That type of language is who Dog
is. If you hang out with street people, spend time in prison, and have a slight education, that's just the reality of not only how you talk but who you are. It's second nature to use the n-word for them, just as it is for rappers, drug dealers and addicts. To them it's a routine, mild term. Prison permanently desensitizes anyone to harsh language. He wanted to insult his son's girlfreind, to let him know of his disapproval, because Dog was afraid his son would end up in the slammer for 20 years on a probation violation because of her influence. He was just trying to keep his son from making a mistake -- not because she was black, but because he perceived her as a threat to her son's future. He's not a racist, but he is protective of his family. If she'd been white he would've picked an equally offensive term to describe her -- to emphasize to his son what he thought of a woman he perceived as a threat to his son's freedom.
So in that sense, he owes no apology. He is what he is. His pandering to the media just makes him seem weak.
So in that sense, he owes no apology. He is what he is. His pandering to the media just makes him seem weak. I agree with your analysis of the conversation, but disagree with your conclusion that he shouldn't apologize.
He used a term he shouldn't have, and his use of it has hurt many people. Even though he could have never anticipated that his son would betray him to the National Enquirer, he ultimately said those words and therefore does owe an apology to those he hurt. However, as I wrote in my column, the condemnation should end there.
Btw, I don't think an apology makes him weak at all.