The Twitterati Have Done The Media Barons’ Bidding

Now Twitter users have forced the “revelation” that the footballer who fought back against their exposure of him is in fact Ryan Giggs, what next?

The British system of injunctions is apparently in tatters, and revealed as “unsustainable” in David Cameron’s words, because information that can’t be published in mainstream media can be freely distributed on the open Internet.

Also, when injunctions are broken, it may well be that British firms will not be able to get foreign-owned social media companies to reveal who did the leaking. The consensus seemed to be that Giggs would have a difficult time forcing Twitter to give up the details of the user who tweeted a list of supposed British court injunctions.

Who does privacy serve?

There is a heady and prurient atmosphere around the exposure of “celebrity shaggers”. Do they need or deserve privacy, we are supposed to be asking. Or should they accept that giving us access to their private lives is the price of their fame?

In fact the privacy orders in question are only a small part of a spectrum of needful and not-so-needful privacy, which extends from injunctions which genuintely protect powerless and innocent victims, to those which attempt to hide the misdoings of the powerful – which can be far more serious than celebrity sex.

One injunction – which includes Facebook and Twitter – prevents the press from mobbing the mother of a middle-aged brain-damaged woman. I like to think there would be no mass protest in support of anyone breaking that order.

Two years ago, however, a different injunction – a genuine super-injunction, whose terms banned the media from mentioning its existence – was broken, again by a combination of Twitter and parliamentary privilege.

This injunction was designed to prevent discussion of alleged dumping of toxic waste in Cote d’Ivoire in Africa. by Trafigura.

Press freedom is usually qualified with the idea that exposure must be “in the public interest”, a caveat designed to distinguish between cases like these two. But celebrity privacy drives down the middle line between them.

The super-injunction taken out by Sir Fred Goodwin was about a sexual relationship within a bank, which might have no public interest, if it weren’t for the fact that it was experiencing a financial disaster at the time, which cost the public a lot of money.

Media barons want their pound of flesh

This exposure will force the hands of the courts: Gigg’s injunction was upheld in court yesterday, while it was being blown apart in the House of Commons and online.  But the issue which forced the change is one where the self-interest of big media is on one side.

Reality TV celebrities are media creations, and so in their way are leading footballers who, because of the reach of global media, have vastly bigger rewards for their athletic ability than they would have had a few years ago.

This story became a media sensation because of the way in which mainstream news sources reported it. Their frustration at being unable to report the details did not stop them covering the story, in fact it fed the fire, because the media were frustrated.

Having created the celebrities, and the conditions for a juicy story, they were unable to report the names involved, and that rankled.

Freedom-loving Twitter users have leapt in to expose and poke fun at the situation. In so doing they have strengthened the argument for increasing press freedom. But what will that be used for?

Internet users may find they have agitated for more muck-raking, rather than whistle-blowing.