortification than politicians. Of course, apologies are not easy for anyone to give, and
politicians can give apologies; my point is that it may be easier for entertainers to use
mortification than politicians.
Of course, not all actors in the political realm are in exactly the same situation. One
important difference is that politicians have different constituencies (geographically
as well as politically). Furthermore, some political figures, like federal judges, are
appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate. Hence, they never face voters
at the polls. However, this does not mean that reputation is unimportant. Supreme
Court Justice Clarence Thomas's confirmation faced a serious, albeit not insur-

Hugh Grant's Apology 255

 mountable, obstacle in Anita Hill's accusations of sexual harassment Thomas spoke
to the committee in an attempt to undermine these charges and secure confirmation
(see Benoit & Nill, 1997).

Entertainment Versus Corporate Image Repair

The key difference here is that corporations are not people (only by a legal fiction
is a corporation a "person"). This means, quite literally, that a corporation does not, in
the ordinary sense of the term, have a private life. While a corporate official may
engage in sexual hijinks, the corporation itself does not. This is important for two
reasons. First, the corporation can always replace its employees because they are
separate from the corporation. Second, such action may be unnecessary because the
private life of a corporate official is distinct from his official duties as a corporate
employee. But an entertainer is himself or herself alone. Hugh Grant can't fire himself,
Downloaded by [SUNY State Univ of New York Geneseo] at 11:47 17 October 2014

can't easily distance himself from his own acts.

Furthermore, while I suspect problems from the opposition are much more
pronounced in politics, corporations are liable to attacks from competing companies.
Benoit (1995a) documented the cola wars between Coca-Cola and Pepsi-Cola. Recent-
ly we saw the charges and counter-charges from Tylenol and Advil (Greenwald, 1995).
While possible, it seems much less likely that two entertainers would battle each other
in a similar fashion.
Also, like politicians, corporate officials make decisions with significant ramifi-
cations more often than most entertainers. Airlines, for example, are responsible for
the safety of their passengers (Benoit & Czerwinski, 1997). This may mean that, like
politicians, corporate officers are less inclined than entertainers to use apology or
mortification.
Finally, rhetors often face competing goals. A corporation accused of wrong-doing
is more likely than entertainers or politicians to face litigation along with the threat to
its image. Mortification is an option for corporate image repair (and AT&T used it;
Benoit & Brinson, 1994); however, it may be a generally dispreferred option because
firms may consider fending off litigation to be a more important goal than restoring
their reputation. They may settle for a less than optimum defense in order to avoid
providing evidence of guilt for plaintiffs suing them. While entertainers and politicians
can face lawsuits, this seems likely to be a more important concern for corporations.

ENTERTAINMENT IMAGE REPAIR: HUGH GRANT'S IMAGE REPAIR

EFFORT
Grant appeared on five talk shows after his arrest: "The Tonight Show" (July 10),
"Larry King Live" 0uly 12), "The Today Show" (July 14), "Live with Regis and Kathie
Lee" (July 14) and "The Late Show" (July 19). The fact that three of these air in the
evening and two in the morning helped expand the potential audience for Grant's
image repair discourse. I examined videotapes of each of these appearances to identify
Grant's image restoration strategies and found four strategies: mortification,
bolstering, denial, and attacking one's accusers. While his performance was not
identical each evening, his defense was generally consistent on these five occasions.
Given the fact that the situation facing him (the nature of the accusations against him)
had not changed appreciably during the relatively short time period studied here, this
similarity is reasonable.

256 Benoit
 Mortification
Grant committed an offensive act He admitted it, did not attempt to minimize its
offensiveness (although denial, discussed next, limited the scope of the misbehavior he
admitted), and did not try to make any excuses for his behavior. Thus, Grant's defense
includes a classic example of mortification.
Grant did not try to minimize the significance of his offense. On "The Tonight
Show," Grant told Jay Leno that "I've done an abominable thing." He declared that "I
think it was an atrocious thing to do and disloyal" ("Larry King Live"). Later he
characterized his own behavior as "disloyal, shabby, and goatish." Elsewhere he
declared that "It was a very bad thing. . . it was a terrible thing to do" ("Today").
Repeatedly he expressed his concern for the effects of his actions on his girlfriend,
Elizabeth Hurley. On "Larry King Live" he stated that "I have a girlfriend and, ah, I've
caused an immense amount of pain, and if s a bad, there's a crime there and betrayal."
Downloaded by [SUNY State Univ of New York Geneseo] at 11:47 17 October 2014

Clearly, Grant admitted that he had committed an offensive act.

On "The Tonight Show," Grant declared that he wouldn't be making excuses for
his behavior:

People give me tons of, ah, ideas, ah, on this one, ah. I keep reading
psychological theories and stuff like this, ah, you know, that I was under
pressure, I was over-tired, or I was lonely, or Ifell down the stairs when I was a
child or whatever. But I, you know, I think that would be bollocks to hide
behind, ah, something like that, you know. I think you know in life pretty much
what's a good thing to do and what's a bad thing, and I did a bad thing, and
there you have it.

Similarly, on "Larry King Live" he reiterated that "I don't have excuses, I don't have,
ah, anything more to say except I'm very sorry." Thus, he chose to apologize rather
than to make excuses for his behavior.
Grant also indicated that he was willing to accept the consequences of his actions.
Grant said on "The Tonight Show" that "in a curious kind of way I think I, I need to
suffer for this, you know, if s the right thing." On the "Today" show he stated that "I
was always prepared to pay whatever price anyone else would pay." On "Live with
Regis and Kathie Lee" he declared that "I feel I deserve to suffer a bit" He said on
Letterman that "I am humiliated, and I am particularly humiliated by having to do this
last weeks' run of—if s like those monks in the middle ages who used to crawl from city
to city flagellating themselves" ("The Late Show"). These utterances suggest that he
feels remorse and that he deserves punishment. A professed willingness to suffer may
have led his audience to see his apology as genuine. Again, he clearly embraced the
stance of mortification.

Bolstering
First, Granf s decision to appear on these programs may well have had a positive
effect on his reputation. He could have canceled his appearances and blamed his
absence on advice from his attorneys. The impression created by his willingness to
appear on these programs may well have improved his image.
On these television shows, Granf s demeanor was quite positive. His behavior
appeared frank, self-effacing, and genuinely concerned with the consequences of his
misbehavior on his girlfriend Elizabeth Hurley (and his family), while showing flashes

Hugh Grant's Apology 257

 of a "boyish" humor. These behaviors should have worked to bolster his image. Ware
and Linkugel define bolstering as "any rhetorical strategy which reinforces the
existence of a fact, sentiment, object, or relationship" (1973, p. 277). These ideas relate
to the positive sentiments many auditors felt concerning Grant before the incident.
They contrast sharply with the sentiments that might be conjured up in a tawdry
backseat sexual encounter. These instances may be more subtle than "traditional"
examples of bolstering ("I have served my country long and well"), but the fact that
these sentiments and impressions tended to cast Grant in a favorable light means they
had the effect of bolstering his reputation.
First, he created the impression of honesty throughout his appearances. This was
obvious in his use of mortification, discussed above, where he accepted responsibility
for his offensive behavior. However, he also made other statements that suggested that
Downloaded by [SUNY State Univ of New York Geneseo] at 11:47 17 October 2014

he was being honest with his audience. For example, he admitted on "Larry King Live"
that he had been enjoying the Simpson trial. He also confessed that if one of his acting
rivals had been arrested instead of him, "I'd be thoroughly enjoying it I've never, I've
never made any pretense about that" ("Larry King Live"; Grant made a similar
statement on "The Tonight Show"). This is a honest admission, one that may have
enhanced his credibility. One who is willing to admit to feelings that appear somewhat
unseemly may appear more believable. Similarly, on the "Today" show, he declared
that "I've never, ah, really pretended to be, you know, really squeaky clean—I'm glad
I'm not" These sorts of additional admissions tend to create the impression that he is
being forthright
Second, he adopted a modest demeanor. On "Larry King Live" it emerged that he
has made seventeen prior films: "Yes, I've been plodding along for, for ages, ah, if s just
that I've preferred to make failures and now I thought I'd have a go at films that people
actually go and see as a novelty." He praised the actors and actresses he worked with,
without bragging about his own talent On "Larry King Live" he characterized Robin
Williams as a genius, and joked that "I kept hoping he'd leave the set," presumably
because Williams outshone Grant
Third, he continually expressed his concern for the welfare of his girlfriend. He
expressed concern for his family and girlfriend to Jay Leno. On "Today" he said that
the news media: "can go on hounding me as much as they like, but they should damn
well leave her alone. I just wish sometimes that people could see the real sadness, you
know, the media attention actually causes her. If they could see her head hang, I think
they might ease up on the jokes a bit" When David Letterman remarked about how
supportive most people in the States had been, Grant said that "The thing is that I'm
not the one who really deserves the sympathy; it really is my girlfriend and people like
that" ("The Late Show"). He also noted on several shows that he and Elizabeth had
been together for about eight years. Thus, expressions of concern for the welfare of his
girlfriend may well have helped his image.
Grant repeatedly showed flashes of dry wit during his appearances. He
deadpanned on one show that "If s not been my best week" ("Live with Regis and
Kathie Lee"). Later, they discussed his previous work in advertising. Regis asked Grant
if people in advertising taste the products they promote, and Kathie Lee asked if they
believe in their products. Grant replied that "The Red Stripe beer we believed in
passionately." He struck an appropriate balance between appearing serious when he
engaged in mortification and expressions of concern for his girlfriend and family, and
allowing his wit to show through in other statements. These utterances tended to make

258 Benoit
 him appear to be a well-rounded and generally likable person, probably helping his
image.

Denial
As suggested above, Grant never attempted to deny, minimize, or excuse the charge
of lewd behavior. However, on the "Today" show, charges in Newsweek thathe often goes
to topless bars were raised. "I don't frequent topless bars... my brother did take me once,
ah, but thaf s the only time I've ever—I'm not an habitue." He denied that he lost a job over
the incident, and asserted that "99% of whaf s in the papers and on TV is, is simply not
true," which is consistent with his attack on certain elements of the media, discussed
below. However, this was not a major component of his defense, and he certainly did not
deny the offense that sparked the controversy. This denial functions to limit the scope of
Downloaded by [SUNY State Univ of New York Geneseo] at 11:47 17 October 2014

the accusations against Grant without undermining his basic stance of mortification.

Attacking Accusers
Grant also attacked some of his accusers, particularly the British media. On "The
Tonight Show" he drily observed that the British press have "never been famous for
their restraint." He portrayed the media's treatment of his family as very serious: "I
think if s fine to be a bit cruel about me, and in fact it feels sort of right to be suffering.
But when they have a go at Elizabeth, who is a victim in this, or when they, ah, jostle
my father, who's not very well, when on his way to hospital, it makes you hate them
a lot" ("Larry King Live"). The first part of this statement sounds like mortification; the
remainder clearly portrays the British media in a bad light, as callous and unfeeling.
Nor did he convey his displeasure in a shrill tone, which might have undermined his
attempt at bolstering.
Grant related another story attacking the integrity of the British media: "And to
get me to come out of the house in the country, in England, they at one stage, they called
an ambulance to the house. And I guess they wanted their picture but there could have
been someone dying in the street who needed the ambulance" ("Larry King Live").
What sort of person would waste time of ambulances in order to take a picture? These
utterances attack Grant's accusers, lowering their credibility (and the impact of the
attack). These negative feelings toward the media (and the British media in particular)
are welling up again in the aftermath of Princess Diana's tragic death.

POLITICAL IMAGE REPAIR: BILL CLINTON'S DRUG RECORD

On September 20,1996, the Clintons appeared on ABC News program 20/20 (the
Doles had appeared the week before). During the show, Barbara Walters posed the
following question to President Clinton: "Drugs. Just after taking office, you cut the
drug policy program from 146 employees to just 25. It took you three years to rebuild
it and to name a new drug czar, yet during that time drug use among young people, if s
been so publicized, has doubled. Do you bear any responsibility for that?" (ABC News,
1996, p. 8). This interview appeared in the midst of the presidential campaign, and Bob
Dole had been hammering Clinton on the increase in teen drug abuse. This was a
serious threat to Clinton's image and his chances for re-election. Clinton's answer
contained four image repair strategies.

Shift Blame
First, Clinton argued that he should not shoulder the responsibility for teen drug

Hugh Grant's Apology 259

 abuse alone. While he did not deny that he should be held accountable, he claimed that
"I think all of us in positions of responsibility are somewhat responsible for the fact that
we've not turned around the increase in teen drug use" (ABC News, 1996, p. 8; all
quotations are from p. 8). Thus, Clinton tried to deflect some of the blame elsewhere.

Transcendence
Clinton explained the reason he cut the drug czar, providing a justification for his
decision to cut the drug czar's office. "We did reduce the size of the drug czar's office
because when we got there we found that the mission that was being pursued then we
didn't think was a very good expenditure of money." Thus, Clinton placed his act in a
broader context, suggesting that cutting the drug czar's office didn't indicate that he
wasn't concerned with illegal drugs, but that he wanted to fight it in different ways
Downloaded by [SUNY State Univ of New York Geneseo] at 11:47 17 October 2014

(actions that he bolsters, below). Note that he subtly shifts the blame to his predecessor
("when we got there we found the mission that was being pursued then").

Bolstering
The President praised his other kinds of efforts to fight the drug problem: "We've
asked for more money for prevention... We've asked for more money for treatment
and we did a lot more to try to stop drugs at the source." Thus, Clinton may have cut
the drug interdiction budget, but he asked for more funding for prevention, treatment,
and stopping drugs at the source instead of at the border. Thus, he mentioned positive
actions he had taken to reduce drug abuse.

Defeasibility
Finally, Clinton explained that factors beyond his control have influenced the size
of the problem. Specifically, he observed that "sometime around 1990, public opinion
surveys showed that children started believing for some reason that drugs weren't as
dangerous as they had previously believed." He suggested that changing teen
attitudes toward drugs caused the increase in teen drug abuse, not his actions with the
drug czar's office. Note that 1990 is before his infamous MTV appearance.

CORPORATE IMAGE REPAIR: ISUZU TROOPER

In 1996, Consumer Reports issued a report that Isuzu Troopers were dangerous:
instability in sharp turns. The cover of this issue declared: "UNSAFE: The complete
report on our tests of the Isuzu Trooper and the Acura SLX," and showed a picture of
a Trooper tipping over on two wheels. The story revealed that the cover photo had been
taken while the vehicle was only traveling 33 miles per hour, and pointed out that "The
three other big SUFs [Sport Utility Vehicles] we tested... did not show even a hint of
this problem" ("Not Acceptable," 1996, p. 10). The threat to the company's image and
sale are obvious.
Isuzu responded, in part, with full page advertisement printed in the New York
Times (Isuzu, 1996). Analysis of this artifact reveals three image repair strategies.

Bolstering
Isuzu began by revealing that "We were extremely concerned" about the
Consumers Union report (all quotations are from p. A5). The possibility that some of
their vehicles might be unsafe is not something taken lightly by Isuzu. The letter
(addressed both to Isuzu Trooper owners and the public) reported that their goal is to

260 Benoit
 exceed federal safety standards (that they meet federal standards is an instance of denial,
discussed below; the company goal of exceeding those standards functions to bolster the
company's reputation). Near the end of the letter, the company averred that it will "do
everything we can to assure Trooper owners that their vehicle is as safe and reliable as we
and they believed it to be on the day they purchased it" This indication of their intent is
interesting. They did not promise to make the vehicle safe and reliable: they promised to
"assureTrooperowners"thatitissafeand reliable. Of course, they couldhardly say that
they will improve the vehicle's safety while maintaining that there are no safety
problems. They could, however, have stressed that ifsafety problems are found, however
unlikely, the company would correct those problems.

Corrective Action
Downloaded by [SUNY State Univ of New York Geneseo] at 11:47 17 October 2014

Isuzu had not been passive; it reported in the letter what steps have been taken
concerning the vehicle's safety. First, "We have contacted all Isuzu Trooper owners to
alert them to this report" First, the company did not attempt to hide or ignore the
problem; it proactively contacted customers to apprise them of the situation. Note that
more subtly, the letter did not say it alerted customers to the "problem," but to the
"report." Isuzu disputes the allegations of safety problems (see denial, next). Still, it
notified customers that a problem had been alleged. Second, Isuzu contacted Con-
sumers Union, which agreed to let Isuzu examine the results of its investigation. This
indicates that Isuzu is making an effort to gather and examine evidence about the
reported problems. Third, the company "commissioned a review by independent
automotive safety experts." This is another way the company is gathering data on the
alleged problems. Finally, the letter revealed that Isuzu has "promised to communi-
cate the results [of their investigations] to Trooper owners and to the public regularly
and promptly." Thus, whatever their investigations find, the company pledged to
inform owners and the public. Thus, while the company did not agree to correct a
problem—because it did not agree that a problem existed—it has promised to gather
information and inform owners and the public of the results of those investigations.

Denial
The allegation that this vehicle is unsafe is denied in several passages. First, the
letter reminded readers "the Isuzu Trooper meets all federal safety standards" (p. A5);
in other words, our vehicle is designed and built to be safe. Second, the company
reported that "Millions of miles of actual driving experience have given us every
reason to believe that, even under extreme emergency conditions, the Isuzu Trooper is
safe and responsive." The letter also revealed that "Our analysis and investigation so
far revealed no safety problems in the Trooper," denying that it is unsafe. Thus, while
the investigation is unfinished, preliminary results—coupled with past experience
and the fact that they meet federal safety standards—denied the accusation that
Troopers are unsafe.

EVALUATION OF GRANT'S IMAGE REPAIR EFFORT

Although some people would be reluctant to forgive Grant's behavior regardless
of what he might have said in his defense, I evaluate his self-defense discourse
favorably. Several considerations underlie this positive judgment
First, our willingness to forgive someone who engages in mortification is not
assured. Forgiveness is surely influenced by the nature of the act and the apparent

Hugh Grant's Apology 261

 sincerity of the rhetor. In this case, however, while some people would be morally
outraged at his offense, it seems reasonable to assume that many of the people who
might be fans, potential fans, or potential movie-goers might be willing to forgive his
offense. Grant also appeared sincere—although because he is an actor it could be
difficult to be certain about his demeanor. Thus, if most of those people who
presumably constitute his intended audience probably would be willing to forgive
him.
Second, people do not like to admit that they were wrong. This means that we often
admire those who have the courage to accept the blame for their actions and "take their
lumps." Of course, it is not the offensive act that we admire, but their willingness to be
forthright and confess their sins. We don't appreciate those who boast of wrong-doing,
but when confession is coupled with remorse, it can gain the audience's good will.
Downloaded by [SUNY State Univ of New York Geneseo] at 11:47 17 October 2014

Some might suggest that Grant was guilty and therefore he had no choice but to
employ mortification. If so, it would be inappropriate to evaluate his discourse
favorably. However, he did have other options. First, he could have remained silent,
claiming that his lawyer advised him not to discuss the case. Second, he could have
tried to deny the charges (e.g., he didn't realize she was a prostitute). Third, he could
have attempted to minimize the charges (suggesting that they were consenting adults;
that he wasn't married). He could have tried to use differentiation: "It's not as if I
committed murder or rape;" "She isn't, after all, a child." He could have made an
excuse based on defeasibility (alcohol: "I was drunk and didn't realize what I was
doing;" or biological drives: "I was lonely").2
The strategy of denial was useful in limiting the scope of the charges against him.
His use of mortification meant that he did not issue a blanket denial, and the fact that
his denial was limited to certain accusations may have made it sound truthful. In fact,
it seems likely that this particular denial would have been ineffective without using
mortification.
Similarly, attacking his accusers, especially a group not in his current audience
(the British media) is likely to gain some sympathy for Grant He portrayed them as
callous (diverting an ambulance to get a picture). It was wise to express concern for
how the media had adversely affected his family and his girlfriend. Attacking one's
accusers can be inconsistent with mortification, but in this case Grant wasn't attacking
the media in an attempt to dismiss the accusations against him, but in an attempt to
garner sympathy for his family, girlfriend, and himself. In fact, attacking accusers
probably would not have helped much if he hadn't used mortification. Nor did he
attack in a shrill fashion, which might have undermined his defense.
Others may say that his only motive was to promote his movie. Surely he wanted
the movie to do well, as he admitted, but people often have multiple motives. At times
these motives coincide, and in this case it seems reasonable that repairing his
reputation would probably help the movie succeed. On "The Tonight Show" he
admitted that concern for his career was "there on my list of, of, ahm, horrors, but if s
not top of the list, my career, but ahm much higher than that is stuff I've done to people,
you know, I really care about, ahm, my family and my girlfriend." Thus, he claimed
that his primary concern was for people he cares about, and sounded sincere.
There are two ways in which his image repair effort could have been improved
somewhat (although it appears to have been successful regardless). First, it wouldn't
have hurt for Grant to offer corrective action, to pledge that he would not repeat his
offense. On "Larry King Live" he said that this was the first time he'd been with a

262 Benoit
 prostitute, and perhaps this was meant to imply that it was also the last time.
Second, while he consistently admitted that his actions were offensive, only on
"Larry King Live" did he directly apologize, saying that he was sorry. Apparently his
expressed concern for his girlfriend and family, his refusal to minimize the
offensiveness of his actions, his refusal to make excuses, and his apparent repentance
sufficed. However, again it wouldn't have hurt to have explicitly apologized during
other appearances.
It is difficult to assign causality unambiguously to discourse, or to particular
strategies in discourse; so many factors influence the audience's attitudes that it is hard
to disentagle particular influences. Still, I want to note that "Nine Months" was a fairly
successful film, making over $68 million in its first 12 weeks ("Variety Domestic," p.
14), and that Grant went on to appear in "Sense and Sensibility." This means that his
Downloaded by [SUNY State Univ of New York Geneseo] at 11:47 17 October 2014

fall from grace did not derail his career. How much his image repair efforts contributed
to this cannot be determined, but the analysis above suggests that he made most of the
appropriate choices in his defense.

IMPLICATIONS
First, the absence of other people trying to attack Hugh Grant is an advantage.
Apart from the media reporting on newsworthy events, no one had a vested interest
in attacking him. This means that he only had to respond to media accounts, not others
hounding him. Surely this made his defense easier. Note that Clinton had Republicans
generally and Bob Dole specifically attacking him on this issue, and Isuzu faced
Consumer Reports.
Second, in Grant's case, no one had an interest in prolonging public awareness of
his misdeed. Once it was no longer newsworthy, once he confessed, the controversy
faded away. While surely people will ask Grant about this episode from time to time,
this event evaporated from public consciousness, for the most part, fairly quickly. Bob
Dole and the Republicans wanted to remind voters throughout the campaign of the
increase in teen drug abuse. Consumer Reports may not have a motive to prolong the
controversy, but it would not change its assessment unless Isuzu corrected the problem
or convincingly indicted the test.
Third, the allegations against him (public lewdness) may be leveled against
individual corporate officers, but never against corporations themselves. This
particularly kind of accusation would never be experienced by corporations. If it
happened to a corporate official, the corporation could fire or otherwise discipline that
person, an option not available to Grant The allegations against Clinton (allowing an
increase in teen drug abuse) and Isuzu (selling unsafe vehicles) are far more serious.
Fourth, this analysis shows that when one commits an offensive act, it is often best
to employ mortification (of course, those who are innocent presumably would eschew
mortification). Nixon denied knowledge of the Watergate break-in and cover-up, and
this eventually cost him the presidency (Benoit, 1982). Reagan denied that we were
sending arms to Iran, and his popularity declined until the Tower Commission Report
forced him to admit he was wrong and take corrective action (Benoit, Gullifor, &
Panici, 1991). Although AT&T initially attempted to shift the blame for a service
interruption to lower level workers, eventually it apologized and took corrective
action (Benoit & Brinson, 1994). Tanya Harding ineffectually denied knowledge of the
attack on Nancy Kerrigan, and her defense was largely ineffective (Benoit & Hanczor,
1994). Sears denied that it overcharged auto repair customers, and it was forced drop

Hugh Grant's Apology 263

 commission payments to its mechanics (Benoit, 1995b). USAir refused to admit that
there were problems that needed correction (other than its image), and its image repair
effort was ineffectual (Benoit & Czerwinski, 1997). Thus, in case after case, across
different contexts, we see that confession may not only be good for the soul, but also for
one's reputation.3 Hugh Grant is another illustration of how mortification can help
repair a damaged reputation.
These examples show that others are often reluctant to use mortification. When it
did occur (Reagan, AT&T), it was because denial or shifting the blame had failed. As
suggested in the comparison between entertainment and other situations, it is
generally difficult to use mortification (because those in jobs with responsibility are
loath to admit mistakes). However, it may be less difficult for entertainers like Grant
than for politicians to apologize and put their mistakes behind them. This may also
Downloaded by [SUNY State Univ of New York Geneseo] at 11:47 17 October 2014

make it easier for people to forgive entertainers. Although Clinton was willing to
accept part of the blame, Isuzu refused to admit that its vehicles were unsafe.
Furthermore, unlike corporations, Grant did not have to worry about lawsuits
from admitting guilt When Sears was accused of auto-repair fraud, it would have
helped its image to have admitted guilt and apologized. However, such action surely
would have spawned thousands if not millions of suits by auto repair customers in
California (Benoit, 1995b). Similarly, USAir had to fear litigation if it conceded any of
the allegations in the New York Times attack (Benoit & Czerwinski, 1997). Thus, fear of
litigation may have been more important to Sears and to USAir than their images,
inclining them away from using mortification. Isuzu clearly faced the threat of
lawsuits when if s vehicles were involved in lawsuits. Clinton did not face lawsuits (at
least, not for cuts in the drug czar's office), but he did face voters in the up-coming
election. Grant did not have these same concerns.
Of course, as suggested earlier, mortification cannot be guaranteed to improve
one's image. One must appear sincere. We are willing to forgive some offenses more
readily than others. The contrast between political (and corporate) and entertainment
image repair suggests that it is probably more risky for some rhetors (politicians,
corporate officials) to engage in mortification. Still, mortification is a potentially
effective strategy, even if most people are reluctant to use it (of course, some offenses
may not be forgivable; compare Rob Lowe or allegations that Michael Jackson abused
children).
Fifth, Grant's denial successfully limited the charges against him. It is easier to
overcome image problems that are narrow in scope. Grant's use of mortification,
which again may have been easier to use because he is an entertainer, probably made
his partial denial more persuasive. Isuzu denied the charges, but they had a
tremendous economic incentive to do so, which may have undermined if s success.
Clinton attempted to use defeasibility to limit his responsibility, suggesting that teen
attitudes had changed. Barbara Walters reminded him that he admitted trying
marijuana on MTV, which suggested that perhaps he had some impact on their
attitudes.
Sixth, Grant successfully bolstered his reputation. His discourse associated him
with sentiments considered positive by the audience: he appeared to be honest, self-
effacing, repentant, concerned with his family's and girlfriend's well-being, all
tempered with a boyish dry wit—linking him with sentiments valued by his audience,
and consistent with their impression of him prior to the offensive act In contrast,
Tonya Harding created an impression in her appearance on Eye-to-Eye with Connie

264 Benoit
 Chung—of a frightened, dependent person—that was at odds with her public persona.
The fact that her audience had been told during the show that she lied undermined her
credibility (Benoit & Hanczor, 1994). Thus, while one can create a favorable
impression through bolstering, it is certainly no guarantee of success. Clinton's
instances of bolstering were less effectual, because they consisted of requests for more
money (asking for more funds is not acting). Similarly, Isuzu's bolstering was not
compelling (e.g., Isuzu bragged that it met federal standards, but the Consumer Reports
article suggested those standards needed updating).
Attacking one's accusers is a potentially useful strategy, a seventh implication.
Notice, though, that Grant did not attack anyone in his immediate audience. Even
members of the media probably were gratified to see that he was attacking the British
media, not the media in general. Surely use of this strategy, as Grant developed it,
Downloaded by [SUNY State Univ of New York Geneseo] at 11:47 17 October 2014

created some sympathy for his family and for him. Nor did it risk offending those in the
immediate audience. Neither Clinton nor Isuzu used this strategy in their defenses.
Other rhetors have tried it, and this strategy does not always work. Sears
attacked its accuser (the California Bureau of Consumer Affairs) as politically
motivated. However, when the charges of Sears' misconduct were corroborated from
New Jersey, Sears was forced to drop its counterattack, and that did its reputation no
good (Benoit, 1995b). Harding attacked Gilooley, but this was largely ineffective, in
part because her audience had just learned that Harding had lied to them, which
undermined her credibility (Benoit & Hanczor, 1994). Grant's use of this strategy, on
the other hand, was not hampered by the appearance of making false accusations
against his attackers.

CONCLUSION
Hugh Grant was arrested for lewd behavior with a prostitute. He appeared on
several talk shows both to defend his image and to promote his new movie, "Nine
Months." His defense employed mortification, denial, bolstering, and attacking one's
accuser to help restore his image. His efforts were generally effective. This analysis
illustrates the utility of the theory of image repair discourse outside of the political and
corporate realms.
Although there are important common features, several important differences
exist between the situation facing entertainers who wish to restore an image and
politicians and corporations desirous of improving images. Entertainers are much less
likely to have third parties make, or prolong, attacks reported in the media. While it is
never easy to admit wrong- doing and apologize, entertainers may find it less difficult
than politicians to confess. No one is infallible, but politicians are presumably loath to
risk creating the impression that they made a mistake: constituents may fear future
mistakes in their job (and other political actors may be less likely to cooperate with
someone who appears error-prone).
This desire to avoid the appearance of fallibility may hold true for corporations as
well. However, perhaps an even more important consideration is that, more than
entertainers or politicians, corporations are often at risk from litigation. Using
mortification means admitting guilt, which may help the company's image but impair
its ability to win lawsuits. While anyone can be subject to a law suit, this risk is probably
higher for corporations than for most individuals. Corporations (considered apart
from their officers) are not subject to the same accusations as real people, another
possible difference.

Hugh Grant's Apology 265

 Clearly, more research is needed to explore situational similarities and differences
in image repair discourse. The most complete picture of image repair will come from
an understanding of similarities as well as differences in image repair.

NOTES
1
I do not know whether either Bill Clinton or Hillary Rodham Clinton acted wrongly regard-
ing Whitewater. I would think that the most serious problems facing American government
would merit the longest hearings. Thus it seems to me that, while investments made years ago
in Arkansas by the couple who are now President and First Lady may deserve some investiga-
tion, they do not require the longest hearings in our nation's history. That these hearings are
partisan is seen by the conflicting reports issued by members of different political parties:
"Report Takes Aim at Mrs. Clinton: G.O.P Concludes an Inquiry into Whitewater Matters"
Downloaded by [SUNY State Univ of New York Geneseo] at 11:47 17 October 2014

(Labaton, 1996a, p. A1); "Whitewater Hearing Cleared the Clintons, Democrats Say" (Labaton,
1996b, p. A1).
2
These excuses did creep into the discourse as Grant mentioned them and dismissed them. It is
possible that he calculated these utterances in order to plant them in the audience's minds
without actually taking credit for them. I think this is unlikely, because they should have
cropped up regularly if they were planned (e.g., one of the potential excuses was drunken-
ness, which was mentioned only on "Larry King Live").
3
I acknowledge that at times there are other important competing interests. For example, had
Sears explicitly admitted wrong-doing, that might have created serious repercussions for le-
gal action against the company. The point here is that mortification can often help one's
image (even though it might have other negative consequences).

REFERENCES
ABC News (1996, September 20). 20/20. Transcript #1639.
Benoit, W. L. (1982). Richard M. Nixon's rhetorical strategies in his public statements on Watergate.
Southern Speech Communication Journal, 47, 192-211.
Benoit, W. L. (1995a). Accounts, excuses, apologies: A theory of image restoration strategies. Albany:
State University of New York Press.
Benoit, W. L. (1995b). Sears' repair of its auto repair image: Image restoration discourse in the
corporate sector. Communication Studies, 46, 89-109.
Benoit, W. L. (1997). Image repair discourse and crisis communication. Public Relations Review,
23, 177-86.
Benoit, W. L., & Anderson, K. K. (1996). Blending politics and entertainment: Dan Quayle versus
Murphy Brown. Southern Communication Journal, 62, 73-85.
Benoit, W. L., & Brinson, S. (1994). AT&T: Apologies are not enough. Communication Quarterly,
42, 75-88.
Benoit, W. L., & Czerwinski, A. (1997). A critical analysis of USAir's image repair discourse.
Business Communication Quarterly, 60, 38-57.
Benoit, W. L., & Dorries, B. (1996). Dateline NBC's persuasive attack of Wal-Mart. Communication
Quarterly, 44, 463-77.
Benoit, W. L., Gullifor, P., & Panici, D. (1991). Reagan's discourse on the Iran-Contra affair.
Communication Studies, 42, 272-94.
Benoit, W. L., & Hanczor, R. S. (1994). The Tonya Harding controversy: An analysis of image
repair strategies. Communication Quarterly, 42, 416-33.
Benoit, W. L., & Lindsey, J. J. (1987). Argument strategies: Antidote to Tylenol's poisoned image.
Journal of the American Forensic Association, 23, 136-46.

266 Benoit
 Benoit, W. L., & Nill, D. (1997). A critical analysis of Judge Clarence Thomas's statement before the
Senate Judiciary Committee. Unpublished manuscript.
Benoit, W. L., & Wells, W. T. (1996). Candidates in conflict: Persuasive attack and defense in the 1992
presidential debates. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.
Brinson, S., & Benoit, W. L. (1986). Dow Corning's image repair strategies in the breast implant
crisis. Communication Quarterly, 44, 29-41.
Burke, K. (1970). The rhetoric of religion. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Burke, K. (1973). The philosophy of literary form, 3/e. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Corliss, R. (1995, July 24). Hugh and cry: Two weeks after his arrest, Grants takes to the talk
shows and the multiplexes. Time, 146, 58-59.
Goffman, E. (1971). Remedial interchanges. Relations in public: Microstudies of the public order (pp.
95-187). New York: Harper & Row.
Downloaded by [SUNY State Univ of New York Geneseo] at 11:47 17 October 2014

Greenwald, J. (1996, April 1). Bitter ads to swallow: A war of headache heavyweights confuses
consumers and pains the industry. Time, 48-49.
Higgins, R. L., & Snyder, C. R. (1989). The business of excuses. In R. A. Giacalone & P. Rosenfeld
(Eds.), Impression management in the organization (pp. 73-85). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Hugh charged; Hurley hurting. (1995, June 30). USA Today, p. 2D.
Isuzu advertisement. (1996, September 13). New York Times, p. A5.
Kennedy, K. A., & Benoit, W. L. (in press). The Newt Gingrich book deal controversy: Self-de-
fense rhetoric. Southern Communication Journal.
Labaton, S. (1996a, June 18). Report takes aim at Mrs. Clinton: G.O.P concludes an inquiry into
Whitewater matters. New York Times, p. A1.
Labaton, S. (1996b, June 18). Whitewater hearing cleared the Clintons, Democrats say. New York
Times, p. A1
Lange, A. (1995, July 24). It had to be Hugh: The on-screen and off-screen adventures of a young
British actor. New Yorker, 71, 82-84.
Not acceptable: Isuzu Trooper/Acura SLX. (1996, October). Consumer Reports, 10-11.
Rosenfield, L. W. (1968). A case study in speech criticism: The Nixon-Truman analog. Speech
Monographs, 35, 435-50.
Schlenker, B. R. (1980). Impression management: The self-concept, social identity, and interpersonal
relations. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.
Schonbach, P. (1980). A category system for account phases. European Journal of Social Psychology,
10, 195-200.
Scott, M. H., & Lyman, S. M. (1968). Accounts. American Sociological Review, 33, 46-62.
Semin, G. R., & Manstead, A. S. R. (1983). The accountability of conduct: A social psychological
analysis. London: Academic Press.
Sykes, G. M., and Matza, D. (1957). Techniques of neutralization: A theory of delinquency. Ameri-
can Sociological Review, 22, 664-70.
Tedeschi, J. T., & Reiss, M. (1981). Verbal strategies in impression management. In C. Antaki
(Ed.), The psychology of ordinary explanations of social behavior (pp. 271-326). London: Aca-
demic Press.
Variety domestic box office. (1995, October 2-8). Variety, p. 14.
Ware, B. L., & Linkugel, W. A. (1973). They spoke in defense of themselves: On the generic
criticism of apologia. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 59, 273-83.
Weinraub, B. (1995, June 29). Hugh Grant's arrest seizes Hollywood. New York Times, p. B1.

Hugh Grant's Apology 267