Definition of a ‘gagging order’ –a legal action undertaken by an individual to shut someone else up. As simple as that. Nobody can blow the truth any further. And the truth can never get out.
Private matters remain private. Or, at least, as private as possible.
It is something which can only ever be reserved for the rich. Those with wealth buy their privacy. Those without the position of affording such luxuries can expect every aspect of what goes on ‘behind closed doors’ publicised exhaustively by the media in an unsympathetic and often persecutory manner. This, however, occurs very rarely. It is only usually the rich and famous who are followed in this way at all.
It only seems natural that celebrities should be the ones who are stalked by the press and have all sorts of interesting facts about their pasts dug up or rumours of the present investigated, seeing as they are the ones who can cope financially either in the case of a ‘gagging order’ being implemented or whether they choose to sue an individual or organisation for circulating falsities about them or their families.
Clement Freud once said on American television ;‘the bigger the truth, the bigger the libel’. It is perhaps truer now than at any other time in the past.
The change to the practice of ‘super-injunctions’ is a just and necessary measure which will ensure an end to abuse of the system on the part of well-known figures. Time and time again we have seen famous actors, broadcasters, sports stars, and politicians, able to block stories concerning their private lives from reaching the printing rooms so as to avoid being the ‘victims’ of journalistic witch-hunting.
It is now common practice for a ‘celebrity’ to pursue this line of action and find themselves voicing their concerns in our courts, keen to prevent any closeted skeletons from being exhibited in the public eye. The fact remains that the overwhelming majority of these stories must be true; the individuals involved would not be so desperate to resort to legal measures in the first place if they were not. In doing so, they are, somewhat foolishly, only drawing further attention to themselves. As a result, the entire purpose of having an injunction implemented becomes laughably discredited.
Thus, ‘news’ of alleged extra-marital affairs, parliamentary expenses, et al are inevitably leaked, circulated, and exposed in a way which significantly damages the reputation of the ‘celebrity’ concerned. A better source of advice for such people would be to hold their hands up high and admit their own embarassing faults, so as to avoid any sensational garbage which may well arise through self- denial.
Those who defend the rich and powerful have recognised, quite rightly, that their monopoly over what does and does not get printed in our newspapers must draw to an end. Even the dreadful public relations ‘guru’ Max Clifford (a man who is consistently on the side of the celebrities he represents and is given far more air time than he deserves) has openly admitted that the present system is totally untenable and proclaimed the change as a welcome step in the right direction.
Our celebrities and public figures have a responslibility to the rest of us. They are to act as role models for us all, regardless of age, gender or ethnicity. If they acknowledge that they remain just as fallible as every other human being they will gather far greater respect and forgiveness from the general public. It is this policy of honesty and openness which should not only be in the interest of the rich and famous, but should also precipitate more responsibilty on the part of those journalists so quick to point the finger.
Liam Elvish
19 June 2011
No comments:
Post a Comment