...at least that's what you'll get on the website in a frenzied bid to up the search engine optimisation. But the trouble with such cobblers stories is that quite often they turn out to be total turd, unless they come from an extremely good source. When they don't, they make you look like a fucking idiot.
Which bring me to yesterday's story in the Telegraph in which it was claimed that:
Tom Cruise and Daniel Craig 'reluctant to appear on Jonathan Ross'
of the Sachsgate scandal and concerns about his "humiliating" interview style, it has been claimed.
Couched in the 'it has been claimed' bollocks or not, you need to be actually saying something that has its roots in accuracy in order to be considered a journalist rather than a blethering chimp at a keyboard.
The actor Tom Cruise, currently on cinema screens in the film Valkyrie, has been lined up in for the comeback show but is allegedly considering pulling out after being informed about the recent controversy surrounding Ross.
What a pity that an interview with Cruise couldn't have happened with the old all-guns-blazing Ross in full effect; you can't help but fear he might be muzzled a bit in the wake of the Manuel nonsense, but we'll see.
Anyway, was it true? Erm...
Hollywood actor Tom Cruise has been confirmed to appear on Jonathan Ross's first chat show when it returns following his three-month suspension.
That'll be a no, then.
Time was when the Telegraph really was the benchmark for quality journalism. But why should you believe anything you read in there or on the website, if it's alongside such patent crap as the Cruise story, with no sources mentioned and with 'it has been claimed' and 'allegedly' sprinkled all over the place? The Tele has to decide whether it wants to be trusted or first with the celebrity gossip. You can't have both.