Katherine Heigl has gone and done ‘that thing’ again, where she puts herself in a situation where the media can misunderstand and misquote her, thus making her look like something of a bitch.

Come on Katherine, grow some sense – you can’t make any comment about anything, ever, without it being jumped on and you made out to look like something of a snob or a twit. Remember the Knocked Up ‘sexist’ fiasco? Where it came out that you thought the film was sexist? Then backtracked, claiming your quote was taken out of context?

Then everyone decided you hated the film?

Then everyone decided you were a bit of a mouthy git?

Seriously – the smart money would be on choosing your words more carefully, or just keeping schtum. But you haven’t learned – this time you’ve made it look as if you’re slagging off Grey’s Anatomy, which currently pays the bills. Again, maybe not so smart.

Yes, Katherine Heigl was nominated for an Emmy award at this year’s ceremony, but she’s gone and pulled out. Because apparently she doesn’t think she’s deserving of a trophy this year. #

Actually, that’s quite honourable and honest of her. So why did she have to go and make it sound as if she’s blaming the show for her being undeserving?

“I did not feel that I was given the material this season to warrant an Emmy nomination and in an effort to maintain the integrity of the academy organization, I withdrew my name from contention.”

Speaking to the Los Angeles Times, Heigl made it all too clear where she was placing the blame. She wasn’t the one that had been crap over the last year – the show was! It’s all clear now! Possibly noticing that this was one of the least subtle comments belittling one’s own show, Katherine followed up the comment:

“In addition, I did not want to potentially take away an opportunity from an actress who was given such materials.”

Ah. Kick the Anatomy when it’s down, why don’t you. Jeez.

We suppose it could be worse – Katherine could be having a go at a show that actually has some good points, and not an overly-emotional, faux-intellectual farce of a television show that preys on the lowest common denominator to keep its viewing figures up. Like, say, if she started on The Wire, then, whoa. That wouldn’t bode well for her.

Consider yourself warned, Heigl.

As everyone knows, Diddy is responsible for all the bad things in the world, from squeaky floorboards to the 1994 shooting of Tupac Shakur to the invention of the jellyfish.

We know this because we read the Los Angeles Times, and the Los Angeles Times definitely said that Diddy was definitely behind Tupac's 1994 shooting.

Except that, um, he wasn't. The Los Angeles Times has apologised after an investigation showed that the sources in its recent Diddy/ Tupac story were apparently fabricated. You may be off the hook this time, Diddy, but we've still got you on the jellyfish thing. Our lawyers will be in touch.

There's no doubting Diddy's charm and panache as a person. You can see it in his day-to-day life – when Diddy roughs up a scamp in a car park, he adds so much pizazz to the beating that at least one person ends up farting fire. And Diddy's just to classy to allegedly cheat on his girlfriend with Sienna Miller like a regular schmo – when you roll like Diddy you have to allegedly cheat on his girlfriend with Sienna Miller right after she's given birth to his twins.

So, yes, much like The Pink Panther, Diddy is a gentleman, a scholar and an acrobat. And, while we're on the subject, another similarity that Diddy shares with The Pink Panther is that neither of them orchestrated the 1994 shooting of Tupac Shakur.

Which is more or less the exact opposite of what the Los Angeles Times published earlier this month, though – an article by Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Chuck Philips claimed that Diddy's filthy little paws were all over the Shakur shooting and that, while he may have avoided punishment, he should feel awfully ashamed of himself, or something. We stopped reading about two-thirds in, to be honest.

But Diddy denied the Tupac shooting, and a subsequent investigation by the LA Times found out that actually, the story was pretty much a gigantic crock of poo from beginning to end, and now it's sorry. According to the Associated Press:

The Los Angeles Times apologized for using documents that were apparently fabricated in a story implicating associates of Sean "Diddy" Combs in a 1994 assault on rapper Tupac Shakur. "The bottom line is that the documents we relied on should not have been used," Editor Russ Stanton said in a story posted Wednesday night on the newspaper's Web site. "We apologize both to our readers and to those referenced in the documents … and in the story." … The apologies followed an investigation launched by Stanton after The Smoking Gun Web site reported earlier in the day that the paper was conned by a prisoner who doctored the documents.

Of course Diddy wasn't involved in a shooting – look at his adorable puppy eyes. That's all the evidence we need, although unquestionable proof that the article making the accusations was based on fabricated documents probably helps a little bit as well.

It's an awkward situation for all involved – by not being more thorough, the LA Times has now mauled its journalistic credibility for the foreseeable future, and Diddy has to live with a swirl of 14-year-old rumours that he thought had been put to bed.

Chances are that Diddy might want to retaliate against the LA Times somehow. Hopefully this will be in the form of a costly lawsuit rather than a concept album about how only God can judge him. Because that really wouldn't be helping anyone.

Read more: 

LA Times Apologizes for Shakur Story – AP

If you were Diddy, you'd probably want people to discuss your new vodka line or your perfume or your acting or your inability to stay with women who've just given birth to your children.

In fact, if you were Diddy you'd probably be happy for people to talk about anything at all, except for your alleged role in the 1994 shooting of Tupac Shakur.

Which is a shame, because that's what a newspaper did yesterday. But for what it's worth, Diddy has vehemently denied all the allegations against him. Hecklerspray would like to add that it had no involvement in Tupac's 1994 shooting either. That makes us as good as Diddy, which is why we're about to release our own ropey cash-in perfume as well. It's called hecklerspray: Unjustifiable. Pour homme.

We're worried. There's a disturbing new trend that's taking the world by storm right now, and the government is doing nothing to stop it. The name of this trend? Decades-old celebrity assassination attempts.

It's terrifying. Mick Jagger can no longer walk the streets for fear that someone will kill him 39 years ago, and now Tupac Shakur is thought to be in hiding in case someone shoots him and leaves him for dead in 1994. What next? Will someone stage an audacious hit on Elton John in 1973? Where will the madness end? Where?

Yesterday's Los Angeles Times contained a lengthy article about the 1994 incident where Tupac Shakur was beaten and shot in New York. It claims that the event kick-started the East Coast/ West Coast rap wars that ended with both Tupac Shakur and Notorious B.I.G getting killed. And it's implicated Diddy in the whole messy affair.

That's right – Diddy. Lovely Diddy of I Do (Wanna Get Close To You) by 3LW guest-rap fame. Diddy the booze-hawker. Diddy, the man who can literally punch flames out of people's asses. According to the Los Angeles Times, Diddy had a hand in orchestrating the beating and shooting of Tupac as punishment for Tupac not wanting to join Diddy's Bad Boy record label.

Based on what, you scoff. FBI reports? Statements from informants? Interviews by people who were there as it actually happened? Well, actually, yes. But Diddy isn't going to take this sort of slander sitting down – he's responded with all the force that a quickly bashed-out 63-word statement can muster:

"This story is beyond ridiculous and is completely false. Neither Biggie nor I had any knowledge of any attack before, during, or after it happened. It is a complete lie to suggest that there was any involvement by Biggie or myself. I am shocked that the Los Angeles Times would be so irresponsible as to publish such a baseless and completely untrue story."

As odd as it is for a newspaper to drag up a mostly-forgotten 14-year-old story about a dead convicted sex abuse felon getting roughed up, if Diddy really did have a hand in it then it still counts as being newsworthy, if a little sensational.

But listen to Diddy. Listen to the man! He definitely didn't play any part in Tupac's shooting, no matter what anyone says. And Diddy is a trustworthy man. He might have left his girlfriend right after she had his twins, he might have accepted an advance to write his autobiography then failed to write anything while refusing to hand back the advance and he may have been boning Sienna Miller on the sly, but we'll just say this.

Diddy says that pissing is good. And pissing is good. Therefore we're adamant that he didn't help shoot some bloke a decade and a half ago.

Read more:

Diddy Denies LA Times' Tupac Story – AP