Why do you not except that as an apology? She addresses every contentious issue. She does however not stand down but instead defends her position. whether you agree with her or not, it's not as bleak as you make out IMO.
First off I think the situation is bleak because this excuse for an apology is just going to sell more Daily Mails.
Secondly, this is not an apology. The original article was blatantly homophobic. This follow-up is just her arguing that she is NOT. That the original article was tragically misunderstood.
The point of my article was to suggest that, in my honest opinion, Stephen Gately's death raised many unanswered questions. What had really gone on? After all, Stephen was a role model for the young and if drugs were somehow involved in his death, as news reports suggested, should that not be a matter of public interest?
It was in the public interest see? And drugs were invovled! DRUGS! well, cannabis.
That's just ONE hole I haven't got the time to pick through the whole thing. But it's outrageous and depressing. In some ways worse than the original article.
First off I think the situation is bleak because this excuse for an apology is just going to sell more Daily Mails.
Secondly, this is not an apology. The original article was blatantly homophobic. This follow-up is just her arguing that she is NOT. That the original article was tragically misunderstood.
The point of my article was to suggest that, in my honest opinion, Stephen Gately's death raised many unanswered questions. What had really gone on? After all, Stephen was a role model for the young and if drugs were somehow involved in his death, as news reports suggested, should that not be a matter of public interest?
It was in the public interest see? And drugs were invovled! DRUGS! well, cannabis.
That's just ONE hole I haven't got the time to pick through the whole thing. But it's outrageous and depressing. In some ways worse than the original article.