Yesterday morning, we observed Emily Smith's coverage of Britney's emergence from rehab, and wondered how the Sun's US editor managed to deliver a piece that was completely unlike any other. Smith welcomed the news that Britney was on the road to recovery, and revealed that her father Jamie had first taken her home, and then onto a more luxurious clinic.
This morning's story from Smith, though, is quite different:
BRITNEY SPEARS’ terrified dad last night warned her �You are going to die� after the star checked herself out of a psychiatric ward.
The troubled singer ignored her parents’ desperate pleas to return to hospital, screaming at them: �I want my life back.�
Despite being horrified by the decision to release her, dad Jamie picked Britney up from the hospital, planning to take her to a private clinic for more treatment.
(The question marks, by the way, are because nobody seems capable of coding up a page correctly at The Sun.)
However, it's not just the story in today's paper which tells a completely different tale from yesterday's. The web version of yesterday's story also tells a totally different story, too."Britney on the road to recovery" has become "Parents fear for Britney's life".
Obviously, websites update as news breaks, but there's something dishonest about simply changing a story through 180 degrees, overwriting the original and not acknowledging what you've done, isn't there?