Supermodel maniac goddess Naomi Campbell has accepted libel damages from Britain's Daily Telegraph over a story that "falsely claimed she planned to organize an elephant polo match in India for her partner's birthday." Which, to their credit, how are they supposed to tell a true Naomi Campbell story from a false Naomi Campbell story? They're not wizards!
However, they are apparently liars. In a November 2012 article, they wrote that Campbell planned the tournament in Jodhpur for boyfriend Vladimir Doronin's 50th birthday. Understandably, animal welfare advocates were like, "Say whaaaat??" That is, until Campbell herself saw the story, and was also all, "Say whaaat??"
In a statement read by her lawyer, Campbell said she's "glad that the matter has been resolved and I accept the newspaper's apology." Also, she's glad to take the "substantial" amount of her damages.
A question you might ask is: How did this story even get started? Why would a paper — even the Daily Telegraph — make something up from scratch? Or is it possible the story came from a tipster who was lying? It's probably not hard to get people to believe anything about certain celebrities. Naomi Campbell is definitely one of those celebrities.
You have to wonder... how much of Naomi Campbell's reputation is truly deserved, and how much is because she's a black woman who doesn't take any shit? Yes, the phone throwing and battery charges were rightfully upsetting, but it seems she has paid for them repeatedly.
"I'm never gonna get away from it," she said of the cell phone incident. "It's part of my history. I was remorseful and regretful. I've served. I did that time. And I never want to be in that position again."
For someone so outspoken about the lack of opportunities for models of color, and involved in important relief work, you think you'd hear more about the good stuff. Instead, it's all "crazy lady orchestrates elephant fight club", and "grab that phone from her before she beats you with it!" Or maybe she really is a nightmare? Or perhaps it's a bit of both?