George Clooney rejects Daily Mail’s apology for ‘fabricated’ article he claimed ‘incited violence’ towards fiancée’s family in second column
Friday 11 July 2014
George Clooney has refused to accept the Daily Mail’s written apology for publishing a ‘fabricated’ article claiming that the actor's mother-in-law was opposed to his forthcoming marriage to Amal Alamuddin on religious grounds.
Clooney claimed that the article “incited violence” and addressed a number of “inaccuracies” in a column he wrote for USA Today.
The MailOnline, the website of the
Daily Mail which ran the story, issued a written statement in response to Clooney’s piece, in which they apologised and vowed to launch an investigation into the incident.
Clooney has since written a second column for USA Today, in which he rejected the MailOnline’s statement and accused them of “lying” by denying the piece was “fabricated”.
“There is one constant when a person or company is caught doing something wrong,” he began. “The cover-up is always worse. ...
FULL article -
Indpendent
-------------------------------
...
First of all, none of the story is factually true. ...
But
this lie involves larger issues. The irresponsibility, in this day and
age, to exploit religious differences where none exist, is at the very
least negligent and more appropriately dangerous. We have family members
all over the world, and the idea that someone would inflame any part of
that world for the sole reason of selling papers should be criminal.
I'm
the son of a newsman; I accept the idea that freedom of speech can be
an inconvenience to my private life from time to time, but this story,
like so many others, is picked up by hundreds of other outlets citing
the Daily Mail as their source, including Boston.com, New York Daily News, Gulf News, Emirates 24/7 and so on.
The Daily Mail,
more than any other organization that calls itself news, has proved
time and time again that facts make no difference in the articles they
make up. And when they put my family and my friends in harm's way, they
cross far beyond just a laughable tabloid and into the arena of inciting
violence. ...
EXTRACT ONLY -- FULL - USA Today - here.
--------------------------------
George Clooney: A correction and an apology
PUBLISHED: 07:30 AEST, 10 July 2014 | UPDATED: 07:30 AEST, 10 July 2014
DAILY MAIL
On Monday MailOnline carried an article which alleged that the mother of George Clooney’s fiancée Amal Alamuddin would prefer her daughter to be married to a member of the Druze religious group.
Yesterday Mr Clooney said the story was 'completely fabricated' and exploited 'religious differences where none exist.'
In a statement MailOnline said: 'The story was not a fabrication but supplied in good faith by a reputable and trusted freelance journalist.
'She based her story on conversations with a long standing contact who has strong connections with senior members of the Lebanese community in the UK and the Druze in Beirut.
'We only became aware of Mr Clooney’s concerns this morning and have launched a full investigation.
'However, we accept Mr Clooney’s assurance that the story is inaccurate and we apologise to him, Miss Amal Alamuddin and her mother, Baria, for any distress caused.
'We have removed the article from our website and will be contacting Mr Clooney’s representatives to discuss giving him the opportunity to set the record straight.'
Source: DAILY MAIL
--------------------------------
Exclusive: George Clooney rejects 'Mail' apology
George Clooney, Special for USA TODAY 12:04 a.m. EDT July 11, 2014
There is one constant when a person or company is caught doing something wrong. The coverup is always worse.
In this case, the Daily Mail has printed an apology for insinuating religious tensions where there are none. In the apology, managing editor Charles Garside claims that the article was "not a fabrication," but "based the story on conversations with senior members of the Lebanese community."
The problem is that none of that is true. The original story never cites that source, but instead goes out of its way to insist on four different occasions that "a family friend" spoke directly to the Mail. A "family friend" was the source. So either they were lying originally or they're lying now.
Furthermore, they knew ahead of time that they were lying. In an article dated April 28, 2014, reporter Richard Spillett writes in the Mail that "Ramzi, (Amal's father), married outside the Druze faith," and a family friend said that "Baria, (Amal's mom), is not Druze." The Mail knew the story in question was false and printed it anyway.
...
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.
So I thank the Mail for its apology. Not that I would ever accept it, but because in doing so they've exposed themselves as the worst kind of tabloid.
One that makes up its facts to the detriment of its readers and to all the publications that blindly reprint them.
— George Clooney
Source: USA Today - here.
--------------------------------
COMMENT
The story caught my attention for a couple of reasons.
The antennae went up because it seems a press issue that may conceivably impact in some way on UK press freedoms, in a climate where there is a push from some quarters for restricting press freedoms (in the aftermath of the News of the World hacking scandal).
The story also happens to involve a Hollywood entertainer, and appointed UN messenger of peace, who has been active in broader humanitarian causes as well as domestic civil rights causes; a celebrity who may well also be described as a 'political activist' (or at least 'politically active'), by virtue of (1) the cross-over between the humanitarian and political arenas; (2) the cross-over between documentary and political message making (Clooney has been involved in documentary film making on humanitarian/political causes/issues (narration, production involvement & appearance/s in such films); and (3) by virtue of the actor's support of:
"Barack Obama's campaign in the 2008 presidential election and in the 2012 presidential election." [wikipedia]
Judging by the Daily Mail published apology (above), Daily Mail asserted therein that their story was published in good faith.
Is
'good faith' in sources of stories a good enough standard in
journalism? Unfortunately, I don't answer that question, as I'm not
familiar with the common standards journalists abide by.
Clooney rejected Daily Mail's apology and:
- Implied (as I read it), that the Daily Mail was involved in a cover up;
- Stated the original story does not cite the source;
- Asserted that Daily Mail "knew the story in question was false and printed it anyway";
- And, finally, stated that:"now, by their own admission, it can be proved to be a lie. In fact, a premeditated lie".
Clooney then rebuked Daily Mail for exposing themselves "as the worst kind of tabloid".
Well, Daily Mail certainly received a very public flogging.
It remains to be seen if any action ensues.
[Apologies for the inclusion of a string of articles. Find it very difficult not to have the subject articles before me as I type. Even then, it gets confusing with a string of stories to keep straight while gathering thoughts. LOL]
