Mamamia should have gone to Specsavers
American actress Eva Longoria went off on one on Instagram after Sydney Morning Herald “journalist” (her quote marks, not Dr Mumbo’s) Jenna Clarke suggested she doesn’t wear glasses, but still endorses discount glasses chain Specsavers.
Even more amusing than Eva’s hissy fit was Mamamia’s confusing coverage, which contrasted Longoria’s Instagram response to Clarke with her other happier posts.
Unfortunately for the Mamamia team there were a few clues to tell them they had inadvertently dragged in Sofia Vergara’s Instagram posts. They might have picked up on one or two subtle clues.
For example, Vergara crouching next to her star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame:
Or posing next to a cake of that star, which also has her name on it:
Or stopped to wonder why she had posted a Vanity Fair cover featuring a big picture of Vergara plastered with the word Sofia:There’s a ‘Should have gone to Specsavers’ joke in there somewhere…
Updated: Overnight Mamamia pulled the Vergara gallery and put the correct Longoria gallery in its place, whilst also removing the author’s name from the piece.
More importantly (and hilariously) can we talk about the deliciously ironic final sentence of the article? That’s still on the site by the way?
In case they delete it (look, it’s Mamamia so retractions aren’t a thing) it reads: “What we can be fairly sure of though is that all Australian publications will be doing much more vigorous research for all things Longoria in the future.”
So just expected of the ones you rip content off then, right?
User ID not verified.
Surely another publication must have misused Vergara, which led Mm to do the same? Are MUMBRELLA implying MM staff source their own stories or content? Hilarious. A staffer rewriting copy must have simply not fact checked. Oops.
User ID not verified.
Does this mean they’ve started using the subs in Bangladesh already?
User ID not verified.
Those pesky Hispanic women! How dare there be more famous one at a time!
User ID not verified.