From time-to-time, advertisers like to splash their ads over the space we call the "skybox" for a few seconds. It's a showy, sometimes pretty, way for advertisers to impress their brand into your cortex. But these are, well, confusing. It's unclear what Showalter and Black have to do with eBay, who's apparently bought the front page today. Separately, though, it's bizarre to see their faces over headlines like "Does Tiger Woods Really Think He Can Wait This One Out?" and "Seven Reasons Why White House Party Crashers are Awesome for America." If an advertiser wants to use the "look" of our skybox, they should also take some time to (ahem, use our crack creative services team to) write their own headlines.

Since editorial and advertising at Gawker Media work independently, I never see ads until they go live on the site. Our overlord Nick Denton is usually the one who approves ads like these and he said he never saw this particular takeover before it went live. So, blame him. The glitch is being fixed, and I apologize for any confusion or unnecessary distraction this may have caused.

We're sorry that this country is so full of homophobic prudes that kissing a guy on stage and simulating oral sex will elicit more than 1,500 complaints and get you kicked off of GMA.

Lambert was scheduled to appear on the show tomorrow—a critical gig, since his album, For Your Entertainment, just came out—but that has been canceled. "Given his controversial American Music Awards performance, we were concerned about airing a similar concert so early in the morning," a spokesperson for the show told the NY Times Arts Beat blog.

This is all the gays fault. We did what we always do and we overestimate just how much we are accepted by society. It may seem like apples and oranges (or butches and femmes) but Adam Lambert is just like what happened in California with Prop 8. We thought there was no way that the good people of California could hate gays so much they would vote down gay marriage. Well, we were very wrong.

The same thing happened here. All of the gays were telling Adam, "Keep it real. Get all faggy. You owe it to us, and they'll love you for it." He responded with a performance that was so gay that he shot rainbows out of his eyes and turned Whitney Houston in a unicorn that he rode across the stage and threw Ryan Seacrest on the back of it and they made out for 17 minutes straight. Oops, too gay. Now we've ruined it for Adam and he's going to end up playing piano in a gay bar and dying bitter and alone just like Jobriath.

The worst part about this whole thing is that we have now negated all the progress Lambert made by being an openly gay pop star in the first place. Now when the next very talented flamboyant rocker comes along all his managers and agents (most of them gay) will say, "Oh, you have to stay in the closet. Look what happened when Adam Lambert sashayed on stage at the AMAs. America will hate you."

That said, this isn't the worst thing that could happen to Lambert. He's getting plenty of attention just as his album is coming out—negative or not. The people who were offended by his dry humping were never going to buy the album anyway, and this flap might just give him enough street cred to get some people clicking the download button iTunes. We hate to make the same mistake twice, but maybe getting all nelly was the right move.

Apparently Lambert has been offered a replacement gig on CBS' The Early Show (caution, Perez Hilton link ahoy). Adam if that doesn't work out, you are welcome to perform here at Gawker HQ, and we'll let you get as queer as you wanna be. You can even put pink pancakes on Nick Denton's head. The only thing gayer than that is—well, your performance at the AMAs.

[Images via Getty]

Murdoch made the bizarre comment at a Wall Street Journal conference earlier this week, and he called Paterson in Albany yesterday to, in Paterson's words, apologize "like a gentleman." Which is odd, because in Murdoch-world, gentlemen do not apologize—they attack, destroy, and admit nothing. Murdoch's newfound willingness to eat crow—remember that he also apologized for the New York Post's cartoon depicting President Barack Obama as a dead chimpanzee—is disconcerting to those of us who make a living in part from chronicling his vile behavior. Is he growing a conscience?

An anonymous Paterson aide told the New York Daily News that the governor considered Murdoch's remark a "random misstatement," which points to a more likely explanation for the News Corp. CEO's odd behavior of late: The old man is losing it. We look forward to more random misstatements in the near future.

Well, to be fair, he said most of those terrible things about black people. Most of them! But not one of them. So Rick Sanchez has to apologize, to Rush, for assuming that because all the rest of the racist things were true that he didn't need to question this other one. "We have been unable to independently confirm that quote," Sanchez says, though he doesn't repeat the quote.

The fake quote is: "slavery built the South. I'm not saying we should bring it back. I'm just saying it had its merits. For one thing, the streets were safer after dark." It comes from Wikipedia, which cites a book that got it from Wikipedia.

Also Limbaugh would've been maybe the third or fourth-most objectionable NFL owner, frankly, and owning the Rams would be more of a punishment than a fun investment. So, you know, who cared? Besides black players who didn't want to work for Limbaugh for obvious reasons. Those reasons being that all the other racist Limbaugh quotes weren't fabricated.

McCaughey first began lying in 1994, because she was bored. While working at a conservative think tank and conferring on the regular with the tobacco industry, McCaughey wrote a lengthy and incredibly misleading story about Bill Clinton's health care reform bill that Andrew Sullivan's New Republic happily printed, despite the fact that it was just full of lies.

Michelle Cottle just wrote a piece for Franklin Foer's newer, less annoying New Republic all about McCaughey, and while it doesn't go into the gritty details of how incredibly irresponsible Sullivan was as an editor back in the '90s, when TNR printed all sorts of bullshit for attention and to be provocative, it is satisfyingly mean to McCaughey.

After her lying article of lies became a series of false talking points repeated endlessly by Republicans (like friendly old Bob Dole), everyone noticed that this cheerfully dishonest ideologue was also a nice-looking blonde lady! A veteran Republican pol selected her as a running mate! You can imagine what happened next.

Celebrated for both her brains and beauty, she was declared a brave new model of feminist pol. (A glam-shot photo spread in Vanity Fair set the GOP abuzz, while the New York Post cheered her for having "Henry Kissinger's brains and Jessica Rabbit's body.") Even some of her academic quirkiness—her love of raw data and obsession with pie charts—conveyed a not-politics-as-usual freshness. Admittedly, there were bumps of the sort former Governor Palin could sympathize with: Anonymous Pataki staffers dropped quotes about the newbie candidate being unusually self-absorbed, and her frequent clashes with the veteran Pataki aide assigned to help her adjust to campaign life were downright operatic. (During one battle, McCaughey had her campaign van pull over on the side of a highway as she shrieked at the aide to get out.)

That's right: TNR just straight-up called Betsy McCaughey Sarah Palin. Damn.

Of course her political "career" ended in disaster because she's impossible to work with or for, and she rightfully faded back into obscurity at another conservative think tank. Until, weirdly, she came back with columns and op-eds and radio appearances and TV interviews in which she shamelessly lied about Barack Obama's health care plans, just this year! It is weird how that happens, right? How no one is ever so wrong that they're not allowed back on TV to be wrong some more, as long as they're useful to people with lots of money at stake?

This also means, of course, that Sarah Palin will never completely go away.

Sorry.

A British programmer last month launched a petition on the PM's website to win just such an apology. Though he was instrumental in breaking German codes during World War II, Turing was convicted of homosexuality, chemically castrated and thus driven to suicide.

Gordon Brown's statement includes the following:

While Turing was dealt with under the law of the time and we can't put the clock back, his treatment was of course utterly unfair and I am pleased to have the chance to say how deeply sorry I and we all are for what happened to him. Alan and the many thousands of other gay men who were convicted as he was convicted under homophobic laws were treated terribly. Over the years millions more lived in fear of conviction...



So on behalf of the British government, and all those who live freely thanks to Alan's work I am very proud to say: we're sorry, you deserved so much better.

(Image via Mark A.M. Kramer)

In a note to readers today, Whicker admitted that it was a "lapse of professionalism" for him to use his Tuesday sports column as an opportunity to fill Jaycee Dugard—kidnapped, raped, impregnated, and imprisoned for the past 18 years—in on the sports action she's missed in that time. While it is technically true that "Many odd things have happened in sports the past 18 years," Mark Whicker now realizes that that fact does not necessarily need to be juxtaposed with a horrific child kidnapping case in order to cobble together a space-filling sports column when regular sports action is slow.

He also has now come to understand that the column's kicker—"Congratulations, Jaycee. You left the yard."—while pithy, may have been misinterpreted by some readers as being callous towards the ordeal of this young woman tortured unimaginably by a child rapist psycho. For this, Mark Whicker is sorry. But he would be remiss if he did not re-assert one important fact:

Jackie Autry isn't in charge of the Angels anymore, as you might have surmised by looking at the standings.

That's news that anyone can use—kidnap victim or not. Mark Whicker thanks you for your attention.

The Friday before a holiday weekend is the ultimate black hole for news, and thus the perfect time to dump embarrassing announcements. A roundup:

Google: To compensate for this week's hour-and-a-half-long GMail outage, Google has given three free days of service to its paying Google Apps customers. The company wrote in an email we received last night, "We understand that this service outage has affected our valued customers and their users, and we sincerely apologize for the disruption and any impact.

Amazon: Company CEO Jeff Bezos has already apologized for silently deleting copies of 1984 off people's Kindles, but now the company has made official amends, offering affected customers either a redelivery of the book or a $30 gift certificate, the Wall Street Journal reports.

AT&T: The telecommunications company knows its wireless network is the scourge of iPhone owners, so it's just posted a YouTube video of an empathetic, long-haired geek named "Seth" to explain how hard it has been for the company to keep up with the torrid growth in smartphone subscriptions. You know what else is hard, "Seth?" Spending $100 per month for crappy service.

"We have heard you," he soothes. "We are on it." We predict a parody version of this video will be up by the end of the weekend.

(Top pic by spud murphy on Flickr)

Now the software company has to explain why it shamelessly pandered to racist customers in the first place. We recommend blaming a Polak. Always messing up, those people are.

We looked into the issue on Friday after, like Fox News' Major Garrett, we got a whole lot of tips from people who say they never signed up for White House e-mails but still got Axelrod's message from the White House. Since the White House privacy policy makes clear that "individuals must affirmatively request" to join its e-mail list, something appears to have gone haywire.

According to Politico, the White House thinks pressure groups were signing people up for White House e-mails without their knowledge:

[W]hite House officials determined that advocacy groups on the right or left could have sent in the names without the person knowing it.

For instance, a group might have sent WhiteHouse.gov a comment from each person who had signed an online petition, and the White House would have captured the e-mail address.

A White House spokesman offered Politico a sort-of-apology for any confusion:

The White House e-mail list is made up of e-mail addresses obtained solely through the White House website. The White House doesn't purchase, upload or merge from any other list. … [A]ll e-mails come from the White House website as we have no interest in emailing anyone who does not want to receive an email. If an individual received the e-mail because someone else or a group signed them up or forwarded the email, we hope they were not too inconvenienced. Further, we suggest that they unsubscribe from the list by clicking the link at the bottom of the e-mail or tell whomever forwarded it to them not to forward such information anymore.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but we'll repeat that privacy policy for emphasis: "[W]e maintain email lists to keep interested, eligible individuals informed about important topics, and individuals must affirmatively request to join them." The White House's explanation seems to be that either a) advocacy groups forwarded e-mails from people who signed petitions, and so the White House added their addresses to its list, or b) advocacy groups filled out comment forms in the names of people who signed petitions, and so the White House added their addresses to the list. In neither case does that constitute an affirmative request to receive e-mails. (Here's a sample comment form at the White House—the terms of participation make no mention of agreeing to receive further e-mails.) It certainly makes sense for the White House to respond to concerned or angry citizens who send e-mails, and it's a good thing to communicate its message. But it's politically stupid to violate your own privacy policy and spam people who didn't ask for it.

One reason it's politically stupid is that we live in a nation of imbeciles who don't understand technology and are desperate for more things to be angry about. Here's just one example of the many irate e-mails we received from wingnuts over this story—the writer acknowledges that she sent an e-mail to Obama, but is outraged that Obama shared her e-mail address with Axelrod:

[S]ince when does anyone email the president and get a "random" email from his senior advisor? ... I still say, okay, I understand I emailed the president, the problem is how did David Axelrod get my email address and why did he send me something I did not ask for? Who gave him my email address? Is he reading and answering the president's email? Did the president give him my email address? WHO in the WH is screwing up and passing email addresses around? I hope we get answers soon.

You know what you're in for when "Perez Hilton is not sorry" opens up Robin Abcarian's piece on the creature formerly known as Mario Lavandeira, who's now a "tastemaker," according to the title of the piece. Other things you, the reader, are made aware of Hilton's complete lack of repentance for: posting the Dustin Lance Black pictures as a self-proclaimed gay icon, the early speculation on Michael Jackson faking his death, his altercation with Will.I.Am (though he notes he's still only not "entirely" unapologetic for using the word "faggot" in Hilton's fight with the Black Eyed Peas frontman).

"I've built my brand on being a bitch," said the gay celebrity blogger. "So what?"

Truth. His most recent offenses include shuffling over dead boxer Arturo Gatti's grave, and making a mockery of race relations in his Advocate profile when he applauded himself for using a gay slur as opposed to a racist one.

The LAT's reporting still doesn't get to the root of who his third writer is (besides his sister) other than "a recent college graduate..he declined to name."

"Why do you want to know that?" he said "It's all about me!"

And the Hilton show it most definitely is. The good question is what Abcarian actually got, which amounts to pretty much nothing. And there's almost a pattern of kindness on the part of the L.A. Times to Hilton; their coverage of him doesn't extend past a Q & A that also lets Hilton flaunt his brand. The most significant thing the Times managed was Hilton's obvious insecurity and distaste for a gay community that couldn't care less about counting him amongst their numbers, while riffing on his Advocate cover story:

He was furious about the Advocate piece, in which the writer was dismissive of his intellect. ("He's not a deep or nuanced thinker and seems generally unwilling . . . to look critically at himself. . . . He doesn't strike me as all that intellectually honest," wrote Benoit Denizet-Lewis.) "He basically called me stupid," said Hilton. "I am not stupid. I don't think I have to prove that to anyone."

Or maybe it's just an insecurity about aptitude. There's no doubt that Hilton might be, if not deep or nuanced, at least an intuitive thinker into what some people want to read. But as he prepares to launch his "nicer" site, it'll be interesting to see what kind of person develops based on the success or failure of the new venture.

An out-and-out failure might be an affirmation that his only asset is his willingness to forgo considerations of any stripe of moral fortitude, while a success might prove to Hilton that bigots can file down the lowest common denominator on their way to possibly less lowbrow ventures. Whatever the case is, it's almost relieving to see Hilton's one-dimensional nature move forward, because it makes him easier to understand. There's a great line from psychiatrist Aaron Lazare's 2004 book On Apology, in which Lazare writes: "(The apology process)...illustrates how the phenomenon of apology can be a window into the human emotions and behaviors that maintain and restore human dignity," something Hilton doesn't seem to long for. Maybe there's just nothing else there. Sometimes, an asshole's just an asshole. It's easier to leave it at that.

Yesterday, WP publisher Katharine Weymouth ran her own apology for the flier that went out to evil DC lobbyists last week offering to sell access to the newsroom at intimate dinners for the low low price of $25,000.

The apology was okay. Not poetic, or dramatic, but okay. Occam's Razor tells us that what probably happened here was one asshole in the marketing department got a little too gung-ho with this whole "intimate dinners with influencers" idea and sent out an idiotic flier. Politico broke the story last Thursday. If there had been any indication that the Washington Post was trying to defend this flier, then okay. Controversial. But from the very minute the story broke, the paper said that this offer was obviously against their own internal guidelines, and their own newsroom immediately disavowed it, so whatever.

The next day the NYT put it on the front page! Which was already more prominence than it deserved. The next day there was a column about it on the front of the business section, and now another story today on the Post's apology.

This is the New York Times' version of kicking the competition. The Times is generally too stiff to come right out and do a dance in print at the misfortune of their competitors, like the tabloids do. Instead the just decide to cover the hell out of a relatively minor media story! Perhaps the WP still strike back with a mildly disapproving mention in a Howard Kurtz column. Suck my hot type and die, motherfuckers! Journalistically!

By apologizing again, not only is Letterman giving legitimacy to Palin's ridiculous claims that his "perverted" jokes inspire sexual mistreatment of women, but it also breathes new life into an issue that had sort of fizzled out of the news cycle over the weekend. Besides, does he really think that Palin will ever accept any apology from him? Of course not! This will just give the media another opportunity to stick cameras and microphones in Palin's face so she can continue to bray on and on and on about "ole David Letterman" being a dirty old man. He'd have been much better off ignoring it and letting all of this fade away, as it was already beginning to do, but instead he winds up essentially vindicating Palin's unwarranted indignation instead.

Regardless, here's what Letterman said at the taping of his show today, which is set to air later tonight:

"All right, here - I've been thinking about this situation with Governor Palin and her family now for about a week - it was a week ago tonight, and maybe you know about it, maybe you don't know about it. But there was a joke that I told, and I thought I was telling it about the older daughter being at Yankee Stadium. And it was kind of a coarse joke. There's no getting around it, but I never thought it was anybody other than the older daughter, and before the show, I checked to make sure in fact that she is of legal age, 18. Yeah. But the joke really, in and of itself, can't be defended. The next day, people are outraged. They're angry at me because they said, 'How could you make a lousy joke like that about the 14-year-old girl who was at the ball game?' And I had, honestly, no idea that the 14-year-old girl, I had no idea that anybody was at the ball game except the Governor and I was told at the time she was there with Rudy Giuliani...And I really should have made the joke about Rudy..." (audience applauds) "But I didn't, and now people are getting angry and they're saying, 'Well, how can you say something like that about a 14-year-old girl, and does that make you feel good to make those horrible jokes about a kid who's completely innocent, minding her own business,' and, turns out, she was at the ball game. I had no idea she was there. So she's now at the ball game and people think that I made the joke about her. And, but still, I'm wondering, 'Well, what can I do to help people understand that I would never make a joke like this?' I've never made jokes like this as long as we've been on the air, 30 long years, and you can't really be doing jokes like that. And I understand, of course, why people are upset. I would be upset myself.

"And then I was watching the Jim Lehrer 'Newshour' - this commentator, the columnist Mark Shields, was talking about how I had made this indefensible joke about the 14-year-old girl, and I thought, 'Oh, boy, now I'm beginning to understand what the problem is here. It's the perception rather than the intent.' It doesn't make any difference what my intent was, it's the perception. And, as they say about jokes, if you have to explain the joke, it's not a very good joke. And I'm certainly - " (audience applause) "- thank you. Well, my responsibility - I take full blame for that. I told a bad joke. I told a joke that was beyond flawed, and my intent is completely meaningless compared to the perception. And since it was a joke I told, I feel that I need to do the right thing here and apologize for having told that joke. It's not your fault that it was misunderstood, it's my fault. That it was misunderstood." (audience applauds) "Thank you. So I would like to apologize, especially to the two daughters involved, Bristol and Willow, and also to the Governor and her family and everybody else who was outraged by the joke. I'm sorry about it and I'll try to do better in the future. Thank you very much." (audience applause)

Meanwhile, a very Drudge-esque "Fire David Letterman" website has sprung up on the internets, with a protest planned outside of his studio for tomorrow. Do you think the leaders of the "Fire Letterman" movement are going to back off in light of this apology? Of course not! The site was created by Palin documentarian John Ziegler, a Los Angeles-based talk radio host who Palin says tipped her off to Letterman's jokes last week, so you can bet that this is all being planned and coordinated by Sarah Palin and her cronies.

Rather than settle an fading issue with a gentlemanly apology, we believe that David Letterman may have just opened up another can of worms for himself.

UPDATE:Here's the video of Letterman's apology:

The image associated with this post is best viewed using a browser.

David Letterman's Apology [TV Week]

Susan Roesgan's report from last week's Tea Party in Chicago ended with a particularly damning example of a TV news reporter reporting the truth:

Over shouts of, "You're not a reporter," Roesgen quickly wrapped up an interview with an attendee, then said, "I think you get the general tenor of this. It's anti-government, anti-CNN since this is highly promoted by the right-wing conservative network Fox."

Well, she forgot CNBC (the "Rick Santelli for President" sign behind her should've reminded her!) but otherwise pretty spot-on.

So yesterday, former CNN correspondent Eileen O'Connor demanded Susan issue an apology, for getting testy with an angry nut. "She was rude to people she was interviewing," O'Connor explained, and as we all know that is never acceptable in broadcast journalism.

Yesterday I emailed Kari to ask her if she had anything she wanted to say to you, the public. Here's her response:

Hamilton,

Hi there. I have received several "offers" from other websites, and pundits, allowing me to get my side of the story out. I haven't responded to any of them, and honestly, I'm not quite sure why I am emailing you.

Anyway, I am including a paragraph from the email that I have been sending to people who contact me.

I am very sorry for everything I have done, and cannot— and will not—make any bloviated excuses for my actions.

-Kari

Also, as far as Vice Magazine goes, I never once betrayed the trust they bestowed upon me. I had all bank account information and never considered scamming them. We left one another on good terms, and with the understanding that there were no hard feelings. The reason that the initial article was even posted on the website, is because they found out that I had told someone that I still worked for the company. I recognize that that was a bad decision, and that I shouldn't have said that, but I never stole anything from them, or had any intention of doing so.

Apologies for brevity and any blunders in spelling; this was sent from a fucking iPhone.

And then she forwarded this, the standard apology she's been emailing around:

"Yes, I made mistakes and yes, I hurt people who cared for me (and vice versa). However, I have made amends with most of those individuals, and have attempted to rectify my poor decisions by paying them back. I know that it is neither here nor there, but what the article didn't mention is that I haven't done anything of that nature for years. I understand that that, in no way, justifies what I did...but I definitely recognize that what I did was really REALLY shitty, and like to think that I have learned from my mistakes.

Anyway, I didn't mean to barrage you with my...whatever the fuck those preceeding paragraphs are...my sincere apologies."

Apologies for brevity and any blunders in spelling; this was sent from a fucking iPhone.

Textbook crisis PR! Kari Ferrell could go open a communication firm, tomorrow, charging $200 per hour. And be worth it. Although the humble, straightforward nature of her apology loses some of its sheen when you consider the fact that she was sending this weepy email to her closest friends just days ago (reminder: Kari Ferrell does not have cancer):

Friends,

I don't really know how to say this in an eloquent manner, and I apologize for even thinking that telling you in a mass email is acceptable, but I am in a position where this is the best I've got.

As you know, I've been dealing with some rough health issues the past little bit. Tonight, while in the hospital, I was told that the cancer has spread to some of my organs and that major surgery needed to take place.

Anyway, at this point in my life I don't think that I am strong enough to deal with this. I wish that I could be as strong as all of you are, and that I possessed all of the fucking phenomenal attributes that you do, but I don't. I am pathetic and weak. Honestly, I'm surprised that I even made it this far (and the only reason I did is due to you).

I feel like, at this point, I am burning everything down to the ground, because that is all there is left for me to do. I am sorry for being so selfish. I don't deserve any of you, and I cannot tell you how grateful I am to have you guys in my life. People like you are the only thing that would ever make me consider the existence of a higher power. I don't know how I found you, but I am so lucky that I did.

My course of action may not be what you think is right, and you may resent me for it, but I really do have your best interest in mind.

I promise promise personal emails/phone calls within the next little bit, I just had to get this off of my (AWESOME) chest now.

I love you all dearly.

Without Wax,
K-bay

Apologies for brevity and any blunders in spelling; this was sent from a fucking iPhone.

Our tipster thinks her fucking iPhone was stolen.
[Pic via Maciekjasik.com]

On the March 17 edition of Red Eye, a "comedy" show Fox News puts on for insomniacs and media narcissists, Gutfeld said Canadian soldiers do yoga and made fun of a Canadian lieutenant general's name (Leslie!) and said we should invade Canada because the country's military is contemplating a one-year "operational break" from Afghanistan.

Canadian Defence (they don't spell it right) Minister Peter MacKay called the comments disgusting and demanded an apology. Partly everyone got mad because four Canadians died in Afghanistan on Friday. (Yoga accident, you ask? No. IEDs.)

Thrilled to be the talk of Canada, Gutfeld apologized:

The March 17 episode of Red Eye included a segment discussing Canada's plan for a "synchronized break," which was in no way an attempt to make light of troop efforts. However, I realize that my words may have been misunderstood. It was not my intent to disrespect the brave men, women and families of the Canadian military, and for that I apologize. Red Eye is a satirical take on the news, in which all topics are addressed in a lighthearted, humorous and ridiculous manner.

At left, enjoy a quick burst of a meek, deferential Cramer. Enjoy it now, because who knows when the shouting head will appear this humble again.

Rev. Al went on down to City Hall yesterday to let it be known that he will not be satisfied with Rupe's niceties. The vague "boycott" continues! Probably of more concern to News Corp, Al says he's meeting with the FCC today to lobby against News Corp's NYC ownership waiver. (Does that have any hope of success? No idea, but we hope so, for the sake of a good feud). Even Mayor Bloomberg is now being subjected to jeers over this sensitive issue, for being insufficiently outraged! We applaud Rev. Al's determination to keep this thing going, because he's guaranteed free space in the Daily News as long as he wants. Although his supporters should work on some better slogans:

[Murdoch] says in his statement this will never happen again. Well, he does not say how he intends to see that it never happens again," Sharpton said in front of supporters holding signs reading, "Yes we can shut you down NY Post!" and "How do you spell racism? New York Post."

[NYDN]

Rupert has issued what we must admit is a very civil and human-sounding apology! A day after Al Sharpton and the NAACP vowed to keep on protesting this issue until it hit News Corp in the wallet, the head of News Corp appears in the pages of his dirtiest, fuck-you-Al-Sharpton paper to sincerely apologize. Interesting. Rupert comes off like the responsible father who has to apologize to the neighbors because his kids had a wild party while he was out of town. And while we would have expected a very slick non-apology from Rupert, this almost sounds like (dare we say?) an actual apology:

As the Chairman of the New York Post, I am ultimately responsible for what is printed in its pages. The buck stops with me.

Last week, we made a mistake. We ran a cartoon that offended many people. Today I want to personally apologize to any reader who felt offended, and even insulted.

Over the past couple of days, I have spoken to a number of people and I now better understand the hurt this cartoon has caused. At the same time, I have had conversations with Post editors about the situation and I can assure you - without a doubt - that the only intent of that cartoon was to mock a badly written piece of legislation. It was not meant to be racist, but unfortunately, it was interpreted by many as such.

We all hold the readers of the New York Post in high regard and I promise you that we will seek to be more attuned to the sensitivities of our community.

Ha, this officially makes the New York Post a bunch of cheese-eating surrender monkeys! (Except for you Delonas; it makes you a prancing sheep-fucker.) [Pic via]