The Mail issued a statement of apology and removed the piece from its website, a story about Amal Alamuddin's mother Baria telling "half of Beirut" that she opposed her daughter's imminent wedding to Clooney on religious grounds. Clooney blasted the paper for "dangerous" lies about his fiancee that "exploit religious differences".
He has now hit back at the paper after its apology, writing a statement published on USA Today:
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.