I believe in free speech. As a PR, I know that journalism is my bread and butter and as a human being I know that a free press is vital to any democracy.
Lately journalists have been up in arms over the use of superinjunctions. Unless you’ve been living under a rock, you’ll be clued up on the latest drama over the cover up and eventual illegal revelation that Ryan Giggs had an affair with ex-Big Brother nobody Imogen Thomas or his brother’s wife.
Journalists claim that superinjunctions are a way for the extremely wealthy to hide their misdemeanours from the public. True.
They also claim that stories that expose celebrities for their sins are in the public interest… erm…
I genuinely find it hard to see how Ryan Giggs’s latest off-pitch score is in the public interest. Really. Even if his whole personal brand was around being a family man (which it isn’t) I still don’t see how it’s in the public interest to know “the truth” about him. Advertising is fiction – anyone who believes otherwise needs a serious reality check.
We also need to take a step back from this whole footballer “role model” hysteria culture – he’s paid to kick a ball around, not to behave as a pillar of morality – that’s what parents and teachers are for.
Our instant access to information has made us greedy and nosy. We feel cheated when we can’t find out every juicy detail of every affair ever had by any celebrity ever because we’ve somehow come to feel it’s our right to know.
But would you really want your every indiscretion splashed across front pages of papers, speculated over and gossiped about by the whole country? Probably not.
So I say let the super rich have their secrets – at the end of the day we know he can still score and that’s all that matters.