Exclusive: Clooney responds to 'Daily Mail' report

I know it doesn't matter how long it took for him to release a statement. I replied to pigpens post which she now deleted  

party animal - not! wrote:What!!??

This is a flippant and very irresponsible article on one of his 'own'. And he hasn't given it to his PR team. He's dealt with it because it's personal. 

Obviously a huge fan of the Maulonline

PAN, not sure I understand what you're trying to say.

Nicky80 wrote:

party animal - not! wrote:I really like Lainey's take on the statement......


[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]


I kinda love what he just did there. Up to this point, as you know, Clooney has never on the record talked about his engagement. This is the first time he’s referred to Amal as “my fiancée”. And now his family. There’s your hook. And then he gets his say. And, at the same time, he reminds us about what he’s always said before – that he understands that as a celebrity, sometimes he has to balance out his privilege with some compromise. George doesn’t complain the way the others do about the paps, he doesn’t whinge about it like Justin Bieber, he doesn’t create stupid hashtags to push back against it like Kristen Bell. Not until you legitimately threaten the safety of his future wife.
Seriously. Why couldn’t they just have made up a story about how Cindy Crawford hates Amal and leave it at that? 

She is right. He talked about it the first time.....So maybe after all the tabloids got what they wanted....He reacted with a statement and confirmed his engagement with his own words......

but, he confirmed his engagement at the Omega function  (paraphrased, cause I can't find the thread with the quote)  "everyone is shocked I'm getting married"

As far as I remember (I can be wrong) that was a person who quoted George the person who chatted with George on that evening. But we had no statement directly from George about the engagement. it was always quoted by a third person

Nicky80 wrote:As far as I remember (I can be wrong) that was a person who quoted George the person who chatted with George on that evening. But we had no statement directly from George about the engagement. it was always quoted by a third person

I trust your references... I can't find anything on threads any more.  There is just so much of it, all over the place, on topic, off topic blah blah yada yada yada

deleted my post, but not fast enough.   I know the article was the 7th.  I thought today was the 11th.  Blush!

I have been thinking about this ALL DAY.  
so I will post this on a few threads as I don't know which are appropriate.

I feel he has grossly over reacted,  I see no "death threat to his future wife" Or have I missed something, please somebody enlighten me if this is the case.

From what I gleaned he was upset about the religious aspect, being a source of gossip?  
He was assured by someone or figured out by himself, that this could be taken further by partisan factions within the Middle East?  
This would pose a genuine threat to Amal or members of his or her family around the world?

Has there been a definite threat? If so, do we know by who? has some random nutter has issued a threat.  He has not said - has he?

People of the Middle East are today on the brink of turmoil.
In light of the absolute horror of what is happening in Iraq and Syria, I, after thinking hard all day, and assuming that they are well looked after by security up in Como, find this to be an over reaction by a film star I once thought to be a cool headed guy.

Nobody likes to even think their family or close friends could be in any form of danger.  I think it would have been best to keep these thoughts under the radar, this has just sparked the imagination of anyone who wants their name associated with the word Clooney.  Someone in his camp should have said if you are worried about what might happen, don't add fuel to an otherwise damp (fan only) fire. JMO(after a lot of thought)

no i don't think there were death threads.....The wording of the daily mail was just wrong. I mean why writing 

"It says Amal's mother has been telling 'half of Beirut' that she's against the wedding. It says they joke about traditions in the Druze religion that end up with the death of the bride. Let me repeat that: the death of the bride."

I mean why writing "the death of the bride" and then refer it as a tradition to a religion which is not true. And saying or judging other religions is always a sensitive issue. I don't think he over reacted. He had to set the record straight. I think whenever there is a religion talk it is important to do that. I mean look at our human history. The wars happen due to different religions.....

I really think George just wanted to say "enough and shut up".

LizzyNY wrote:Alisonfan - How can it be a two way street? Should George and Amal never again leave their house or be seen in public? Should he never again publicize his films (which he is often contractually required to do)? Get real! The only way this could be a two way street is if George himself kept the Mail apprised of what was happening in his life, and that's NEVER going to happen.

No matter what George and Amal do, rest assured the Daily Mail isn't through with them yet.

Sorry Lizzy for late reply.  I think it is generally accepted that the People pictures, and the DM pics of Amal running errands and the four day running "pap" pics that appeared first in DM, were all staged.  Or am I wrong?

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.”

Does George have family all over the world, or is he being politically correct (we) , as in the combined families?  Sorry.. nit picking again.

This may be the article info he is referring to ( death of bride)
Sudanese woman sentenced to death after marrying a Christian and then freed now blocked from leaving Sudan
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
This Facebook page was created to publicize tthe plight of Meriam Yahia Ibrahim Ishag, a Sudanese women sentenced to death after marrying a Christian man. An appeals court in Sudan ruled Monday, June 23, 2014, that a lower court's judgment against her was faulty, leading to her release, her attorney, Mohaned Mustafa El-Nour, told CNN. But CNN said she was rearrested, along with her husband, at an airport, trying to leave the North African nation.
Print
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] By Bruce Alpert, NOLA.com | Times-Picayune
Email the author | Follow on Twitter
on June 24, 2014 at 9:01 PM, updated June 25, 2014 at 2:11 PM

Inside Religion

• Religion videos
  
• Religion photos
  
• Faith & Beliefs forum
  
• Religion home
  

WASHINGTON -- The Sudanese woman whose death sentence for marrying a Christian man was reversed by an appeals court is being held at at a Sudan airport, State Department officials said Tuesday.
The State Department said that Meriam Yahia Ibrahim Ishag, her American husband, Daniel Wani, and their two young children were detained at the airport, from where they hoped to travel to the United States. Wani is a U.S. citizen.
The State Department said that the family has been released, but left unresolved whether they Sudanese officials are allowing them to travel to the United States.
"They were temporarily detained for several hours over questions relating to their documents. They have not been arrested, have since been released," spokeswoman Marie Harf said.
She continued: "The Sudanese Government has assured us of their safety, and we are working with the government to assure their safe passage out of the country."
This week, an appeals court in Sudan ruled that a lower court's judgment against Meriam Yahia Ibrahim Ishag, 27, was faulty, leading to her release.
The lower court sentenced her to hanging after finding her guilty of apostasy -- renunciation of faith, and adultery. She gave birth to her new baby in prison and also cared for her 20-month-old son in the Sudanese prison.
Ibrahim was also sentenced to 100 lashes. The criminal complaint was reportedly filled by her brother, a Muslim, who accused his sister of adultery, a crime in Sudan, on grounds that a Muslim's marriage to a Christian isn't recognized in that North African nation.
 At her court hearing, Ibrahim reportedly refused to renounce her Christian religion.
The U.S. Senate had passed a resolution demanding her release, sponsored by Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., and co-sponsored by Sens. Mary Landrieu, D-La., and David Vitter, R-La and others.  Thirty-eight House members, including Rep. John Fleming, R-Minden, also signed a letter demanding her release and asking the State Department to intervene.
 The Obama administration and governments and human rights organization from around the world also condemned her treatment.

Thank you Nicky for your take, and you are probably right.  Surely someone in George's camp could have foreseen that this would attract more attention (of the wrong kind) than diminish it ?

If my family were in this spotlight I would have preferred he ignored it, not to insight or make a target, where there was not a target before.  

Using words like "The death of the bride" is a stupid coming from a published article and unforgivable.  

However, I think at this time, I personally would have preferred he issue this statement privately to the publications concerned with a strong legal slant.  To issue it as an open statement has caused more publicity than the article would have merited. The wording of the statement also means that it will be widely published within the Middle East, simply NOT the type of attention anyone would want to draw upon themselves at this time. JMO

@Pigpen, I don't think he refered to that subject but yeah I can be wrong. We have a thread about this woman

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

agree alisonfan but the story was already big and caused too much attention already and already widely published and in the middle east.

As george said

"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."

He had to set the record straight that people don't believe it and now his statement is all over the news the same like the rumor was. So now people read the other side

I think that all of this negativity with George and the Daily Mail could have been avoided if he had given some thought as to how he was going to present the fact that "George Clooney" is engaged back in April.  I don't know if he spoke to anyone about how to do this with family, friends, or Stan, but it could have been avoided.  George is a big boy.  He has been in the public limelight all of his life, specifically the past 20 some years in a huge way.  He is experienced with the press throughout the world and should have figured out that him getting engaged would be a BIG story and an ongoing one at that.  He should also be concerned with how the public perceives Amal.  No information was released about her except very basic facts:  she is a lawyer, she is educated, speaks 3 languages, lives in London, comes from Lebanon, and comes from a Druze background.  The media outlets did not know much about Amal.  But since most people like George, they want to like Amal.  Her  facial expressions at times does not help.  Just smile Amal!  No comment is necessary.  We know and accept you want privacy.  The media outlets job is to publish info.  I have actually read about the violence towards brides and grooms who marry outside the Druze faith on the internet.  I believe this simply was a reporter/writer fishing for info to fill a tabloid.  So now George goes ballistic???!!!  Sorry George, but I feel you have the experience to have had the foresight to realize that something like this could have happened.  A simple 5 minute interview with a trusted media person the first couple of weeks when the story broke could have helped.  Showcase your future wife and yourself in a casual, sweet, short interview not saying a whole lot, but enough to show how the two of you relate to one another.  Show the sense of humor, the caring, etc.  I am not speaking of PDA, just a sweet interview.  Then also delve a bit into her background.  Why?  Because most people see her as a Muslim. Ever since 9/11 our country has a bit of a problem with understanding Muslims.  I don't know if she truly is or not.  But talk about it so that no misinformation is spread.  People will always point out what you or her state in an interview as being what is.  
Remember how George spoke to Barbara Walters many years ago and he said he will never again get married?  That has haunted him over 20 years and has defined his social life in a way that was not necessary.  Blame it on his inexperience or honesty at the time.  Well, here is another big booboo in the making.  If the reports are true that George will get married on Sept. 12 he will never hear the end of it.  An American celebrity, who has been criticized before for his political ideology, is marrying a possibly Muslim woman on the weekend of the anniversary of 9/11.  I don't care if that was the date they first met or dated.  He is not a teenager in love and neither is she.  Perhaps that is not the date of the wedding...I hope so for his sake.  Perhaps he doesn't care what will be said in the future.  But NOW is the time to think about it, not after media outlets let loose about it later.  I have been a fan of George for more than 20 years, but he blew it releasing this statement.   The Daily Mail did not intend to incite international problems, but George's lack of foresight certainly may have helped it along a bit.  Sorry George and others who disagree.  That is just my take on it.

I agree with you on some points. All those rumors happen or better got 
out of control because they do not know her and her family and start creating things as people want to read about her in magazines and newspapers.."Who is she and her family" so the tabloids need to sell it and they did. George is so famous he can't really argue this is private if so many woman adored him for being THE BACHELOR of Hollywood..... I think it is tricky for him....Maybe he thought he get away with it if he doesn't say much at all LOL 

But then again I think doesn't matter what George does the tabloids would have printed it anyway even though they knew a lot about Amal and her family.....or George would have done an interview......Truth doesn't sell but gossip does....

I agree with you Nicky that truth doesn't sell but gossip does.  At the very least he could put the truth out there and most people who do care will be able to sift through trash and disregard it.

But the DM story wasn't about George and Amal.

It was reporting a lie about the negative reaction of Amal's Mother towards her daughter's marriage to George Clooney. Period.

How could George have prevented that lie being reported nearly three months after his engagement to Amal ?

I'm probably in the minority, but I don't think he owes us a damn thing.  I'm on record as saying I think he does mishandle his PR in the sense that he doesn't seem to understand it's no longer 1994 when he first got famous, and he should have/be a bigger presence online and leave the print magazine in the dust.  I would have preferred he keep quiet this entire time, marry whenever he feels like it, and release one photo of the two of them announcing the marriage.  No fuss, no muss, and much of this drama could have been avoided.

I certainly don't think that he should schedule his wedding around the anniversary of the September 11 attacks, simply because his bride looks "ethnic".  Um, NOPE.  First of all, anyone so anti-Muslim they'd be upset with George marrying a woman who might-could-be Muslim-we're-not-sure-but-probably-her-name's-funny-after-all, is not currently a fan of George's  That level of bigotry occurs in the far right Republican and Tea Party, and George is most definitely not their jam, with or without the wedding.  Secondly, even if there WERE fans who would be upset, screw them.  Why should he live his life kowtowing to bigots?  Nick Clooney's son would never even consider it.

I think we need to be clear about something:  AMAL IS NOT A MOVIE HE NEEDS TO SELL TO US.  She is the person with whom he has chosen to spend the rest of his life, and anyone who has been following him for more than five minutes should understand that that is not a commitment he makes lightly.  She is also a person who never intended to be famous or be in the limelight, and while I love to read the posts by those who can apparently divine core personality traits and true intentions from several milliseconds worth of body language and facial expressions, maybe we could cut her some slack.  I would bet my paycheck that being constantly followed by paparazzi yelling things at you and flashing cameras in your face well and truly sucks, no matter what benefits you get out of the deal.

She is not Muslim. Those who believe so should have their head tested.

Ummmm...

So, irresponsible, fabricated "reporting" is expected now? Excused and rationalized because someone had to fill a void of information created by a movie star controlling the information printed about him?

Even if George didn't handle the engagement announcement the way some of us would have liked, how does that factor into the absolute lack of accountability by the newspaper in printing a story of outright lies?

The two incidents are linked only by the common subjects. The first didn't cause the second.

As for overreacting: The threat today from loners sitting at their computers feeding their psychoses with fantasy-supporting internet "information" is as big or bigger than that from organized terrorists. All it takes is one nutjob to come to the conclusion "Yeah, she deserves to die for marrying him," and George's concern becomes reality.

And I think him doing a dog-and-pony show with his fiancée, who was born into a Muslim faith but most likely does not practice it, would have inflamed sentiment against her in some parts. We know what they want us to know.

To say "news" publications are just doing what's expected because of a lack of information is astonishing to me. If there's no information, go find real information. Don't just make shit up. 

George handled it beautifully. If it were me, I would have tracked the reporter and editor down and punched the fuck out of both their faces.

Okay, see, that last bit of hyperbole was an overreaction.

Way2...."George handled it beautifully. If it were me, I would have tracked the reporter and editor down and punched the fuck out of both their faces.

Okay, see, that last bit of hyperbole was an overreaction."

Oh I do like that !   
And yes I agree, non of that rubbish written in DM
can be blamed on George, Amal or Baria....
nor on Nina, Nick or Einstein.

George had to make a statement, didn't he, otherwise all those ridiculous factless stories would continue - good on him.

Yep, and Our Hero has just made both the BBC World News and ABC's World Tonight with Diane Sawyer within the same half hour!

PigPen wrote:

Nicky80 wrote:As far as I remember (I can be wrong) that was a person who quoted George the person who chatted with George on that evening. But we had no statement directly from George about the engagement. it was always quoted by a third person

I trust your references... I can't find anything on threads any more.  There is just so much of it, all over the place, on topic, off topic blah blah yada yada yada

LOL and oh so true!

What I liked the most about his response is that he put to rest almost ALL of the other rumors and false statements out there. And in the space of just one paragraph. Good for him.

PigPen wrote:This may be the article info he is referring to ( death of bride)
Sudanese woman sentenced to death after marrying a Christian and then freed now blocked from leaving Sudan
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.].

PigPen this is what George was referring to in his response.  It's in the original DM article:

There can be harsh penalties for those Druze who marry outsiders. Several women have been murdered for disobeying the rules. Last year a Sunni Muslim man had his penis severed by the male relatives of a Druze woman who defied her family by marrying him.

And I'm sure he wouldn't be too happy about the penis severing either.

I believe George also thinks he does not owe any outsiders (including us here   ) anything even a simple straightforward statement confirming his engagement and introducing Amal.  He issued the statment only when HE felt it is too much and time to shut them up.

So happy Little George is safe and no harm will come to him

Too much drama for me.

LornaDoone wrote:What I liked the most about his response is that he put to rest almost ALL of the other rumors and false statements out there.  And in the space of just one paragraph. Good for him.

True almost all...He did not deny the rumor about a "September" wedding or if it's this year at all LOL.....SHAME ...doesn't he know I want to know   

Maybe the press gets so wild as they think it is all happening in few weeks......

I think the article makes it sound more dramatic as it is but as I posted already above if it comes to religion it can become an issue very fast.

Sadly, George Clooney Druze conversion story could have serious consequences


CHARLOTTE, N.C., July 9, 2014 — The story that George Clooney might be forced to convert to the Druze faith in order to marry his Druze fiancée at first seemed to have a humorous focus.


It was big news several months ago when one of Hollywood’s most eligible bachelors announced that he had found his “perfect 10” and would enter the world of matrimony.


So it was not surprising when United Kingdom publication “The Daily Mail” printed a story — since taken down — that Clooney had overlooked the fact his future 37-year old wife comes from an Orthodox Lebanese Druze family which forbids marriage with outsiders. The Druze sect is an ancient offshoot of Islam.


Ironically, Amal Alamuddin, Clooney’s fiancée, is a noted British human-rights attorney.


According to the now discredited story published in The Mail, Amal’s mother, Baria, “is unhappy with the pending marriage and is not impressed with Clooney’s credentials and high profile image throughout the world.”


That’s where the lighter side of the story ends however, and the serious overtones take over. The family may not have a problem, but other faithful might.


Clooney has vehemently responded to the article in a statement to “USA Today” saying, “I want to speak to the irresponsibility of Monday’s Daily Mail report. I seldom respond to tabloids, unless it involves someone else and their safety or well being. The Daily Mail has printed a completely fabricated story about my fiancée’s mother opposing our marriage for religious reasons.


“None of the story is factually true. Amal’s mother is not Druze. She has not been to Beirut since Amal and I have been dating, and she is in no way against the marriage.”
The Mail cited unnamed family members as its source and said that Amal’s mother has been telling “half of Beirut” that she is against the wedding.


Clooney is correct in his apprehension about potential danger for himself, Amal and/or Amal’s family. He wrote of the Daily Mail article, “It says Amal’s mother has been telling ‘half of Beirut’ that she’s against the wedding. It says they joke about traditions in the Druze religion that end up with the death of the bride. Let me repeat that: the death of the bride.”


Though Druze is an ancient sect where intermarriage usually results in excommunication and social boycott, the current turmoil in the Middle East sets the stage for a dangerous environment for someone as prominent as Clooney.


Consider that Meriam Ibrahim, a Sudanese woman married to an American, remains in custody in Sudan despite having her death sentence for apostasy recently overturned. Ibrahim has been attempting to leave the African nation for more than a month since her sentence was reversed.


At the same time, Ibrahim was sentenced to 100 lashes for having sexual relations with a non-Muslim man despite the fact that he is her husband.


Clooney’s situation with Amal Alamuddin is virtually the same, and, given Clooney’s notoriety, it is not beyond the realm of comprehension that extremists could use that fame to gain worldwide attention through some act of violence.


In the past, Clooney has stated, “I don’t believe in heaven and hell. I don’t know if I believe in God. All I know is that as an individual, I won’t allow this life — the only thing I know to exist — to be wasted.”


One of Clooney’s primary concerns is that so many other media outlets picked up on the story after it broke, which, in a sense, incrementally increases the danger for the star and his future family.


This is not the first time The Mail has fabricated stories according to Clooney, but “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. They must be so very proud.”


For the moment, the ramifications regarding the possibilities of a serious incident are speculative, but for Clooney the potential for threats are real. Jihadists incidents have occurred throughout the world for far less notoriety than doing harm to a famous Western celebrity.


Perhaps the media would be wise to focus more on the reality Islamic jihad and the consequences of that reality rather than potentially dangerous methods to sell papers in a world gone mad.
 
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Mailonline are continuing to show this:


[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]


Excellent work, George! Oh, and the feature on ABC News last night was headed in large caps 'FAMILY FIRST'


George Clooney: A correction and an apology


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.'

No difference in the text.

Great article in Slate.com


[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Page 1 from Slate....


George Clooney Is Right About the Daily Mail

The world’s most popular online newspaper does not deserve to be taken seriously.
By Will Oremus

Not just a pretty face—a sorely needed media watchdog, too.

Photo by Alessandro Bianchi/Reuters

The Mail Online is by some measures the world’s most popular online newspaper. It is also shameless—a grotesque compendium of sensational tabloid stories, unverified viral memes, anonymously sourced gossip, thinly veiled sexism, prurient clickbait, and hypocritical moralizing.

Its shenanigans are well-known to Brits, some 4 million of whom regularly read the Mail Online’s print-newspaper progenitor, the Daily Mail. But it took a Hollywood actor to bring the paper’s habitual irresponsibility into the American klieg lights.

Let’s take potent media criticism where we can get it. George Clooney may not be a journalist, but he played one on the big screen. And his diatribe against the Mail, published Wednesday in USA Today, is the sort of righteous broadside that would have made Edward R. Murrow proud.


Ladies and gentlemen, your Daily Mail.
Screenshot

The actor’s outburst was prompted by a piece (now deleted) that ran in the Mail Online on Monday and the Daily Mail on Tuesday morning. Citing unnamed family members and “Lebanese friends,” the paper reported that Baria Alamuddin, the mother of Clooney’s fiancée, Amal Alamuddin, vehemently opposed the couple’s marriage on religious grounds. Baria Alamuddin had been “telling half of Beirut” that her daughter ought to marry someone from her own Druze faith instead, according to the Mail’s story.

One problem, Clooney said: “Amal’s mother is not Druze.” Another problem: “She has not been to Beirut since Amal and I have been dating, and she is in no way against the marriage.” But that wasn’t the worst of it. As the Washington Post points out, the part of the Mail story that pushed Clooney past the brink was this:

There can be harsh penalties for those Druze who marry outsiders. Several women have been murdered for disobeying the rules. Last year a Sunni Muslim man had his penis severed by the male relatives of a Druze woman who defied her family by marrying him.
The friend added: “There have a been a few jokes in the family about the same thing happening to George!”
The joke, in case it wasn’t clear, is that the Druze sometimes assassinate people like Alamuddin and Clooney. Ha-ha?

In USA Today, Clooney responded with a smackdown so tautly worded and so richly deserved that it has resonated around the Internet. The op-ed is worth reading in full, but here’s an excerpt:

I’m, of course, used to the Daily Mail making up stories—they do it several times a week—and I don’t care. If they fabricate stories of Amal being pregnant, or that the marriage will take place on the set of Downton Abbey, or that I'm running for office, or any number of idiotic stories that they sit at their computers and invent, I don't care.

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.
Just because a website has a print newspaper attached to it doesn’t mean it checks its facts—or cares whether they’re true.

Clooney goes on to point out what I think is really the most insidious thing about the Mail Online:
For some reason, other news outlets around the Web (mostly outside of its native U.K.) routinely cite the site’s reporting as though it were a credible news source rather than a shameless, traffic-whoring gossip factory.

In this case, Clooney calls out Boston.com, the New York Daily News, Gulf News, and Emirates 24/7 among those that picked up the Mail’s story suggesting that Clooney or his fiancée might be fair game for religious violence.
(The New York Daily News, it’s worth noting, has seen its own traffic soar after hiring a former Mail editor to remake its website in the Mail Online’s image.) There were plenty of other accomplices. Together they ensured that the Mail’s story reached far more readers than the Mail alone ever could.

SINGLE PAGE
1
2
NEXT

Page 2 from Slate



George Clooney Is Right About the Daily Mail

The world’s most popular online newspaper does not deserve to be taken seriously.
By Will Oremus
(Continued from Page 1)

Memo to my fellow reporters: Just because a website has a print newspaper attached to it doesn’t mean it checks its facts—or particularly cares whether or not they’re true.

To be clear, all journalists get things wrong sometimes. I get things wrong sometimes. But that shouldn’t prohibit us from pointing out that the Mail Online in particular is developing quite a pattern of getting things wrong and then failing to transparently correct them.

In one revealing instance, the Mail Online couldn’t even explain how a made-up story—concisely headlined “Dentist pulled out ALL boyfriend’s teeth after he dumped her (and new girlfriend leaves him because of his empty mouth)”—made it onto the site. “I’ve drawn a bit of a blank,” a Mail Online journalist told MSNBC.com when asked where the story came from. That didn’t stop the fake story from spreading to sites ranging from Yahoo News to the Huffington Post to the Los Angeles Times. At least those outlets ran updates admitting their errors and correcting the record. When the Mail Online is publicly confronted with evidence that it botched a story, this is usually all it leaves behind:


The list of ridiculous Mail stories is so long that it has inspired a hit YouTube song and filled listicles on BuzzFeed and the Huffington Post. In 2012 the paper won a prize for “worst science article” for a story headlined “Just ONE cannabis joint ‘can cause psychiatric episodes similar to schizophrenia’ as well as damaging memory.”

The site’s laissez-faire approach to the truth is compounded by its nasty penchant for playing on racial, religious, and sexual stereotypes and phobias—one it appears to have inherited from the print Daily Mail. That paper’s 1993 headline for a story about a controversial study that claimed to identify the genetic roots of homosexuality—“Abortion hope after ‘gay genes’ finding”—is only one of the more infamous examples. In 2009 it used the occasion of a gay pop singer’s death to insinuate that homosexual relationships are unnatural.

Last year a transgender schoolteacher committed suicide after being hounded by the press, including a Daily Mail columnist who wrote a column headlined “He’s not only in the wrong body … he’s in the wrong job.”

In an ideal world, the mainstream media and the public would treat Mail exclusives like they treat exclusive reports from TMZ or the National Enquirer. They might well be true, but they’re best viewed as unverified rumors until they can be independently confirmed. But for better and worse, the Web and social media have blurred the lines between reputable news organizations and tabloids, and the Mail has profited handsomely from the confusion.

I have no special insight into the facts behind the Clooney story. But the Mail’s public response to the actor’s op-ed is telling. It swiftly apologized to Clooney on Wednesday and removed the story from its website. In a statement, it added, “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.”

Top Comment

One thing as predictable as the sunrise was that some posters would be saying they thought Clooney was talking not about the Daily Mail but Slate. How lame.

The show of contrition seems laudable. But more careful news organizations would be shocked by allegations like Clooney’s, and their first priority would be to go to their reporters and editors and find out what happened. The Mail story’s immediate removal—before the paper even begins its promised “full investigation” into the facts—implies that its leaders have no trouble believing that what it printed was essentially a pack of falsehoods.

It isn’t that the Mail sets out to get things wrong. It’s just that, when your mission is to attract page-views at any cost, you do so with the understanding that the truth may be collateral damage. The self-described gossip site Gawker, to its credit, has openly grappled with the consequences of this tradeoff. (Gawker, for the record, is another online-only media outlet that displays far more allegiance to the facts than the Mail.) The Mail has not.

Good for Clooney for calling it out—and for naming some of the sites that picked up the story without checking it out.
Publicly shaming bad journalism may not deter an inveterate offender like the Mail, but at least maybe it will make the rest of us think twice before trusting it.

Will Oremus is Slate's senior technology writer.
Email him at [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
or follow him on Twitter.

The Slate article is brilliant. Maybe the best thing to come out of this is the much needed discussion of journalistic ethics. It seems George has done it again - he has brought an important issue to the public's attention. He should be very proud. Let's hope it has some real effect.

Trouble is, he'll probably be hounded for it now.
But as long as his people don't get hurt,
he won't give a flying fuck about that !

  

Jo - You may be right, but I don't think the repercussions will be that bad. He's known as an all-around nice guy, and he does have some power in the industry, so most of the media don't want to hurt him. Most of the coverage of the story, and there has been a lot, seems to be in his favor .

My favorite response was Jenny McCarthy actually apologising to George on air on The View for reporting the story without checking the facts. Good for her! Who knew she was so responsible?

I think, at least short-term, the media will be a little more careful about what they put out there.

Yikes... I'm beginning to feel like I'm back in college, only this time a political science major. I'm too old to pull all- nighters studying  ( please note, I said  studying,  anything else.. bring it on baby!!)

Never too old for anything else Pigpen!

Looks like the Daily and the like will now have to stick to photos of her shoes/jumpsuits otherwise they will incur Georges wrath.

I may be totally off base, but I think that some of the rags may want to play nice now to give "real" stories about George and Amal, so that maybe they'll get some exclusives?

Mel - Anything's possible, although I think there are only a few that George would go to anyway. I guess we'll see soon enough.

Could one of them be...???????????????????????????

Mel- Could be!  

This isn't about just George and Amal, it is about the journalist ethics, their motives and such, it made rounds on Twitter and I haven't   seen negative comments about it yet, ppl care about the big picture, not about the small details which are not important..