A couple days after George Clooney slammed the Daily Mail for running a story that his future mother-in-law is opposed to his impending marriage to Lebanon-born Amal Alamuddin because of cultural differences, he is back on the offensive, penning another op-ed in the USA Today.
The Daily Mail removed the article hours after Clooney, 53, said "none of the story is true" and that "Amal's mother is not Druze [a cultural community found in Syria, Lebanon, Israel and other countries]" on Wednesday, and followed that with an apology.
"The MailOnline story was not a fabrication but supplied in good faith by a reputable and trusted freelance journalist," the apology read, adding that the reporter based her story on contacts with the Lebanese community. "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."
Clooney wasn't impressed.
"There is one constant when a person or company is caught doing something wrong. The cover-up is always worse," he wrote in today's USA Today. "In this case, the Daily Mail has printed an apology for insinuating religious tensions where there are none."
The acclaimed actor added that the apology and the statement that the story was based on contacts in the Lebanese community are completely untrue.
"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," he continued.
"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."
He continued, "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."
But he is grateful for what he says the apology exposes. "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."