A media/sporting oddity
With my apologies in advance for stepping gingerly into our esteemed sports editor’s domain, this morning I wanted to bring to Rusters’ notice an example of media coverage that – for those who might wish to consider such things – highlights some of the difficult and conflicting issues that can arise when the profession of journalism comes up against legal concepts such as “the right to privacy” and the duty to protect the judicial system – and indeed some of the fundamentals of English & Welsh law (not least “a man is innocent until proven guilty”) – from a situation in which in the modern era a general media scandal-mongering “free for all” witch-hunt atmosphere thrives.
For good or ill, and generally-speaking one might cogently argue it is the former, one of the features of the modern world is that technological advances in the means of communication has transformed the way the world works.
A century – let alone two – ago, “the greatest in every land” tended to have two lives – one in private and one in which they (and, where appropriate, an idealised image of them) were presented to the world and, in a sense, never the twain needed to meet.
Innumerable historical word famous public figures were able to keep secret quirks, oddities and/or proclivities that – had they ever come to public knowledge – would have threatened and/or destroyed their careers, marriages and reputations.
However, gradually this changed.
William Randolph Hurst (1863-1951), the celebrated American newspaper magnet, once famously declared “News is something that someone didn’t want printed: all else is advertising“.
The might of the media – always understood by those in positions of power and influence – grew exponentially, as did the disciplines (e.g. public relations, crisis management, masters of the art of propaganda) by which it could be manipulated and/or “steered”.
These days the balance between – on the one hand, the justifications for having a “free press” and, on the other, the arguments for having legal restraints placed upon it – tends to sway back and forth according to fashion.
It is also complicated not only by the phenomena that – via organisations such as Facebook, Twitter, WhatsApp and Tiktok to name but four – literally anyone can apparently become an overnight fabulously rich and famous media celebrity, but also – by the same token – rumours, lies, libels, slanders and “fake news” can suddenly “go viral” in an out-of-control manner.
Nobody – from the highest and most noble of statesmen and stateswomen to the meekest proverbial provincial street dustman – is immune from potential worldwide publicity, whether it be positive or negative.
Which brings me to the UK media story that has prompted my post today.
Earlier this week reports began appearing in the UK media about an alleged rape carried out over the weekend by an England rugby international – duly “protected” by the law in that currently his name cannot be mentioned in the media “for legal reasons”.
This is clearly a development that will have had newshounds everywhere salivating.
The identify of the individual concerned will, of course, already be an “open secret” within the profession of journalism.
Furthermore, it was also inevitable that rumours would begin circulating on social media.
Today, therefore, I invite Rusters to take advantage of the following links to stories that are to be found today upon the website of the Daily Mail:
Mike Keegan writes upon a development at the English Premiership club Sale Sharks – see here – SALE SHARKS
Stewart Whittingham, Vivek Chaudhary and Shekhar Bhatia pen an “exclusive” on a woman who may have been involved – see here – MANCHESTER WOMAN
[Author’s note: It is, perhaps, worthy of comment that the original media reports on this subject did not mention the age of the alleged perpetrator of the offence; that today’s piece by Mike Keegan in the Daily Mail mentions that he is 29 years of age; and that Roy Tingle’s interview with Danny Cipriani’s wife mentions that her husband is 34.]
