Do we get the media we deserve? That bastion of values, the Daily Mail, has today been forced to issue a public apology and offer 'substantial' damages to Sharon Stone for a story it 'now accepts was untrue'.

This follows hard on the heels of The Sun apologising to Wayne Rooney for publishing the allegation that he beat his girlfriend in a club, and the News of the World also settling a libel case out of court. What sticks in the throat is the phrase 'we now accept that the story was untrue.'

Which begs the question 'why the hell did you publish it then?' Surely it's a disgraceful act to publish something one knows to be false. Similarly, if one is not sure of the veracity of a story, does one not have a duty to establish it before the publication of potentially hurtful allegations?

The ironic thing is that people will no doubt wring their hands and say how terrible it is that newspapers get away with it so lightly - before going out and buying tomorrow's Mail as well.

In the office, my colleagues and occasional drinking buddies, Bekah and Rachel, have a collection of the weekly celebrity magazines which litter the newsstand. Taking a quick look at the coverlines, Heat leads with 'Stars Who Binge Eat', while the delightful Closer goes with a picture of Z-list regular Kerry Katona and the caption 'Wrecked, Spotty and Rowing'. Quite frankly, who cares? These magazines led the way in saying how fabulous she was when she first shot to what is laughably called fame, and now they take delight in kicking her in the most brutal and public fashion. Most depressingly of all, Heat's ABC is nearly 600,000.

Momus's current pin-up boy, Charles Clarke, gave a speech to the LSE a few days ago, bemoaning the 'pernicious and poisonous' tendencies of the media in the UK, following questioning of his relentless attack on the freedoms of the population of this nation. The ironic thing is that his headline point is absolutely correct - it's just that the example he's using is way, way off the mark.