You'll recall that last time we came across Azealia Banks, the Zac Goldsmith of pop had taken to Twitter to call Zayn Malik a "curry scented bitch".

Well, her PR team have found enough space between updating their LinkedIn profiles to get an apology of sorts out via Instagram.

Instagram might seem an odd choice, but it's one of the few social networks Banks is welcome on at the moment.

How has it taken so long for this apology to appear? It turns out being racist and homophobic is something you have to spend some time thinking about:

Now that the immediacy of the infamous incident has worn off, I've had some time to decompress & take a more rational assessment of things.

You just know you're being set up for a bullshit empty apology-shaped hole when the person won't even mention what they're supposedly sorry for.

But, yeah, you've had the best part of a week to "rationally assess" attacking someone using racist and homophobic language. What did you come up with?

I want to extend my sincerest apologies to the world

Not specifically to Zayn, the man she insulted, you'll note, but - hey - he's part of the world, right?

Employing racial/sexual slurs/stereotypes in attempts to make fun of or degrade another person or group is not fair or fun for anyone

To be honest, Azealia, you did look like you were having a lot of fun doing it while it was happening.

Allowing my anger to get the best of me, I’ve managed to insult millions of people without reason. And for that I give my deepest apologies.

Ah, so it wasn't Azealia's fault, really; it was just that she got angry she turned into a racist homophobic shit. She's kind of a Hulk/Trump hybrid, it turns out.

And the whole "curry-scented" thing? Why, that wasn't meant to be insulting at all. It's just good old fashioned humour:

She said she was repeating a joke from her native New York – where nearly half of cab drivers were born in Bangladesh, India or Pakistan – that taxis smelled like curry.

“I feel compelled to clear the air with curry itself because that’s a bridge I don’t want to burn. I still want to be able to enjoy it freely without guilt or judgment,” she wrote.

So, during this heartfelt apology to the world in general, the only entity which got a direct sorry was a foodstuff. Maybe she meant it was heartburn apology.

Trouble with this is that the "joke" that taxis smell of curry is racist in itself, so you're only saying that you were being derivatively unpleasant rather than creatively unpleasant. And as Zayn isn't actually a taxi, neither the joke nor the explanation makes sense anyway.

Doesn't really work as an apology, does it?

Phil Anselmo's Nazi salute and "white power" cry during a Dimebag Darrell memorial hasn't gone down well - and perhaps the best thing about this whole story has been the way metal fans have called him out on it.

Phil has tried two approaches now to try and explain what he might have been doing.

Attempt number one was to try and claim he was making a reference to the wine being served backstage:

He claimed at first he had been making a joke about the white wine served to performers at the event, who included Dave Grohl and members of Metallica, and said: “I fucking love everyone, I fucking loathe everyone, and that’s that. No apologies from me.”

In a lot of ways, that's probably a worse claim than the original - everyone expects Anselmo to spout Nazi bollocks, but suggesting that he was organising a protest against the backstage spritzers paints a picture of what happens when entitlement collides with too much time on a person's hands.

Still, he's realised that "I was taking wine" wasn't going to work, and he's now issued a statement:

Philip H Anselmo here, and I’m here to basically respond to all the heat I’ve been getting that I deserve completely.

“I was at the Dimebash, and it was extremely late at night. There was heavy-duty talk between myself and those who love Dime. And heavy emotions were flowing, jokes were made backstage that transpired upon the stage, and it was ugly. It was uncalled for. And anyone who knows me and my true nature knows that I don’t believe in any of that; I don’t want to be part of any group. I’m an individual, and I am a thousand percent apologetic to anyone that took offence to what I said because you should have taken offence to what I said. And I am so sorry, and I hope you just … man, give me another chance to … just give me another chance. I love all of you. And anyone who’s met me, anyone who knows me knows that I love all of you. Bless you.”

This might have worked if he'd not tried to pass it all off as vinicultural humour a couple of days earlier.

Two great problems lurk in this apology, though: the first being that jokes from backstage were "transpiring" on stage, which suggests that other performers might have been having a third-reich yukfest and only Anselmo was gauche enough to take his Hitlerian hijinks the wrong side of the curtain.

The second is that he seems to be pleading with us to believe he couldn't be a Nazi because he's not the sort of guy who joins things.

No, Phil. We'd want to know you're not a Nazi because Nazism is an odious skunk of a political ideology, not because you'd find it a faff to have to turn up to meetings and maintain your membership fees.

There's no need to apologise, Seattle Times. Just no need.

We've tried to stay aloof from Ariana Grande's whole 'licking doughnuts while saying I hate America' incident; and the botched apology.

But we can't sit idly by while she apologises for the first apology:

She says: ‘I feel like in the apology I posted, I missed my opportunity to sincerely apologise and express how I was feeling because I was preaching about my issues with the food industry.

‘Seeing yourself behaving poorly is such a rude awakening. I was so disgusted at myself.’

You could have seen yourself behaving poorly by watching the video through before you slammed it up on to YouTube. Just a thought.

Still, she's contrite now, right?

She goes on to say she behaved out of character, and that she understands she is being judged for her actions.

The singer ends with 'I’m human, I’ve still got a lot to learn and I still make mistakes.

‘I’m not making excuses, I am here to apologise’.

You might think "I'm only human and learning" is making an excuse, but I suppose we can consider this as close to a proper sorry as we're going to get. She doesn't actually apologise; she just says she's here to do it, but you have to take what you can get.

And let's be fair to her - her actions were driven by her disgust at the American food industry and its promotion of unhealthy lifestyles.

I wonder why she started with doughnuts, though? She could have started with the soda companies, the home of empty calories.

Why would she not have started her campaign with, oooh, let's say Pepsi?
Ah. Okay, so that might be a little awkward. How about the takeaway business, though? Maybe Grande could say something about how terrible all those fried chicken joints are. Perhaps she could do that on stage at an upcoming date. She's got some dates coming up, right?
Okay. Fair enough. Maybe licking doughnuts is all she can do without harming her bottom line.

At the end of last week, Shirley Manson did a massive post to Facebook saying... well, this:

Dear He who shall remain nameless,

It is with great sadness that I read your email today.

Clearly you have forgotten or are just generally unaware, that in business it is always wise to be kind and respectful in your day to day dealings with other people. Especially those you have never met.

You just never know when you might meet that person who has been at the receiving end of your disrespect for indeed you may have to come on bended knee to that person later on down the line because they hold on to something of value that you need to get your greasy hands on.

What alarms me more than anything about your nasty little barbs is that you are in the business of representing artists interests and yet you are clearly unaware that not all musicians are obsessed with the charts or being famous.

That some of us do not value ourselves by the number of mainstream "hits" we have enjoyed .

That some of us just enjoy making music and having a long lifespan of a career without having to dance as fast as we can, or be the loudest clown in town or be having to hitch ourselves to the latest ,greatest, freshest sound in order to remain "on top" .

There are some of us who just like to live the way WE see fit. Make the music WE feel passionate about. Music that feels authentic to who we are and where we are in our lives.

There are even some of us who do not believe that being famous is the holy grail or the answer to a beautiful, meaningful and rewarding life.

Clearly you are unable to wrap your head around the idea that some musicians actually prefer NOT having to perform on Children's TV shows. Who do NOT want to be gossiped about in the popularity contest columns. Who most definitively do NOT want to be chased by paparazzi and who do NOT want to put their family name to some shitty , poorly made product in order to build a "brand" and who most definately do NOT want to go out every night, dressed up to the nines to the opening of an envelope.

SO allow me to make my choices as I see fit without having to endure your childish and un-evolved criticism.

As you so rightly pointed out, there are plenty of talented people in the world who will sell their grannies to serve your desires.

So now then sir, that all said,
Go F#CK yourself.

The "nameless" bit in the opening line is so frustrating if you're trying to stir up a beef, so a lot of publications - the charge led by Us - assumed that it must be Kanye West. After all, Shirl had a pop at West recently, and... well, if a gossip magazine can't think about more than one thing at a time, the same must be true of everyone, right?

Trouble is, it wasn't about Kanye. So Shirley took to Facebook again:

I would just like to state for the record that my post from a few days ago which has been heisted today by US Weekly and then consequently glommed onto by a variety of so called news sources had absolutely NOTHING to do with Kanye West whatsoever.

It was directed towards a completely unknown industry insider who had in my opinion been rather offensive in his dealings with me last week.

I take great exception to US Weekly rushing to assume who this aforementioned post was directed towards. Instead of doing their due diligence which in my opinion is their journalistic duty, they have instead made lazy, potentially libelous assumptions which I find completely offensive and entirely inaccurate.

Modern journalism in most cases these days, barely resembles the craft that was once practiced with such care, skill and integrity. Instead we are stuck with provocative scandal mongers who will stoop at nothing in an effort to drive people to their web sites.

Ignore all the stupidity and get on with your lives my friends.

I fully intend to do the same.
Be well.
Sx

(You know that somewhere there's a man reading that going 'calling me a loud clown is one thing, but now you've called me an 'unknown' - well, that's going too far, young lady. That's going too far.')

So Us have backed down:

UPDATE: An earlier version of this story stated — erroneously — that Manson had written her Facebook post specifically about Kanye West. A rep for the singer reached out to Us Weekly to clarify that the anonymous subject of Manson’s note was not, in fact, the rapper. Us regrets the error.

They regret the error.

Though not enough to bother changing the headline on the story:

Shirley Manson Trashes Unnamed Enemy as the "Loudest Clown in Town" -- Is She Talking About Kanye West?

No. No, she isn't. In the first paragraph under this headline, you apologise for saying that she was.

An error, of course, they regret.

Although not enough to actually change this image caption either:

Shirley Manson ripped Kanye West yet again on Facebook, calling Kim Kardashian's husband "the loudest clown in town" -- find out what set her off here.

That's quite a piece of work there, then, Us:
From the top, then:
Headline: Implies it might be Kanye West
Image: Says it is Kanye West
First para: Says it isn't Kanye West.

Good work, everyone.

It was an "unexpected turn" when Richie Hawtin pushed a heavy thing into a fan's face:

"Regarding the incident at Time Warp in New York this weekend which is being posted and talked about on the web, I would like to apologise here to the girl involved
[...]
It was not my intention that the speaker fell. Only to nudge the monitors in her direction and for her to understand that perhaps she had filmed enough. I was as surprised as I'm sure she was when it moved the way it did and the top speaker fell off of the stack. For that, I'm extremely sorry and embarrassed about what happened. This was never my intention. Sometimes being in the middle of the spotlight, continual cameras and glaring iPhone lights, things can get stressful and frustrating. I”m sorry that this frustration took an unexpected turn and took away from anyone's experience of Time Warp. I have tried to reach the girl to apologise personally but have not yet been able to track her down and will continue to try to contact her.”

It must be so frustrating to go onto a stage and discover that you've got a spotlight shining on you. Who wouldn't be surprised and confused under those circumstances?

Billy Bragg is having a terrible year - having backed the South Bank and its sponsors against the Undercroft skaters, he's now had to apologise to Taylor Swift.

See, when Swift pulled her music from Spotify, Bragg concluded somehow that this was because she was clambering into bed with Google:

"If Ms Swift was truly concerned about perpetuating the perception that music has no value and should be free, she should be removing her material from YouTube, not cosying up to it," Bragg said.

"Given that this year is the first to fail to produce a new million selling album, I can understand Taylor Swift wanting to maximise her opportunities with the new record – and it worked: she shifted 1.28m copies of 1989 in the first week of sale. But she should just be honest with her fans and say “sorry, but Sergey Brin gave me a huge amount of money to be the headline name on the marquee for the launch of You Tube Music Key and so I’ve sold my soul to Google,” Bragg continued.

"Google are going after Spotify and Taylor Swift has just chosen sides," wrote Bragg. "That’s her prerogative as a savvy businesswoman - but please don’t try to sell this corporate power play to us as some sort of altruistic gesture in solidarity with struggling music makers."

There's two problems here: the first, that Swift's pulling of music from Spotify is unconnected with her selling over a million copies of her album. How dispiriting it is that Bragg assumes her sales are simply a function of a basic supply and demand curve; that it is the scarcity of supply rather than the quality of the experience that has seen 1989 fly off shelves or down wires or whatever it is records actually do now.

The second, more important problem was Bragg's accusation that Swift was acting not out of principle but greed was... well, it was very wide of the mark. Here's his climbdown:

"I want to apologise to Taylor Swift for accusing her of selling her soul to Google," wrote Bragg on Facebook. "I have learned that her music will not now be available on the new YouTube Music Key service, which launched this week."

So, sorry about that. Bragg then launches into an explanation of how he got confused, based on how he'd read in The Observer that Google had used Swift's music at the launch, and then goes into a bit of a ramble about how music being available for free on the internet made him do it.

The time will surely come when content creators have to band together to challenge deals done between rights holders and service providers, details of which are kept from artists and their representatives. If Ms Swift is going to lead that fight for transparency, she will have my full support.

I'm sure she'll be delighted to have your full support, Billy. Perhaps not in the research department.

On the other hand, Bragg did have a good joke to end on:

I would like to add that I will be boycotting the first media outlet to use the headline ‘Bragg makes Swift apology’

It's a good gag, but perhaps having accused a person of selling their soul to Google for a large sum of money requires more than a boom-tish.

Having foisted the dreadful new U2 album on everyone, now Bono is apologising.

Not, obviously, saying sorry. But doing one of those 'hey, baby, if I'm guilty of anything it's just loving too much' apologies:

The questioner on the Facebook session said: "Can you please never release an album on iTunes that automatically downloads to peoples playlists ever again? It's really rude."

Bono replied: "I had this beautiful idea and we got carried away with ourselves. Artists are prone to that kind of thing.

"A drop of megalomania, a touch of generosity, a dash of self-promotion and deep fear that these songs that we poured our life into over the last few years mightn't be heard.

"There's a lot of noise out there. I guess we got a little noisy ourselves to get through it," he said.

Oh, man, I've just written this song. What if nobody hears the song? I know, I'll force the shitting song down their throats, whether they want it or not. Repeat ten times.

You know that at some point, in one of the meetings, someone - and it will have been Bono - said "look, guys, it's better to do something and say sorry rather than ask for permission and get a no". And he would have been wrong.

Remember Jack White? Nice kid, interesting music. Haven't seen so much of him since he went off on that big journey he made. Where was it he was off to again? Oh, yeah. Up his own asshole. That's where he went.

Last week, there was dispatch from his fundament, where he took time out of his busy preening ritual to slag off the Black Keys and Meg White in the pages of the Rolling Stone. He's now attempted to row back on the comments, while still explaining how he was right all along.

So, Meg, for example - Jack's former wife and someone who has, in the past, had anxiety problems. In the original piece, Jack laid into her:

"She's one of those people who won't high-five me when I get the touchdown," he said. "She viewed me that way of 'Oh, big deal, you did it, so what?' Almost every single moment of the White Stripes was like that. We'd be working in the studio and something amazing would happen: I'm like, 'Damn, we just broke into a new world right there!' And Meg's sitting in silence."

White recalled a quote from Ringo Starr that rang true to him during those moments. "I remember hearing Ringo Starr say, 'I always felt sorry for Elvis, because in the Beatles we had each other to talk about what it felt like. Elvis was by himself.' I was like, 'Shit, try being in a two-piece where the other person doesn't talk!'"

Oh, how frustrating for Jack not to have someone constantly high-fiving him. And him being so very very clever, too.

Now, though, Jack is keen to stress that he didn't mean anything by that:

"Meg White, who I also talked about to Rolling Stone about our working conversations, or lack thereof, is, of course, a musician I’ve personally championed for 15 years," he wrote in the statement. "She is a strong female presence in rock and roll, and I was not intending to slight her either, only to explain how hard it was for us to communicate with our very different personalities. This got blown out of proportion and made into headlines, and somehow I looked like I was picking on her. I would never publicly do that to someone I love so dearly. And, there are mountains of interviews where my words are very clear on how important I think she is to me and to music."

"Hey, what are you complaining about? I've said elsewhere she's important to me, so why does the fact I painted a picture of her being a closed-off, cold-fish hermit suddenly become a problem? In what way is saying she sat in silence when I'd been brilliant a bad thing?"

The Black Keys White took to task for being copyists:

"There are kids at school who dress like everybody else, because they don't know what to do, and there are musicians like that, too. I'll hear TV commercials where the music's ripping off sounds of mine, to the point I think it's me. Half the time, it's the Black Keys," White says. "The other half, it's a sound-alike song because they couldn't license one of mine. There's a whole world that's totally fine with the watered-down version of the original."
[...]
The White Stripes did the same thing, and in our absence, you're gonna find someone to fill that. And you get a band like the Black Keys, who said they never heard of the White Stripes? Sure.

It looks like what really irks White is not that the Black Keys supposedly sound like a watered-down White Stripes, but that they, too, refuse to high-five him by admitting his influence on their work.

Still, full marks for his clarification on this, which manages to be more snide than the original remarks:

"I wish the band the Black Keys all the success that they can get," he said in the new statement. "I hope the best for their record label Nonesuch who has such a proud history in music, and in their efforts to bring the Black Keys songs to the world. I hope for massive success also for their producer and songwriter Danger Mouse and for the other musicians that their band employs. Lord knows that I can tell you myself how hard it is to get people to pay attention to a two piece band with a plastic guitar, so any attention that the Black Keys can get in this world I wish it for them, and I hope their record stays in the top ten for many months and they have many more successful albums in their career."

"Yeah, good luck guys, and all those other people who are doing all the work for you. I hope your children are beautiful, and your grandparents long-lived, and your fingers remain supple into what will be a long and active old-age, and that you're too stupid to notice that this reads like a piece of douchey sark."

Oh, White also found time to slag off most women artists working at the moment, too:

Some people will hear that and say 'Oh, Jack White thinks he's the first person to play the blues.' But certain acts open up a market for a certain style. Amy Winehouse: Did she invent white soul? Wearing a beehive? No. But she did something brand new and fresh, altogether as a package, and you see who's in her wake, from the Duffys to the Lana Del Reys," he says. "Adele selling 20 million records? That would not have happened if Amy Winehouse was alive."

Adele's two albums were both released during Winehouse's lifetime, actually. But this isn't about facts, it's about Jack. And Jack knows what he thinks.

Although, er, maybe he's going to clarify that, too:

White also apologized to the artists he appeared to dismiss in his explanation of how "certain acts open up a market for a certain style." White said that he attempted to avoid giving a "no comment" answer to Rolling Stone because he thought it would sound petty, but ended up making comments that should have been reserved for "shop talk" among producers, engineers and managers.

"I wish no slight to the talents of Winehouse, Duffy, Lana del Rey, and Adele," he explained on Saturday. "All of whom are wonderful performers with amazing voices. I have their records and I hope for more success for them all as the years go on. They deserve all they’ve gotten. And, I also would love to state that I personally find it inspiring to have powerful, positive female voices speaking out and creating at all times in the mainstream, and all of those singers do just that, so I thank them."

There's a couple of things here. The first is that he seems to have noticed that he wasn't even apparently slighting Amy Winehouse, so maybe even Jack White starts to tune out and not listen properly when Jack White starts banging on.

Secondly, saying that Adele wouldn't have sold records if Amy Winehouse was alive - even if factually incorrect - is clearly saying that Adele had got success she didn't deserve.

So that's White's apology saying sorry for something he didn't even do (slagging Winehouse) and claiming he hadn't done something he had (slagging Adele). This is the most ham-fisted thing White's done since his last record.

But what really galls is that bit about "shop talk" - the sweeping imperiousness of the idea that the little people who read his interviews and (albeit in decreasing numbers) buy his records can't be trusted to understand such complex ideas as how Adele wouldn't have sold records if she'd had to compete with someone else without thinking he sounds like an arse.

Unless what Jack means is that he should only really talk to the sort of people he's paying, rather than people who aren't being paid to agree with his every shining insight.

Nicki Minaj decided to use Malcolm X to promote her new single.

Spin explains how:

Nicki Minaj has come under fire not for her new video — in which she fires a pair AK-47s akimbo — but for the art used to promote that song, "Lookin Ass Nigga." Found on her site (still, as of 6:15 p.m. EST) and on her Instagram (no longer), the grainy image repurposes a famous photo of Malcolm X holding a large gun while he peers out a window, seemingly concerned for his safety. Considering her use of weaponry, and that titular oft-weaponized word, people are pissed.

Pissed enough for two petitions to be raised - and, okay, "creating a petition" is probably the very least activity that can still be called activism, but it stung Minaj into a response.

Spin sees this an apology:

What seems to be the issue now? Do you have a problem with me referring to the people Malcolm X was ready to pull his gun out on as Lookin Ass Niggaz? Well, I apologize. That was never the official artwork nor is this an official single. This is a conversation. Not a single. I am in the video shooting at Lookin Ass Niggaz and there happened to be an iconic photo of Malcolm X ready to do the same thing for what he believed in!!!! It is in no way to undermine his efforts and legacy. I apologize to the Malcolm X estate if the meaning of the photo was misconstrued. The word "nigga" causes so much debate in our community while the "nigga" behavior gets praised and worship. Let's not. Apologies again to his family. I have nothing but respect an adoration for u. The photo was removed hours ago. Thank you.

This is a whole new level in the apology that isn't an apology, because not only does Minaj do a "if the meaning of the photo was misconstrued" non-apology, but then she follows it up with an "apologies again to his family" - which doesn't really require an "again" and, from the whole tone of the response, right from the opening, bored "what seems to be the issue now", shows no understanding of the cause of offence or any real contrition at having got it so badly wrong.

Still: it doesn't matter if you do something crudely insulting, providing it's not done on an official single. So that's alright then.

There's not been a video yet for Do What U Want, the collaboration between Lady GaGa and R Kelly. Most people have assumed that its because the song is such a clunking disaster that it has a helpline number for worried relatives to call, but it turns out there's... reasons.

Do tell us, GaGa. Trigger warning - grammar abuse:

It is late because, just like with the Applause video unfortunately, I was given a week to plan and execute it.

Oh, it's someone else's fault. Never mind, eh.

Hang on. She hasn't finished.

It is very devastating for someone like me, I devote every moment of my life to creating fantasies for you.

Remember this is in the context of a horrible song that manages to conjure up images of having R Kelly jizz in your face.

All my my most successful videos were planned over a period of time when I was rested and my creativity was honored.

It's not just she only had a week to do it in, but it sounds like one of the interns bungled the ceremony where they kill the goats to honour her muse.

Those who have betrayed me gravely mismanaged my time and health and left me on my own to damage control any problems that ensued as a result.

You had someone to manage your health? How did that work? "Okay, GaGa, I've booked your pancreas in for a scrub at 9.30 on Friday, and I'm just emailing you now a spreadsheet of your sneezing schedule for the rest of the month. The phlegmy ones are marked in green on that."

Still, to be fair, whoever has left her "damage controlling" on her own has quite badly let her down. Because there's more.

Millions of dollars are not enough for some people. They want billions. Then they need trillions.

"On the bright side, sooner or later they'll want sextillions, and that's got 'sex' in it, which I could make an album about."

I was not enough for some people.

And yet here we are, with the entire world yelling 'that's enough, GaGa'.

They wanted more.

They wanted more. They wanted more more. They wanted More More More. They would not be satisfied until GaGa covered Andrea True Connection.

I am very grateful to the photographers and designers who have always stood by me to make sure my fans are never aware of the things that happen behind the scenes, but unfortunately after my surgery I was too sick, too tired, and too sad to control the damage on my own.

Yes, thank god for all those people who worked so hard to keep the curtains drawn while you were, erm, keeping the curtains drawn entirely by yourself.

By the way, GaGa - great job of keeping those persnicketty management issues out of the public eye.

My label was not aware that this was going on.

Hang about, is the damage obvious to all or not? What?

The next few months of ARTPOP will truly be its beginning.

Artpop really is The Big Society of albums, isn't it? Nobody really knows what it all means, it clearly wasn't the big success everyone was banking on, and it's now in a constant cycle of relaunches.

Because those who did not care about ARTPOP's success are now gone, and the dreams I have been planning can now come to fruition.

A dream can't fruit, can it? And you don't really plan a dream, do you? It's interesting to see how GaGa's authentic voice makes her sound like someone culled early in a series of The Apprentice, isn't it?

Please forgive me that I did not foresee this coming, I never thought after all the years of hard work that those I called friends and partners would ever care so little at a time I needed them the most.

It's okay Gags, I don't think anyone was expecting this.

Give me a chance to show you the meaning of seeing art all around you.

You do realise that everyone can see art all around them, don't you? It's not like a superpower you get when you rub your undercarriage with half a pound of luncheon meat.

Open your hearts to me again that I may show you the joy of us coming together through our talents, that we are stronger as a unit than when we are alone. Let me be for you the Goddess that I know I truly am, let me show you the visions that have been in my mind for two years. I love you.

You're apologising for not having yet delivered a video for a terrible song. Why has this note suddenly turned into Ted Mosby trying to win back a high school girlfriend?

Forgive me monsters. Forgive me ARTPOP. You are my whole world.

You know those people who badly let you down, Lady GaGa? I'm presuming you have a list. You might want to add anyone who you showed this to who went "yeah, that sounds OK" before you published it.

The thing, surely, is that she's just written a long, rambling apology for not making a video for a track, when really she should be going door-to-door to personally make amends for having made the record in the first place.

So how would ITV square inviting unacceptable rapper James Arthur onto the channel after sacking unacceptable rapper Chris Fountain?

By getting Arthur to mumble something which sounded like it might have been an apology. DigitalSpy was watching:

Speaking to Dermot O'Leary on tonight's show, he said: "It's been an amazing year for me. There's been incredible highs paired with some terrible lows. I've made a few very silly mistakes.

"I just want to thank all the people who are still supporting me and especially The X Factor for giving me the opportunity to do my dream job.

"Above all, I'd like to say sorry for abusing my position as an X Factor winner, because I owe everything to this thing."

First of all: "abusing my position as an X Factor winner" - that's not even a thing, James. It's not like you're the chair of the Co-Op Bank, or Cabinet Secretary. Nobody thinks your homophobia would be okay if you'd not made it through to Boot Camp.

Secondly: Even if it was a thing, that's not what you should be apologising for, and not who you should be apologising to.

No indication that he understands why what he did was terrible; no suggestion that he shouldn't have said those things. ITV have managed to make things worse.

Hey, Sunday Mirror. Haven't you got something to say to Harry Styles?

Go on.

Two weeks ago we published an article about Harry Styles from One Direction under the front page headline “Harry’s Boozy Night with Lapdancer”

In that article we claimed that Harry was extremely drunk in a nightclub and had an “intimate” encounter with a lapdancer while he was there.

We also claimed that Harry was out of control. We now accept that this story and the claim that Harry was out of control is untrue.

We would like to apologise to Harry for the distress we caused him by what we published.

Pretty unusually, this apology has a byline:

Ben Rankin is deputy editor of Mirror.co.uk

Not quite sure why an online editor is writing an apology for an article on the paper, or indeed how anyone would construct that final sentence.

Remember Paris Hilton? There's not been any sighting of her threatened second studio album, but there are claims that it's a real thing.

She probably won't be rushing to release it any time soon, though, as she's currently trying to dig herself out of a massive homophobic hole:

"Ewww! Gay guys are the horniest people in the world," Hilton said. "They're disgusting. Dude, most of them probably have AIDS. ... I would be so scared if I were a gay guy. You'll like, die of AIDS."

First, her team of PR flunkies have attempted to explain that she was really trying to make a point about the dangers of unsafe sex.

Obviously, that was greeted with a chorus of "puh-lease", and so now Hilton herself has signed off on a personal statement that someone has written for her:

"I am so sorry and so upset that I caused pain to my gay friends, fans and their families," Hilton said in part of a lengthy apology she released to the the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD.)

"Gay people are the strongest and most inspiring people I know."

You'll note the only gay people she's actually sorry about upsetting are the ones she knows, or who buy her shit. If you're gay, never bought a bottle of Pogrom by Paris Hilton scent, and don't like being told you'll die of AIDS, tough.

But for those gay people who do qualify for an apology, what do you get? "Gay people are the strongest and most inspiring people I know." What though process led to that sentence?

'Shit, she's waved around a vapid stereotype that suggests all people who share a sexuality are united through sharing a single negative character trait. If we release a statement in which she suggests that all people who share a sexuality are united by sharing a single positive character trait, that'll cancel it out, right? Like telling someone they stink, but then telling them that they have a lovely smile. That'd be a reset, right?'

Is it really true that Hilton can't think of anyone more inspiring than every single gay man and lesbian? Doesn't she realise that some gay people are actually total douchebags, and about as inspiring as Nigel Farrage standing on a podium shouting 'follow me'? And that her real problem is not simply her Mail On Sunday circa 1985 view of AIDS, but the belief that "gay people" are a single blob sharing all their traits.

Like a Nick Clegg apology, it's worthless if you're only saying sorry to make people like you again, but don't really understand what you're sorry about.

Plan B has issued something approaching an apology for his Skrewdriver tshirt.

The explanation of the genesis of the shirt - basically, he copied it from Gavin Watson's book Skins without bothering to ask exactly what it was he was copying - is in full on the Quietus, but B admits his error:

"The minute I found out what the words on the t-shirt meant I was angry with myself for not questioning them. The t-shirt is not official nor is it on sale anywhere. It was of my own doing and therefore it is my mistake, but that is all it is."

Earlier, though, he explains why he used the imagery in the first place:

I asked [Gavin Watson] if I could print shots from his book on to t-shirts. I made a number of these t-shirts. Gavin's photos are relevant to me because they represent the demonised youth of the past. Just like my generation of young people are demonised in the media to all be hoodie wearing thugs and chavs so were the skinheads in the 80's.

"Not all of them were racist but because some of them were, the rest were all tarred with the same brush. That is why I feel the images of the skinheads represented in Gavin's work are relevant to me and this generation.

I guess this proves that if you're going to play about with right-wing politics to make some sort of point, you need to be bloody certain you know what you're doing.

It's a fair point that not all skins were racists, but B is fundamentally confused if he thinks that being a skinhead in the 1980s is on a par with wearing a hoodie in the earlier 20th century. There was a distinct political outlook which had chosen the skin look as part of the badge of belonging, but the world was smart enough to know that not every skinhead was a fascist; those that were demonised were attacked for their politics, not for their cropped hairstyle - and people who felt intimidated by skinheads usually were actually being intimidated by far-right skinheads at the time.

Hoodies, though, aren't the mark of a violent, fascist subculture - the demonising of the hoodie wearer and the chav is not calling people for what they believe (or even what some people who dress like them believe) but because of who they are.

In short, then, Plan B tried a well-meaning but poorly though-through comparison, and got his fingers burned. But then, if Plan B really knew anything about the politics of skinheads, he'd have spotted Skrewdriver on his chest from the off.

The question does remain, though: if he knew that there were racist skinheads, wasn't it a bit lax to print up a t-shirt and wear it for a front cover magazine shoot when he admits he didn't know what the phrase was? Google offers over three quarter of a million responses to the word - any one of them would have flagged the folly in an instant.

After James Corden's producer-enforced stage-rush to shut her up, ITV are hoping Adele will accept their apology:

"The Brits is a live event. Unfortunately the programme was over-running and we had to move on. We would like to apologise to Adele for the interruption."

Yes, it's a live event. That, surely, is the point? Is there any point in showing a programme, constantly chanting 'the most important award of the evening is the best album award', and then rushing the presentation of that prize?

Yes, Blur were about to come on - but they didn't finish their set on ITV1 anyway; given that there was already going to be an awkward mid-song bungle off to ITV2, could a couple of minutes not been found for Adele?

In fact, was it really so important to scramble to keep ITV on schedule? Yes, pushing the News At Ten back to the News At Five Past Ten might have been awkward, but would it have been that bad? The delay would have knocked on through the rest of the schedule - but what delights did ITV have lined up?

A repeat of Benidorm.
A repeat of The Cube.
Some sort of gambling show.

Could it have been what ITV was really worried about was missing the start of the junction for that, Jackpot 247? Was the concern that letting Adele say "cheers" would have delayed the network's attempts to separate fools and money?

Lily Allen senses another motivation:

"I'd rather hear adeles acceptance speech," she tweeted after the incident, adding, "I can't say I'm surprised [it was cut off]. It was like the music industry's attitude to women played out as a metaphor."

Up to a point. More like the attitude to musicians. It's all just content, and must be cut to fit the gaps between the sales points.

Not everything on Fox News is paranoid, gibbering, right-slanted douchery. Take this, a response from Andy Levy after Chris Brown complained about something Levy had said on Twitter:



[Hat-tip to the The MediaBlog]

No, no, it's not rats. That sound you can hear is Gordon scrabbling an apology out:

LAST week I reported that Gareth Bale celebrated his PFA Player's Player of The Year Award by dancing on tables with glamour girls at nightclub Merah in London.

At the time I said it was a bit out of character for the teetotal Welsh winger, and in fact we now accept that we got it wrong.

The Spurs hero was in fact back home with his parents, his grandfather, sister, girlfriend and the trophy at his Essex home.

He did not visit the club and was professional enough to head straight home after the awards. Sorry Gareth.

I think what's especially magic about this is the way Gordon tries to somehow justify the original story by saying 'yeah, at the time I said it sounded unlikely'. Perhaps rather than writing 'this sounds unlikely', you could, you know, check or something? Before writing a bunch of old crap in your paper? It might save you having to grovel.

This scattered itself round the internet yesterday, and I suspect accounted for a large portion of how unwell the entire world felt by the evening.

Mick Hucknall's public apology.

Now, there is much for Mick to apologise for. The cover of the Stars album, as a starter, screams the need for the sort of penitence only hitherto exhibited by the medieval saints. But it's not that which has him saying "sorry":

'I regret the philandering," says Mick Hucknall, a man who, by his own estimation, had sex with more than 3,000 women in a three-year stretch in the mid-80s. "In fact, can I issue a public apology through the Guardian? They know who they are and I'm truly sorry."

That's one of those 'sorry's that isn't really. Like "well, I'm sorry if my career earning thousands of pounds and allowing you to keep a roof over your head meant I missed the Christmas play at the school", it's much more about showing off about what you've done, and then trying to make yourself look better by 'regretting' it.

It's actually a shame that Hucknall had to drag up the thousands of presumably still traumatised women he claims to have left in his wake, as the glittering hook it provided the paper to hang the interview on obscured a lot more interesting things going on Rob Fitzpatrick's piece.

Essentially, if Hucknall hadn't made Simply Red records but done the other things he did, he'd probably be regarded warmly as one of the UK's foremost musical enthusiasts, winding a tale from Eric's, through Punk, and releasing and revitalising long-lost reggae tracks on his small label. It's Hucknall's curse that none of that ever really came through in his public face of soupy ballads and fairground lite jazz. It's broadly similar to what happened to Elton John, who still has much of the bloke who used to pop behind the counter in small London record shops to riffle the new releases trapped in the body of the bloke dripping out paeans to dead Princesses.

It's more healthy to reflect on that, than the supposed strike rate of one woman every eight hours.

The BBC has withdrawn and apologised some of its reporting over Ethiopian aid - although the actual complaints findings aren't online yet, so it's not entirely clear yet what, specifically, they're saying sorry for.

Much of the apologising seems to be for other news programmes making a direct link between Band Aid and misused aid; the BBC has admitted you could have come away with the impression that the programme was talking about Band Aid funds rather than aid in general.

In much the same way that this morning, you could come away with the impression that the apology was for the original investigation into what happened to aid rather than some of the summarising which followed.

The Mail is relatively restrained in its reporting of the apology. But then the Mail did run a story directly linking Band Aid funds to weapons around the same time, with an on-the-record source.