los angeles said:
Morgan (or his paparazzo) caught Clarkson kissing a woman who was not Clarkson's wife. Morgan called him and said he was publishing the story and did Clarkson want to comment. According to Morgan, Clarkson denied it then said the woman was merely friend, pleading with Morgan not to print the story. As far as I understand it, Clarkson said he was not capable of being unfaithful to his wife. It was not in his nature. (Nothing about a physical infirmity as suggested on this thread.) Morgan felt moved by Clarkson's overtures and spiked the story. A year later Morgan (or his paparazzo) caught Clarkson at it again with the same woman and duly published the story. Next meeting Clarkson punched Morgan. He was lucky not to be arrested. Joe Schmo would have been.
All correct, except part of Clarkson's pleading was that he was physically incapable of having an affair. In an interview with The Grauniad:
The Guardian said:
The Clarkson row started in 2000 when the Mirror obtained some paparazzi photographs of Clarkson snogging a woman who wasn't his wife. Morgan rang Clarkson for a comment and Clarkson begged him not to run the pictures, then said: 'Look, Piers, I'm going to tell you something now. I'm not capable of having an affair. You can ask my wife. I'm not physically capable.' Morgan claims that he was so moved by this plea, he went softer on the story than he'd normally have done. But then two years later Clarkson was papped kissing the same woman, and Morgan ran the story hard. Clarkson then punched him at the 2004 Press Awards in front of an admiring audience of journalists who were all rather disappointed that Morgan didn't hit back; his revenge came a few months later when he put Clarkson's 'not physically capable' quote in his book.
On the way back to his seat, having accepted his award with the famous "arsehole" phrase, and weaving between the closely ranged tables at the Hilton, JC manoeuvred past a table of Mirror reptiles. One of said hacks, defending his ex-editor, called him a c***. JC immediately returned the compliment and offered him and his mates outside. Fortunately it didn't turn any uglier - but there's always this year's awards...
bad_roo said:I don’t know, to often people in the media business think they are made of titanium because they can publish almost whatever twisted story they want to. As I’m sure many PH’ers have realized over the years, sometimes a bit of fur flying can help clarify the situation in a way words would fail.
Doesn't show either of them in a very favourable light, does it?
There is nothing ungentlemanly about rolling up your sleeves and resolving an issue with another chap, it’s just a pity courts don’t see it that way.
los angeles said:
High praise indeed. I don't have time for his editorial approach, but here is a strange thing to contemplate: after he got fired for printing the "faked" photos of British solders beating hooded Iraqi prisoners, the British commander in the field didn't deny the practice. He admitted it personally. In other words, he knew the truth, even if the pics were bogus. So in one regard, Morgan's nose for a shock horror story proved correct even it it caused his downfall.
Worst crime in tabloid history - printing a true story. Deserved to be strung up for that one.
printing fake pictures is worse than faking evidence in court - far more dangerous as many more people can have their lives destroyed