George Clooney called The Daily Mail on it, and won. At least won some kind of apology before the editors went into hiding.
Most everyone took, as fact, the story (which you'll find posted here a while ago) about his soon-to-be mother-in-law grumbling that he's not Muslim or a Druze or dark with a big nose. Whatever.
The word play, the semantics, the spin-doctoring...usually it hinges on the convenient phrase "a friend said..."
The Daily Mail didn't actually quote Clooney or anyone in his immediate or future family. The story came from "sources." To say "according to gossip..." wouldn't have readers believe it as fact. But to say "according to a high placed source" or "several people close to Clooney..." and you've GOT SOMETHING. Not the truth. But something.
When I was working for some lesser mags and newspapers, this was a well-known editorial joke. Why do research when you could make something up? Your subject had no case against you. "Several people close to Clooney" could simply mean a taxi driver who was certainly close to him while driving, or a woman who happened to be next to him in an elevator once. That they might've heard some gossip and repeated it...heck, nobody SAID it was THE TRUTH.
So here's George Clooney actually spilling the beans on this practice, and saying "Name your sources..." And the Daily Mail can't. They can hide behind "confidentiality" but they need a lot of mouthwash and spray deodorant to show up in public with that line.
Every now and then (Carol Burnett, Liberace, now Clooney) somebody stands up against "creative" embellishment by a tabloid.
Does this mean that the tabloids will change their ways in trying to get a reader's money and attention? Sources tell me...NO!
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.