The Beat: Apologizing behind the curtain of the ‘Net

This week, Chris Brown said he was sorry.

Not on MTV, where a conversation with a reasonably competent correspondent might have forced him to acknowledge his position as a role model to millions of young music fans.

Not on "Dateline," where Ann Curry might have shot him some pointed questions about domestic abuse.

And not on the gentlest of grounds -- Ellen, Oprah or Tyra -- because those ladies have taken their softballs on summer vacation.

Nope. Brown's first public mea culpa for roughing up ex-girlfriend Rihanna in February came in a nondescript video posted on his Web site.

In it, the singer, wearing a Michael Jackson-esque red shirt, looks remorseful while reading statements about his sadness and shame off a TelePrompTer (you can tell because he isn't looking directly at the camera).

Brilliant or spineless?

I vote for the latter.

You want to apologize for losing your temper in the ugliest of ways? Then sit down with Meredith Vieira or any newspaper, answer uncomfortable questions and be completely accountable.

Simply taking to the Web to release a one-sided, no-follow-up-questions-allowed is nothing more than a vain attempt to elicit public sympathy. And based on admittedly unscientific instant polls on pop-culture magazine sites such as Entertainment Weekly and Us Weekly, the public isn't buying it. As of yesterday morning, 72 percent of Us Weekly voters said they didn't believe Brown's apology was sincere, while EW's stats showed 78 percent of readers claiming they would not buy his music again.

Brown's DIY approach is but one example of how the Web and every social-media outlet is allowing the celebrity contingent to behave like unsupervised children. Much like most bloggers don't have editors to vet their stories for accuracy and truthfulness, so can today's stars rattle off what they want you to hear, while conveniently ducking any topics that don't fit their agenda.

Also using the media as a weapon this week -- albeit in an all-encompassing manner -- was Paula Abdul's manager David Sonenberg, who decided the best way to negotiate a new contract for his client was to do it publicly.

It began with Sonenberg telling a traditional media outlet the Los Angeles Times -- Abdul's tale of woe that she had not yet received a proposal heading into the ninth season of "American Idol" and that the situation was "unnecessarily hurtful."

Crafty move, Mr. Sonenberg.

By insinuating that the show's daffy -- but eminently likeable -- judge might not be back, thus disrupting the original holy trinity of the judging dais, it spurred the blogosphere to put on its superhero capes and frantically Tweet to #KeepPaula (in Twitter speak).

Who knows what demands Abdul might be making, but the specifics hardly matter to some in the Internet community. All they hear is that the silly-sweet judge might get the boot and that's enough to set off a frenzy designed to shame "Idol"'s production company, FremantleMedia, into action.

Ironic, isn't it, that the TV networks spend so much time cultivating an interactive multimedia presence -- follow Seacrest on Twitter! Go to Fox.com for a list of "Idol" tour dates! Text your vote to IDOL007! and then that same technology winds up snapping their fingers off when used to spread unwanted publicity.

As of press time, Abdul has been mum. Nor has anyone heard from Sonenberg since his whine to the Times.

But neither of them needs to say another word. The Internet community did the talking for them.

Contact Melissa Ruggieri at (804) 649-6120 or .