J.K. Rowling, beloved creator of Hedwig the owl, was a single parent after her marriage broke up. Surviving on state benefits, and with no childcare, she also worked a few hours at a church where they let her bring her child and kindly employed her for just enough hours not to endanger her benefits.

Ever since Rowling struck it rich with Harry Potter, she’s supported Gingerbread, a charity that benefits single parents.

In September 2013, Rowling wrote a post for Gingerbread’s blog, headlined “I am prouder of my years as a single mother than of any other part of my life.” She described her immense gratitude to that church, and her “slowly evaporating sense of self-esteem” as she perceived that many people defined her simply as “a Single Parent, and a Single Parent On Benefits to boot.” She added, “Patronage was almost as hard to bear as stigmatisation. I remember the woman who visited the church one day when I was working there who kept referring to me, in my hearing, as The Unmarried Mother. I was half annoyed, half amused: unmarried mother? Ought I to be allowed in a church at all? Did she see me in terms of some Victorian painting: The Fallen Woman, Filing, perhaps?”

Well, the Daily Mail was all over that. They spun it into a story headlined “How JK’s sob story about her single mother past surprised and confused the church members who cared for her”. In the story, since taken down, they created a scenario in which Rowling recalled church members “cruelly taunting” her, a charge causing church members to be “upset” and “bewildered.”

How sharper than a serpent’s fucking tooth and all that, but of course Rowling had said nothing of the kind, so she sued the Daily Mail for libel.

Documents filed by Rowling’s attorneys said the article had misrepresented her comments, suggesting that she had given a “knowingly false account of her time as a single mother.” By doing so, the Daily Mail had injured her reputation and caused her great distress and embarrassment.

The filing also said that it wasn’t true that a woman quoted in the article had been upset or bewildered. (They should have quoted me. I am pretty much always upset and bewildered.)

Cut to the chase. Rowling won. In a settlement, the Daily Mail agreed to publish a correction and pay monetary damages (amount unknown).

But they fussed about the amount (whatever it was), and said that Rowling’s lawyers should not be able to read a statement about the matter in open court. You know. Where everyone could hear it.

The judge overruled that nonsense. (Apparently Rowling hasn’t made this statement yet.)

Here’s the apology, just 7 months late:

Our September 28, 2013 article “How JK’s sob story about her past as a single mother has left the churchgoers who cared for her upset and bewildered” suggested that JK Rowling had made a knowingly false and inexcusable claim in an article for the Gingerbread charity that people at her church had stigmatised her and cruelly taunted her for being a single mother. In fact Ms Rowling recounted only one incident where a visitor to the church stigmatised and taunted her on a particular day. We accept that Ms Rowling’s article did not contain any false claims and apologise for any contrary suggestion and have agreed to pay damages to Ms Rowling, which she is donating to charity, and a contribution to her legal costs.

Oh and then:

Sorry we are not currently accepting comments on this article.

Bad apology. Leaving aside their attempt to shut Rowling up, they “accept” that their article was false, but take no responsibility, show no regret, and give no indication that things will change.

The Daily Mail probably hates the idea that somebody can sue them just for taking a tiny comment and stretching it into a big lie. That’s so creative!

Most to the time they get away with it. But Rowling has deep pockets. Her pockets are so deep they extend below the earth’s crust and she has to be careful they don’t fill up with magma. She has the wherewithal to sue the Daily Mail all day every day.

Why would she have to? The Zelo Street blog says “Simples. Jo Rowling has passed consistently adverse comment on the activities of papers like the Daily Mail. She appeared before the Leveson Inquiry. She has since signed the Hacked Off “Leveson Declaration” on independent press regulation. She is a well-known and deservedly popular author. Therefore she is fair game for the Dacre doggies.” (The Daily Mail’s editor is Paul Dacre.)

Poynter’s story on this quotes Craig Silverman, founder of their “Regret the Error” department, which tracks media accuracy, retractions, and “the craft of verification,” on the subject of the Daily Mail’s apology style. “They repeat every single outrageous accusation that they made and then end it by saying none of those things were true and they’re sorry.”

Best of all, Silverman also gives some of his favorite (mostly UK) media apologies, corrections, and pseudo corrections.

Such as these two from The Sun:

In an article on Saturday headlined ‘Flying saucers over British Scientology HQ’, we stated “two flat silver discs” were seen “above the Church of Scientology HQ”.

Following a letter from lawyers for the Church, we apologise to any alien lifeforms for linking them to Scientologists.

And:

Recent articles in this column may have given the impression that Mr Sven Goran Eriksson was a greedy, useless, incompetent fool. This was a misunderstanding. Mr Eriksson is in fact a footballing genius. We are happy to make this clear.

Check it out. And do not bother to send a contribution to the J.K. Rowling Legal Defense Fund. She’s got it covered. Give it to a single parent instead.