What is an apology, and what is it worth?

Last Thursday Chris made a throwaway remark about how much newspapers hate having to apologise.  It didn't make much of an impression on me at the time, but it came back to me when I read the somewhat grudging and bizarre apologies by the Mail On Sunday and the News of the World to a woman called Vanessa Perroncel.  



I hate football - I actually believe it to be a malign influence on society, but enough for now of my prejudices - so although I was aware of the publicity involving John Terry, Wayne Bridges and Ms Perroncel, I took little interest in it.  Overpaid, over-sexed, and not very bright footballing prima donna behaves stupidly is on a par with 'dog bites man' in my book, so I deliberately ignored the whole kerfuffle.  However, in contrast to so many professional footballers, Ms Perroncel clearly isn't anyone's fool, and it's to her eternal credit that she pursued the rags in question and wrested an apology from them.

The wording of the apologies is very strange.  In essence both papers said: '...we published some personal information about Vanessa Perroncel concerning an alleged affair with the footballer John Terry. We have since been informed she would have preferred this to remain private and it was untrue in any case. We apologise to Miss Perroncel for any distress caused.'

Firstly, who wouldn't want details of their personal life kept private?  OK, Katie Price / Jordan and a few other nincompoops who take the papers' and magazines' money, but they are surely the exception to the rule?  But then the papers in question add the bit about it being 'untrue in any case'!  These apologies were hidden away so that many readers would probably have missed them, but if they had they'd possibly still be baffled by the newspapers' apologies: were they for exposing details of Ms Perroncel's private life, or for printing untruths?

Listening to Ms Perroncel on Radio 4 this morning she was clear that the problem was caused by John Terry's original attempt to get a 'super injuction' rather than simply fronting things out - she described it as a 'big mistake'.  Listen to her, she's a bright woman standing up for herself brilliantly (in her second language too!) - it's fascinating and you can hear it about 2h 22m into the Today programme.  The journalists and editors involved must be very proud of themselves - let's hope that it cost their papers dearly and maybe cost a few of them their jobs too.

In Max Mosley's libel case, Mr Justice Eady said: "It is not for the state or for the media to ex-pose sexual conduct that does not involve any significant breach of the criminal law. That is so whether the motive for such intrusion is merely prurience or a moral crusade. It is not for journalists to undermine human rights … merely on grounds of taste or moral disapproval."  Add to that the fact that what was published has actually now been revealed to a greater or lesser extent as a work of fiction, and some real questions about the freedom of the press are raised.