George Clooney Won’t Accept Apology From ‘Daily Mail,’ So What Next?
The George Clooney saga continues!
Just in case you’re visiting from another planet, or you are a Brazil football team supporter for whom the world has ended, and you were not paying attention to what has been happening to Mr. Clooney, here is some background.
Earlier this week, the Daily Mail ran a story about George Clooney’s impending wedding to Lebanese born human rights lawyer Amal Alamuddin, The gist was that Amal’s mother would have preferred her daughter to marry someone from within the Druze community.
At the time, The Inquisitr reported what the Mail had claimed, which, on the face of it, was not an impossible scenario.
The following day, George Clooney wrote a piece in USA Today totally refuting the allegations in the Mail story, and The Inquisitr covered that also. Later the same day, the Daily Mail accepted that some of its facts had not been correct, published an apology, and took the article down from its website. Naturally, The Inquisitr also reported that development.
But Mr. Clooney was still not satisfied, so today he wrote another article in USA Today, referring to the apology, and saying, effectively: “Thanks, but No Thanks!”
He picks up on the wording of the apology where Charles Garside, managing editor of the Daily Mail, says “the article was not a fabrication” and was “based the story on conversations with senior members of the Lebanese community.”
Clooney says that is an outright lie. Additionally, he refers to a previous Mail article last April which stated that Amal’s father, although he himself is Druze, married Baria, Amal’s mother, who is NOT Druze. This fact alone could invalidate the whole basis of the article.
As Clooney says,” What separates this from all of the ridiculous things the Mail makes up is that now, by their own admission, it can be proved to be a lie. In fact, a premeditated lie.”
Well, maybe not “premeditated” — just someone who didn’t do his homework.
While George Clooney is spewing righteous indignation by the bucket load, his anger should not be allowed to obscure the fact that much of what the so-called “Tabloid Press” writes, lurid and scandalous as it may be, has often proven to be true.
Indeed, the tabloids often go “where wise men fear to tread,” and in the process reveal facts that would otherwise have remained hidden.
Perhaps there was more than a spark of truth in the Mail article; probably we’ll never know, as the publication surrendered to George Clooney’s defense — or was it attack?
Will it end here? Or will the lawyers get involved and murmurs of financial compensation start to be heard?
There is a well known adage in the entertainment industry: “There’s no such thing as bad publicity.” In this case, Clooney is nominally the “injured party,” so, on this occasion, there’s no downside — for him!
