Giggs, Gags and Sordid Secrets

A Critical Discourse Analysis of tabloid newspapers and their response to the threats to freedom of expression

Robyn Fletcher: 110178833Social Policy and Sociology (BA)The Department of Sociological StudiesApril 2014

1

Word Count: 16,496

2

Front Page Picture: Inside World Soccer (2011)

Abstract

In 2011, injunctions became one of the most topical legal documents talked about

that year. Ryan Giggs and his injunction named ‘CTB vs News groups Newspapers’

failed to fulfil its purpose. His name which was splurged all over Twitter, led to the

naming of him in parliament through parliamentary privilege, making his identity and

affair publically known, despite the injunctions efforts. This case gave a needed face

and story to the debates of privacy laws and freedom of press.

Imogen Thomas; Ryan Giggs’ ex-lover who was involved in the marital affair, and the

public, were gagged from naming Ryan Giggs or giving detail of the affair. Despite

this, the gist of the affair was still known, and Thomas’ gagging could still be reported

on; as long as no names or clues were mentioned. While broadsheet newspapers

are known for a being a more formal branch of news, tabloids are known for their

kiss-and-tell stories. The best-selling newspaper, The Sun, particularly wanted the

injunction lifted, which suggests they felt entitled to the freedom of expression to

report the ‘kiss-and-tell’ story.

The aim of this research is to look at the reporting of this particular injunction that

sparked much controversy; both before and after Giggs was named in tabloid

newspapers The Sun, Daily Mail and The Mirror. The method used will be critical

discourse analysis (CDA) to analyse the case of Thomas and Giggs and evaluate

the language used, opinions shown, amount of ‘gossip’ and the weight of reporting

3

on the regulatory issues around injunctions; i.e. whether it is for, or against

injunctions within the celebrity world.

The key findings of this study will help understand how tabloids react to injunctions

and the threat that they have on their freedom of expression. Within times of debate

on the regulation of injunctions, the future of privacy laws are unknown. Although

debates are centred around the use of social media, the weighting of privacy and

freedom of expression, and tabloid vs celebrities, little studies explore language used

by tabloids in order to arguably persuade others to favour freedom of expression

over privacy laws; in which they have a vested interest. The findings will therefore

also help to understand the overarching questions on the issues of injunctions within

contemporary times and illuminate new ones.

4

ContentsChapter 1 Introduction p.7-9 Introduction to the topic p.7 Research aims p.8

Overview of the dissertation p.8-9

Chapter 2 Literature review p.10-26 Introduction p.10

Laws p.11-16 Defining Injunction p.11-13 The Press Complaints Commission p.13-15 European Convention of Human Rights: Article 8 and Article 10 p.15-16

The use of celebrities within the media p.16-24 Public naming and shaming p.17-21 Gossip p.21-24

Conclusion p.24-26

Chapter 3 Methodology p.26-34 Theoretical methodology p.26-30 Practical methodology p.30-31 Problems encountered p.32-34

Chapter 4 Findings p.34-57 Introduction p.34

The representation of the law p.35-44 The lack of definition p.35-36 Language around the term ‘injunction’, ‘super injunction’, ‘gag’ and ‘gagging order’ p.36-37 Emphasis on Judges and Lawyers p.38-40 Emphasis on the cost of the injunction in relation to Judges,

5

Lawyer’s and the Court p.40-41

Discussion of representation of the Law section p.41-44

The Representation of celebrities p.44-57 Imogen Thomas p.45-46 Ryan Giggs p.47 Development of the story on Ryan Giggs p.47-48 Emphasis on the public ‘knowing’ and blame on the injunction p.48-50 Gossip p.50 Covering the same story twice within the newspaper p.50-51 The structure of gossip p.51-53 Disclosing information on other celebrity injunctions p.53-54

Discussion of the representation of Celebrities section p.54-57

Chapter 6 Conclusion p.57-62

Chapter 7 Bibliography p.63-70

Chapter 8 Appendices p.71-73

6

Chapter 1: Introduction

Introduction to the topic

In 2011, the ‘Super Injunction Spring’ became a phenomenon that was widely

discussed by the public, the press, politicians and regulatory bodies. This was mainly

influenced by the press raising concerns that a number of celebrities had obtained

super injunctions, which prevented the press from reporting about the story and from

the public knowing about it. A number of injunctions had also failed around the time

raising cause for concern about the regulations around injunctions. Amongst the

thick of it, Giggs attempted to get an injunction to prevent the press and his ex-lover;

Imogen Thomas, from naming him. Ryan Giggs, like a select few other celebrities,

was granted the anonymised injunction. These can be defined as:

‘ an interim injunction which restrains a person from publishing information which

concerns the applicant and is said to be confidential or private where the names of

either or both of the parties to the proceedings are not stated.’

(The report of the committee on

Super-Injunctions, 2011, p.iv)

7

A ‘super injunction’ is a bigger threat to the press as it ensures no information about

the injunction can be obtained by the press or the public. Therefore freedom of

speech on the matter is an illegal act. A large number of super injunctions were

reported to have been taken out, although this was purely hyperbolic. The Giggs

case is of significance during this time as it was an injunction which failed to pursue

its purpose, and therefore it hit the headlines of tabloid newspapers during the

debate.

This research is contemporarily salient as Bowcott (2013) reports the recent rise in

applications for privacy injunctions. Concerns with the regulation of the press are still

involved in current debates and the ‘Royal Charter on Self-Regulation of the Press’

(Gov, 2013) has been drafted but may not be implicated until 2015 (BBC 2013).

However, the press clearly oppose the charter (BBC 2013a) and show little interest

in the new regulations, suggesting preference of their current system, despite the

attacks it faces.

Research Aims

Due to the stress on tabloids reporting on injunctions and its focus on kiss-and-tell

stories, this research aims to look at the reporting around the super injunction spring

in 2011 and the way in which it portrays the story of Giggs and Thomas, to arguably

protect its freedom of expression amidst the threats it faced.

It aims to conduct critical discourse analysis on a sample of tabloid newspaper

reports around the story, to see how the tabloid press reacted to the story in a time

where their freedom of expression was at risk. By doing so it will help understand

how methods of reporting show the press’ agenda to keep freedom of expression.

8

The research will then also be able to understand any further issues with the use of

anonymised injunctions in relation to the tabloid press.

Overview of the Dissertation

Injunctions particularly raise questions about the public and private realms and their

belonging within the media. As Weintraub (1997, p.3) states: ‘discourses of public

and private cover a variety of subjects that are analytically distinct and, at the same

time, subtly-often confusingly overlapping and intertwined’. As the research looks at

injunctions, the media and celebrities, it became important to cover all subjects

relevant without making the research confusing or overlapping.

With this in mind, the literature review will cover aspects of the law which regard to

the use of injunctions, before going on to the use of celebrities within the media.

Each section within the literature review is therefore seen as relevant towards this

research.

The methodological section proceeds from the literature review and will provide a

justified explanation as to why critical discourse analysis is beneficial for this

research. The theoretical elements to critical discourse analysis and practical

methodology will be explained before observing any problems encountered.

The findings will then be presented in sections which mirror the literature review. The

first section will cover aspects of the findings which relate to the laws revolving

around injunctions, before going on to the second section, which will show the

relevant findings towards the use of celebrities within the media. There will be a

discussion after each of these sections relating to the findings in correspondence

9

with the literature review. Finally, the conclusion will reflect back on the research,

and consider any further research recommendations.

Chapter 2: Literature Review

Introduction

The literature review is set out in two separate chapters- ‘Laws’ and ‘The use of

celebrities within the media’. Each chapter aims to explore relevant reading and

theories that link clearly to the research aims and topics.

The Law section begins by defining the injunction particularly obtained by Ryan

Giggs and considers issues that are raised within The report of the committee on

Super Injunctions (2011). Subsequently, a section on the PCC gains insight into the

history of press regulation which is relevant to how the press desire self-regulation

and freedom of expression. Staying on topic, the next section will look at The

European Convention of Human Rights: Article 8 and 10. This is because they link

directly to the use of injunctions and are critical in the discourse of freedom of

expression.

‘The use of Celebrities within the media’ section applies more of a sociological

imagination to the study. Firstly, it explains the importance of looking at celebrities

within this research to introduce the topic, as it differs from the first half of the

10

literature review. This section then focuses on ‘naming and shaming’ and its use

within the wider context of society and celebrities in the media. The final section in

the literature review focuses on the use of gossip within the media and the wider

usage within society.

Laws

Defining injunction

‘The conflict between the tabloid press and the law was at its most intense during the

so-called ‘Super-Injunction Spring’ of 2011. Over a period of a few months the

granting of a small number of anonymised privacy injunctions led to a press

campaign of a small number of civil disobedience, supported by Twitter leaks and

complaint Parliamentarians.’

(Petley, 2013, p.xi)

An injunction involves a court order to apply restraint to publication, most likely faced

by the media (Dawson-Collins, 2013, p.183). Hitting the headlines of 2011 were the

debates about super-injunctions. As Garner (2011, p.866) states, a super-injunction

is ‘a prohibition on all media from identifying the parties in a legal dispute and even

from reporting that restrictions have been imposed on the media’. An anonymised

injunction, however, is: ‘an interim injunction which restrains a person from

publishing information which concerns the applicant and is said to be confidential or

private where the names of either or both of the parties to the proceedings are not

stated’, which is stated within The report of the committee on Super-Injunctions

11

(2011, p. iv). Charlotte Harris on Question Time (2011a) opined that the issue with

anonymised injunctions lies within the fact that the injunction faces the public panel

and ‘nobody really reads them but it’s the press that wants to publish the story which

is in most cases a kiss-and-tell type story’.

It is important to distinguish the difference of the injunction terms, as the media

largely misreported that a huge amount of super-injunctions had been taken out;

when in fact this was not true. The fact that it was reported within this way may have

affected the views of the public who read the stories around the super-injunction

spring. Arguably it could have created the opinion that there is a ‘secret practice of

an elite few who could afford a court order to gag the media on reporting’ (Lambert,

2011, p.52). By defining injunctions, already shown is an issue in the reporting

around the time of ‘Super-Injunction Spring’, and in light of this, media framing helps

to conceptualise the way in which it was reported. The press plays a definitive and

powerful role in shaping the public’s opinion, where Goffman (1974) would state this

as a process of selection and creation of social reality.

According to Petley (2013, p.xiii), there were 200 stories in the national press alone

in April on ‘The Super-Injunction Spring’ case, however, the reporting’s were widely

incorrect - claiming that celebrities were increasingly gaining super-injunctions with

ease. An argument as to why the tabloid press caused a form of moral panic, which

can be seen as the actions of individuals being a result of wider social issues (Lull

and Hinerman, 1997), could be as Petley (2013,p.xiii) states; ‘to exaggerate the

alleged threat to press freedom’ in order to favour the press’ agenda.

12

Cohen (1972) makes significant contributions to the role of moral panics in ‘Folk

devils and Moral Panics: The Creation of Mods and Rockers’, defining a situation

which creates a threat to society, driven by the media and widespread information,

that questions the morals and values of society. In this case the definition of

injunctions and the exaggeration of the use of super-injunctions created a false

understanding that the public were not having their promised ‘free press’.

The report of the committee on Super-Injunctions (2011, p.iv), had indeed found that

only two known super-injunctions had been taken out since January 2010. Yet, in

2011 super-injunctions had become the most topical and controversial legal

documents in the UK (Lambert, 2011, p.11). It would be, then, understandable to

agree with Petley and suggest that the media; tabloid in particular, exaggerated

‘super-injunctions’ to prevent privacy laws. On a backhanded side of this however,

the reporting on injunctions around the time of Giggs’ case raised a number of

questions about the PCC and issues with the balance of Freedom of Expression in

Article 10 and the Right to Respect for Private and Family Life in Article 8, which

then put the regulatory issues and the press at steak.

The Press Complaints Commission

It is important to understand a brief history of press regulation to understand how

they work within the situation of injunctions. Cassels (2013, p.250-251) gives a

glance of regulation within the press, showing that it is no modern phenomenon that

the press have to deal with regulatory bodies and threats. In 1953 ‘The General

Council of Press’ was introduced, though during 1962 it was both deemed

ineffective, and the funding for the council was lacking too. An independent chairman

13

stepped into place when criticism was still flowing, leading to funding and lay

membership to expand the council, and declarations of privacy were introduced.

During the late 1980’s, complaints about ‘breach of privacy, harassment of

individuals and their families, inaccurate reporting and intrusion’ led to two separate

Private Member Bills- one was explicitly on ‘privacy’ and made it through to the

house of commons to discuss further. It was David Calcutt who gave the press a

final chance of 12 months to avoid statutory control of the media, although he did

believe privacy to be important within the press.

Arguments about the history of issues raised within the regulations of press suggest

that the law has acted in favour of self-regulation when threatened by legislation

(Berry, 1999, p.307). The Press Complaints Commission (PCC, 2012) was set up in

2012, stating that ‘The press must take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or

distorted information’; ‘Everyone is entitled to respect for his or her private life, home,

health and correspondence, including digital communications’ and ‘Editors will be

expected to justify intrusions into any individual’s private life’; however these

requisites are ambiguous in terms of regulation.

Sabbagh’s (2011 p.4) comments regarding the PCC state that ‘it should not be

possible for newspapers to duck out of their responsibilities, as the Express and Star

titles have done; there should be a debate whether the PCC should be able to levy

fines on newspapers; and consideration should be given whether to back up the

PCC with the force of law’. However, the responsibilities that the PCC holds in

contemporary society are fairly questionable. Within the public interest code PCC

(2012) it states that there ‘is a public interest in freedom expression itself’, which

14

illustrates conflict between freedom of expression and privacy in regards to the press

and is particularly difficult in the context of injunctions.

Furthermore, the PCC (2012) states that journalists must consider how much the

story is in the public domain already, or is expected to become public knowledge.

This seems particularly risky when anonymised injunctions are involved. Using the

Giggs case as an example, journalists following the PCC may believe they had a

responsibility to report about the injunction as it was largely known to the public.

However, seemingly paradoxically, when an injunction is in place it is against the law

to report it. Mr Justice Eady, who dealt with the injunction in court, commented that

the court’s duty and use of injunctions is to protect family involved against

harassment that the story may cause due to mistrust from Thomas in selling the

story (Wintour and Sabbagh 2011, p.2). But as Tomlinson (2013, p.278) shows, a

number of factors go into the decision of protection; the audience it is directed to, the

medium of which it is delivered and the kind of expression, suggesting that the courts

consider both the rights of press, and freedom of expression.

Rowbottom (2013, p.11) draws light that leeway is given in the courts to journalists to

decide what is important to the public, suggesting that the law towards journalists is

somewhat relaxed - after all, it is a self-regulated body. Because newspapers have

the vested interest of selling papers, there runs the risk of private information

becoming ‘newsworthy’ stories, despite potentially having further implications to the

person and person’s family.

The European Convention of Human Rights: Article 8 and Article 10

15

When the Human Rights Bill 1998 reached parliament, the press were right to be

nervous that this would lead to laws of privacy and ‘the convention has indeed given

the courts both power to expand the circumstances in which a confidentiality of

privacy claim can succeed and the organising principles on which to proceed’

(Robertson and Nicol 2007, p.269). Stated by (Petley 2013, p.xv, Gallant and

Epworth 2001, p.9, and Tomlinson, 2013), freedom of expression is favoured more

by tabloid and increasingly comes into conflict with the respect for privacy. The

legislations involved here are within The Human Rights Act 1998 and the

incorporation of the European Convention of Human Rights. Article 8 includes: ‘Right

to Respect for Private and Family Life’ and Article 10 involves: ‘The right to Freedom

of Expression’ (Gallant and Epworth 2001, p.5-6). The laws clash, especially within

‘kiss-and-tell’ stories, and boundaries between what should be public and private

becomes contentious. David Cameron voiced that he felt ‘a little uneasy’ with the

development of these privacy laws by the judges when injunctions are granted,

declaring that the parliament, and not the courts, should be deciding the rights to

privacy (Bowcott, 2011, p.6). Debate turned to the balancing of the two laws and the

boundaries of public and private. Sabbagh (2011, p.4) states that ‘in reality it will be

very very difficult to improve on Article 8’s right to privacy, as balanced by Article 10

right to the freedom of expression’. This gives tabloids a sense of hope on the

entitlement to freedom of expression and future allowance of the right to report kiss-

and-tell stories, and further shows issues with injunctions within the celebrity culture

from being granted; or failing.

The use of Celebrities within the media

16

The use of celebrities within the media is an important factor towards this research.

The issues raised in the Giggs case are hardly any threat to the public when looking

at a kiss-and-tell type story; it is celebrities who dominate the press and who obtain

injunctions to protect their private lives. In relation to the above issues of the conflicts

of the laws and the issues with private information being published, Mill (1859, p.22)

argues in his harm principle, that ‘the only purpose for which power can be rightfully

exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent

harm against others’- this point was shown in his defence for free speech. If applied

to the idea of public figures within the media, it gives light to the fact that free speech

should be allowed to anyone; unless it causes harm to an individual. This can be

seen as an argument as to why judges feel the need to protect public figures in

relation to article 8’s right to privacy; i.e. to protect family. It could also be linked to

public figures reputation and the harm that publication of private information can

cause. It raises questions whether Article 8 and 10 ‘balance’ each other, or conflict.

As the laws have been noted above, the use of celebrities within the media needs to

be established to understand why celebrities are reported on so vigorously and why

this case in particular may have been used, to frame the injunction debate.

Public naming and shaming

‘To ‘name and shame’ is to disclose information about an identified person or body,

which either seeks to induce shame in that person, or at least express a judgement

that the person ought to feel ashamed of themselves’

17

(Rowbottom, 2013, p.1)

The Scarlett letter (Hawthorne, 1851) portrays a 17th century woman Hester Prynne

and how she was forced to wear the letter ‘A’ stitched on to her clothing to make

people aware of her adulterous affair and publically shame her. It is not a modern

phenomenon to see public shaming, but has been imbedded within the context of

society throughout history. Within small neighbourhoods the viewing of the shaming

acts allowed gossip to circulate with ease, and gossip affected the reputations of

those who were ‘shamed’. It is important however to reflect on the changes in

shaming; whereas shaming could happen to an ‘ordinary’ individual who had been

involved in a marital affair, it is only ‘newsworthy’ now in the celebrity world.

Solove (2007, p.91,92) argues that shaming within the public has disappeared - the

power to shame in such a way as before, became impossible as population

expanded and migration was possible. In contemporary times the media is steadily

available to the masses and when referring back to the case of Hester Prynne we

can reflect on how an affair, especially within the context of celebrities already in the

limelight, could reach headline stories. To name and shame is distinct from

publishing a story within the media that invades a person’s privacy, it often has a

motive behind it. If a national newspaper chooses to name and shame somebody,

they must decide what disclosure of the private information is public interest

(Rowbottom, 2013, p.15).

When talking about anonymised injunctions judges often account that sexual

activities qualify for a higher degree of protection ‘but the hypocrisy or false image

which publication might expose will sometimes outweigh heavily in the other side of

the balance’ (Robertson and Nicol, 2007, p.287), meaning that the person who has

18

obtained the injunction has an unequally higher degree of protection, than the other

party. Thomas had no protection within this case compared to Giggs, and newspaper

reports were allowed to report her name, therefore as long as they did not disclose

the name of Giggs the gist of the story could be revealed. She ‘was increasingly

making headway with arguments that suggested there was no law available to

protect her because she could not afford the cost of an injunction’ (Sabbagh and

Halliday, 2011) which meant the exposing of her unveiled questions about the

legitimacy of one being able to take out an injunction and leaving the other party

unprotected. The use of naming Thomas for that matter could show whether the

press involved the motive to create not a sense of ‘shame’, or to express a sense of

judgement that she should be ‘ashamed’, but the idea that the use of injunctions

themselves should be shameful. This is an example of how naming and shaming can

have different motives.

Further to this, John Hemming named Giggs using Parliamentary privilege stating

that ‘with about 75,000 people having named Ryan Giggs on Twitter, it is impractical

to imprison them all’ (Rayner, 2011). Instead of seeking to charge the public who

were involved in naming them; he named Giggs to stop secrecy. It had in fact

seemed that the continuance of injunctions had become unsustainable as David

Cameron had stated (Evans, 2011). Jeremy Browne stated on Question Time

(2011b) that the law is clearly not keeping up with technological advances, and ‘as a

result the law is becoming increasingly ridiculous’. He later commented that the need

to get the correct balance between Article 8 and Article 10 is evident and must be

resolved (Question Time, 2011b).

Gladwell’s (2000) work makes clear the way in which Giggs became publically

named on Twitter and circulated. The Tipping Point, shows how the spread of

19

information is similar to disease epidemics. Within social networks there are

‘connectors’, and as most people don’t have a wide group of friends it is the

‘connectors’ of friends which help spread the information. When information is

‘contagious’ enough for people to talk about it, it then reaches a ‘tipping point’ where

the information can reach hundreds, thousands and millions of people.

When the media does name and shame someone ‘they do more than add their

voices to a debate on public standards: they effectively enforce their view through

the power of publicity’ (Rowbottom, 2013, p. 15). Serious questions are raised in how

the press pick private stories to publish and name certain individuals within Article 8

and the PCC, but yet the leeway is given to journalists to decide what a public matter

is within courts (ibid, p.11). It could be argued that the naming of Thomas had a

significant effect on the injunction as: 1. It allowed tabloids to create a story before

the naming of Giggs; and 2. It left the audience wondering who the other party in the

injunction was. Further to this, Giggs was named on Twitter and in Parliament by

John Hemming. This then allowed the press to publish his name and report stories

about this particular injunction during a time of debate about the issues.

In contemporary society, it is accepted that celebrities are used as a commodity.

Within the rise of celebrity culture, it is inevitable that society has an interest in the

‘role models’ and ‘public figures’ around, and as Rozenberg (2004, p.141) states, ‘If

we try to protect our sources from themselves, we will end up with no stories. But if

we publish regardless of the consequences, we will end up with no sources’. If this

quote is taken in context of an injunction on a celebrities private life, it can be clear

that if all celebrities private lives were excluded from the press there would be

little/no stories of gossip. However, if all celebrities’ private matters are published

20

and injunctions were not allowed, the press could end up with no stories. Celebrities

could either ensure their private lives are unknown, or could become extinct all

together if no boundaries between public and private existed.

To establish how much of the press is dominated by celebrity gossip, Rein et al

(1997, p.286) states that 70% of published news stems from public relations and

publicity. Celebrity gossip sells, and in order to sell, a name is needed. It has been

argued that the media can use shame in numerous ways to create a sense of

conformity to social norms by the public. Although it is often used in crimes we can

observe this when a newspaper ‘‘shames’ a celebrity for having an affair’, which

becomes a debatable matter as to whether a wrong has arisen in the use of shaming

altogether (Rowbottom, 2013, p.7).

Gossip

A staple part of the tabloid news values consists of ‘exaggerated foregrounding of

sensation and ‘human interest’’ (Conboy, 2006, p.15). Within this ‘tell-all’ society as

Barnes (2010, p.31) states, gossip becomes an important foundation and as

Gladwell (2000) established, information can spread fast when it is ‘contagious’. It is

understandable how celebrity’s private lives can become gossip known to a wide

variety of people. The private affair of Giggs and Thomas can be seen as a form of

gossip - within the public realm behind closed doors, marital affairs can be a form of

gossip amongst friends and family and can be a very difficult, upsetting situation.

After all as Fischer (2007) states, ‘remove the names and you have the same

21

familiar story: a prominent figure says or does something culturally inappropriate, a

recording ends up on the internet, and a critical pile-on ensues’.

When private life becomes gossip within the media the effects can be devastating on

the person involved. This has been a long standing issue and was stated by Warren

and Brandeis (1890) who suggest:

‘Gossip is no longer the resource of the idle and of the vicious, but has become a

trade, which is pursued with industry as well as effrontery. To satisfy a prurient taste

the details of sexual relations are spread broadcast in the columns of the daily

papers’.

With the spread of information and the conflict between article 8 and article 10 and

the naming of Giggs, it is important to know why free press is seen as desirable,

‘which is analogous to legitimate curtailment of any other abusive power’ (Barnes,

2010, p.49). Turner (2004, p.3) states how the modern celebrity will have usually

emerged from the sports industry or entertainment; Giggs (a footballer) and Thomas

(who became famous from Big Brother) fit this bill, and subsequently it is said that

their private lives will usually attract greater interest than their professional lives.

Tabloid material is mainly ‘look-at’ material, made up of pictures and eye catching

headlines, and the remainder is ‘quick-read material’ (Tunstall, 1996, p.11), therefore

tabloid layout perfectly suits celebrity gossip. Pictures and catchy headlines entice

the public to easily pick it up and read. Solove (2007, p.64-65) suggests that ‘people

rarely use gossip as a way to delve into the psychological depths of others, but

rather consume it like a form of greasy fast food. Gossip is a delicious treat, often

without much nutritional value’.

22

In the mid 70’s the Sunday Mirror ‘ran a series by Nigerian-born model and actor

Minah Ogbenyealu Bird that marked a tipping point. The raunchy kiss ‘n’ tell was

born’ (Greenslade, 2011, p.2). Kiss-and-tell stories have been around for a long time

within the press and can be shown as a form of gossip. Holmes and Redmond

(2006, p.344) discuss how popular tabloids have developed this new sense of

journalism that focuses on the ‘exposés’ of the private details of celebrities who

desire to be unknown. Resulting from this is the sense of intrusion that was noted of

in 2011, where these ‘exposés’ often qualify as gossip.

Gossip can be seen as a positive thing; therefore in some aspects the reporting of

private lives can be argued as a need in society. Often sociologists see gossip as a

needed element; it ‘enables communities to enforce norms’. As Rowbottom (2013,

p.16) states, naming and shaming people of their sexual behaviour can deter others

from engaging in similar activities. It educates us about the lives of others. It allows

us to better assess others reputations’ as Solove (2007, p.189) states. In other

words we learn from these situations; we learn about the consequences that an affair

could have on family, without having gone through it ourselves. Dyer’s (1986) work

on ‘stars’, explains how they work like signs for the public to actively read which emit

cultural meanings, and are effectively an important social process of identity, cultural

and social norms as Hermes (1995) and Turner et al (2000) state. Baggini (2002,

p.80) believes private lives of celebrities are important within the media because they

are seen as ‘self-appointed moral guardians of society’. Gossip however, can be

argued to have become a trade (Solove, 2007, p.109), and can turn into bad

reputation and emotional distress; ‘our good reputation can quickly be lost, with

deleterious consequences on our friendships, family, jobs and financial well-being.

23

We must all cope with the fragility of reputation, the delicate porcelain that carries

our ability to function within society’ Solove (2007, p.33-34). Therefore, we all desire

control over our reputation in some form. Injunctions can protect the reputation of

celebrities within Article 8 of the Human Rights Bill. So the use of gossip and

celebrities become reeled into the fact that stories of celebrities can sell, but the

legitimacy of it being valuable to the public becomes questionable. People within

their private lives must witness gossip themselves within their circle of friends or

family, but celebrities are now embedded within our society, so it is as though the

public accept and expect celebrity gossip as well.

Injunctions in the matter of gossip suggests on one side that the press may find an

argument as to why a private matter could be published, but the courts on the other

hand may conflict that gossip could have a particularly bad effect on the persons

family depending on what the private information was.

Conclusion

The literature review has been valuable to the process of this research. As there are

no known academic readings on injunctions, the literature review has narrowed

down the most important debates and topics towards this research helping

understand usage of laws around injunctions in relation to the use of celebrities in

the media. This will help understand the reporting on the story in tabloid newspapers

with more ease.

24

Significant towards this study already is the information gained from Petley (2013,

p.xi) and The committee on Super-Injunctions (2011, p.iv), which has enabled the

understanding that the tabloid newspapers wrongly reported the use of injunctions in

the ‘super injunction spring 2011’. It will be particularly interesting to see what the

findings from this study suggest, and to see if it can find any further evidence that

relates to this that could bring theories such as Cohen (1972) and Lambert (2011,

p.52) into discussion.

It is evident from the literature that the press has dealt with regulatory bodies and

threats in the past, and that there has been a number of criticisms towards the way

in which the press works, yet it still remains a self-regulated body with the PCC in

place. Arguments such as Sabbagh (2011, p.4) suggest that there were criticisms

particularly towards the PCC, within the time of this injunction. Similar arguments

around the time suggested there was a clear conflicting issue with Article 8 and

Article 10 of the law and the use of injunctions. As the debate on the regulatory

issues of injunctions were prominent at this time, it will be interesting to see how the

tabloid newspaper reports about these debates.

Considered to be the most relevant responsibilities of the PCC (2012) towards the

use of injunctions and reporting, involve the idea that the press should not publish

misleading information. Secondly, ‘everyone is entitled to respect for his or her

private life’ – however, this can be broken if the journalist believes that the public

have widely known about the story already, and therefore it can be considered to be

of public interest. In relation to the definition of injunction and its use, these

regulations do not marry together, and are arguably outdated. Therefore the

literature review has already helped gain understanding on the issues with press

25

regulation and the use of injunctions and celebrities. These points will be taken into

consideration within the discussion on the findings.

The literature review has helped understand that naming and shaming is not a

modern phenomenon, and that there is often a motive behind it. It will be interesting

to consider this further in the findings in relation to Robertson and Nicol (2007,

p.287) and how the unprotected party in the injunction can suffer from exposure in

publication. In relation to Thomas this will be most interesting when considering her

portrayal.

It was shown how popular celebrities are embedded within the media, how the

tabloid press news values consist of human interest (Conboy, 2006, p.3) and how

they have had interest in kiss-and-tell stories in particular. Particularly interesting to

take forward to the discussion will be the positive and negative aspects that have

been portrayed within the section of gossip. This will help conceptualise the way in

which the tabloid press chose to portray the story of Giggs and Thomas.

Chapter 3. Methodology

Theoretical Methodology

The chosen method for this research is critical discourse analysis (CDA), and this

chapter will justify this selection. To do so the methods positive and negative points

will be explored in detail, and the sample for the research shall also be examined

and explained within reference to how the research was carried out.

26

‘The focus, then, is upon how events, situations, relationships, people, and so forth

are represented in texts. A basic assumption is that media do not merely ‘mirror

realities’ as is sometimes naively assumed; they constitute versions of reality in ways

which depend on the social positions and interests and objectives of those who

produce them’

(Fairclough, 1995, p.103-104)

CDA is relevant within this research in order to understand the language used within

the tabloid reporting’s around Giggs’ injunction case. Language itself ‘is used to

mean things and to do things’ (Richardson, 2007, p.25), and CDA provides the idea

that discourse comes from within a position of power; a ‘controlling force’ allowing

the researcher to ‘have a deeper understanding of the way language is used to

persuade and manipulate both individuals and social groups’ (Bloor and Bloor, 2007,

p.1). Bryman (2012, p.528) also states how language is depicted in discourse

analysis as constituting or producing the social world; it is not merely a means of

understanding that world, as it is in most quantitative and qualitative research

methods. With gaining deeper understanding of the newspaper reporting’s it shall

allow the scope to analyse each topic relating to the literature review.

This research will mostly stem from Fairclough’s (1995, p.2) view point that: 1. Media

have the power to shape ‘governments, and parties’, and 2. The media has the

power to influence ‘knowledge, beliefs, values, social relations, social identities’ and

is largely influenced by the language used. Within his work the importance of

analysing media language is an important element within research on the processes

of social change within contemporary society. Fairclough believes that language is

‘socially shaped, but also socially shaping’ (Fairclough, 1995, p.5). This method then

helped understand the relatively recent regulatory issue within the context of how

27

tabloid newspapers portrayed the story amidst threats of potentially losing freedom

of expression. While regulatory issues of injunctions were clear within 2011 it is

unclear as to how the law will be regulated in the future, if regulated at all. Fairclough

(2003), Fischer and Forester (1993) and Hastings (1998) all suggest CDA is a good

method to evaluate policy. By using CDA it will help to evaluate the laws that

surround injunctions and how they are represented within the tabloid press, and

therefore overarching questions about regulatory issues of injunctions will be easier

to find.

This research has chosen not to start with a hypothesis to be proven or disproven,

but has, however, shown that tabloid newspapers favour freedom of expression, and

have a history of reporting kiss-and-tell stories. It is therefore clear that injunctions

may be a threat to freedom of expression itself, and within the regulatory issues

raised in 2011 it could be a bigger threat to tabloids in the future if regulatory change

was to happen and favour privacy laws. Therefore, it can be assumed in this study

that tabloids may report in a way that favours freedom of expression- in which way or

to what extent remains unknown within this chosen research topic. As a researcher I

am aware that my predispositions and views of how tabloids may report this

particular story could make my findings bias. However, the issues with this are dealt

with and discussed within the ‘problems encountered’ section, and this particular

research could be replicated to find similar if not the same findings although the

conclusion could reach a different stand point.

Due to the aims of this study it left quite open research questions, and as Fairclough

(1995, p.105) suggests, a form of content analysis may be necessary to carry out the

research to see how a certain theme is represented for example. As a researcher, I

personally used themes to prevent the loss of the research aim. The whole text was

28

still analysed however to ensure that nothing important was missed, and ‘linguistic

analysis’ (Fairclough 1995, p.57) was used on the text to extract relevant findings.

The text was analysed particularly focusing on the analysis of representational

processes in the text. The following quote summarises considerations of the

process:

‘an account of what choices are made- what is included and what is excluded what is

made explicit or left implicit, what is foregrounded and what is backgrounded, what is

thematized and what is unthematized, what process types and categories are drawn

upon to represent the events, and so on’ (Fairclough, 1995, p.104)

With focus on the above, the research themes were as followed:

1. How the articles represented laws surrounding injunctions

2. How the articles represented Imogen Thomas and Ryan Giggs

3. How the articles represented gossip

The way in which the research themes are formed is similar to how Altheide (1996,

p.46) suggests to conduct research on newspapers from a fairly abstract research

question. Therefore the questions of ‘how do the tabloid media present the case of

Ryan Giggs, Imogen Thomas and injunctions in question to whether they are for or

against injunctions within the celebrity world’, and, ‘how do they react to the

injunction and frame the story which could persuade others to favour freedom of

expression over privacy laws’, are dissected into three bite size questions which are

simpler to conduct.

Therefore the research aims are to:

29

1. Distinguish how the representation of laws surrounding injunctions are

represented in order to gain insight into how tabloids may use the way in

which it is reported to favour freedom of expression

2. See how Imogen Thomas and Ryan Gigg’s are represented in order to gain

understanding on the ‘naming and shaming’ process and understand how this

case was used to favour freedom of expression if, indeed, it did

3. Understand how gossip was used within the framing of the report to favour

freedom of expression and appeal to the public

Within the findings it will become clearer as to why the themes where chosen which

correlate to the chapters in the literature review and reference to others work. The

focus on linguistics will be noted throughout the findings only when necessary.

Practical Methodology

The research so far should have made it clear as to why tabloids where chosen as

there is simply no other way or form of research that could be chosen and show a

legitimate finding towards this research aim. However the research did start off with

the aim of looking at both broadsheet and tabloid. This idea was then abolished

because the literature showed there are more issues within the reporting of tabloids

in the Super Injunction Spring 2011. Because this is a relatively new topic, there are

no found studies out there on this case and no found studies of the sort relating to

injunctions and celebrities. Therefore within my literature review broadsheets

became a staple part of stating information about the injunction itself. By focusing on

tabloids the research hopes to draw out meatier findings that are more focused.

This particular research focuses on the injunction taken out by Ryan Giggs who is a

famous footballer, liked and known by many. The kiss-and-tell story is entwined

30

within this case and is very much pronounced by the tabloids. The sample was

therefore decided within the first few steps of this research as soon as the research

was narrowed down and defined. The sample was collected through Lexis Nexis and

included: The Sun, The Daily Mail and The Daily Mirror. This is because they are the

three top selling newspapers within the UK and it was recorded in January 2014 that

within the year The Sun had sold: 2,213,659, The Daily Mail had sold 1,780,565 and

The Daily Mirror had sold 992,256 (The Guardian, 2014). The significance of this

number is clear when against the other sales of newspapers. The Sun itself sells

more than double of any other newspaper including both the tabloid and broadsheet.

It is clear that they have the potential to not only sell but to influence a larger amount

of people and potentially policy, if they desired.

Picking the newspapers to sample was a relatively simple task but picking the type of

sample to choose was more difficult. It became apparent that newspaper articles

about CTB vs Newsgroup Newspapers developed before Giggs was named because

the newspapers chose to report about Thomas. In order to see the development of

the story it was paramount to pick a sample which covered before Giggs was named,

and after. This meant searching for two different results: one involving the search

‘Imogen Thomas AND Injunction’ and another including ‘Ryan Giggs AND

Injunction’. Known as a stratified random sample the articles where chosen within

particular dates ensuring that three were before the naming of Giggs on 24 th May

2011 and three after of each chosen tabloid. Bryman (2012, p.192) points out the

advantage of this way of sampling which is relevant within this research too, stating

that ‘it ensures that the resulting sample will be distributed in the same way as the

population in terms of the stratifying criterion’, and it becomes relevant when applied

31

to the idea of needing a sample from a particular date that is going to be

representative of the wider picture.

Problems encountered

Before carrying out the research it was important to look at the negative aspects of

the chosen method. Criticisms of CDA profess that it over emphasises the ‘micro’,

and to be effective it has to show the ability that it can analyse the micro in relation to

the wider macro level of social structure (Luke, 2002). I felt this criticism was

particularly daunting to grasp. Overcoming this problem was difficult; the method of

CDA is complex and particularly new within research methods itself. It was with this

in mind that I had to ensure that the research was strongly linked towards the

literature review, wider social relations, the injunction of Giggs itself, and towards the

way in which language has been studied already. This helped link all of the research

together and gave a deeper understanding of the language used within the

newspapers.

A second criticism of CDA became apparent as I conducted the research which

stemmed from my own personal view. Although CDA is known to pick up aspects of

bias behaviour I felt as though using themes (as I chose to do) within CDA helped

form bias opinions. By actively searching for themes that this research focuses on, it

was hard not to form opinions corresponding to the literature review. Therefore when

the analysis of the articles also suggested what the literature review had already

shown, I found myself double checking to ensure I wasn’t being bias. Bloor and Bloor

(2007, p.4) state how important it is to be self-critical and independent when

32

conducting CDA which is something I found myself doing throughout the whole

process.

As Deacon (2007, p.8) points out, Lexis Nexis can prove to be difficult when

searching particular words. In light of this, ‘test runs’ of searching were carried out

before the sample was chosen from the search words shown above. There was little

or no difference to the articles shown when ‘gag’ was replaced by ‘injunction’ in the

search. Once the dates and different sets of searches were chosen for the reasons

which are relevant to this research, it was particularly easy to randomly select

articles out of the search. It should be noted here however, that the amount of

reporting’s on the case were notably larger around the time Ryan Giggs was named.

Therefore, the sample has three articles of closer dates after Ryan Giggs was

named compared to spaced out dates before. Upon reflection of this the sample was

kept in accordance with the research aims, and it didn’t have any huge reliability or

validity risks attached. However, before the sample was definitive I realised that the

sample involved Scottish and Irish editions of newspapers. Because of the issue with

injunctions in relation to the law, these were omitted from the sample and it was

ensured that ‘national editions’ were included. This is because injunctions can be

applied differently within Scotland and Ireland because of devolutionary

circumstances. For example, as reported by the BBC (2011b), the Scottish

newspaper Sunday Herald, issued a front page with Ryan Giggs’ face appearing on

it with a black (thin) line across his eyes, which is more risky than can be seen within

National editions. This meant that I had to refine my sample in the same process

with particular attention to place of publication.

Lexis Nexis also failed to provide the page numbers of the articles in Daily Mail. It

would have been more consistent for the findings if the page numbers were available

33

to compare the stories relevance. For example, if the article had hit front page news

and involved gossip, then the newspaper would regard the story as news worthy and

relevant, suggesting that they believe gossip to be of public interest. I also wanted to

see if the articles become more ‘relevant’ or ‘less relevant’ in the time span of the

sample in relation to the gossip content. To overcome this I had to work with what I

already had in the best possible way to make sure my findings were still relevant.

Considerations for ethical issues within this research were straightforward and

approval was granted. It would, however, be different if the injunction on Ryan Giggs

was still lawfully in place!

Chapter 4: Findings

Introduction

The findings are presented in two sections mirroring the literature review, firstly

focusing on the ‘the representation of law’ and then the ‘the representation of

celebrities’. The findings stem from the research aims and questions that are

represented within the methodology section. To make it easier to refer to the

newspapers used, they have been coded as: The Mirror as ‘MIR’, The Daily Mail as

‘MAI’ and The Sun as ‘SUN’ and are numbered (see appendices to refer to them).

Within the section each theme of relevance towards the findings is represented with

headings. It should be noted again that each article within the sample was looked at

as a whole to prevent bias opinion when attempting to focus on certain themes. All

newspaper articles within the sample are referred to at some point throughout the

findings represented, in attempt to show a true perspective.

34

After the main sections of ‘the representation of the law’ and the ‘the representation

of celebrities’, a discussion will follow about relevant findings.

The representation of the law

Each heading within this section will begin with a statement and explanation of the

particular finding, before presenting evidence from the articles to back it up. Further

explanation and implications of the findings will then be explained by referring back

to the evidence.

The lack of definition

The papers lacked any clear definition of the injunction and showed no interest in

defining the legal terminology for the injunction taken out by Ryan Giggs. Throughout

all newspapers the anonymised injunction was referred to as ‘injunction’, ‘gagging

order’ or ‘gag’. Furthermore, throughout all newspapers within the sample the term

‘super injunction’ was used in numerous articles. The Sun used this term more so

than others, which mentioned ‘super injunction’ fifteen times. The Mirror used the

term five times, whereas the Daily Mail used it only twice. Although there is a clear

difference in frequency of the word, there is extreme significance in the lack of

definition and the use of different terms within the text itself, during the development

of the story. Selected examples from each newspaper are shown below to express

this point with the terms underlined:

SUN6 ‘footballer's vain attempt to keep the affair hidden behind a super-

injunction and legal threats’

35

MIR1 ‘More worrying are the so-called "super Prince injunctions" that prevent

reporting that an order even exists. In other words, the public isn't even

allowed to know it doesn't know!’

MAI1 ‘YET another Premier League footballer has won a gagging order to

suppress details of his sordid sex life.’

The examples above show the terms: ‘super-injunction’, ‘gagging order’ and ‘super

Prince Injunctions’. The Mirror in particular shows an interesting finding as it reports

about the ‘so-called super Prince injunctions’. This definition is not a legal term or a

definition that is known, which suggests that The Mirror has little interest in using the

correct terminology or defining the correct injunction granted to Giggs, however this

is shown in the ‘features’ section of The Mirror. Often the features section is seen as

‘softer’ news, but the portrayal of the injunction is still significant in the wider context

of the development of the story. The gap within the text in all articles is significant as

not one used the correct term ‘anonymised injunction’. This section leads nicely on to

the use of language around the terms used.

Language around the term ‘injunction’, ‘super injunction’, ‘gag’ and

‘gagging order’

Throughout the newspapers the language used around these terms framed the

injunction in a negative light. The tabloid press had no positive points to make about

the use of the injunction. Examples are shown below with the terms underlined:

SUN4 ‘The 51-year-old MP's actions over Britain's worst-kept secret sparked

renewed anger over super-injunctions and their use to protect wealthy love

36

cheats’

MAI2 ‘the courts have slapped draconian gagging orders on the media using

secrecy laws originally reserved for child murder cases’

MIR2 ‘The Sunday Mirror cannot name the world-famous star, who is hiding

behind a super-injunction to protect his reputation.’

Throughout all articles the language is consistently like the examples illustrated.

Using words and phrases such as ‘worst-kept secret’, ‘anger’, ‘slapped draconian’

and ‘hiding’ to frame the use of injunction. Furthermore, MAI2 chooses to relate the

injunction to ‘child murder cases’ - a very serious comparison to make, choosing not

to relate the law to privacy, but frames it in a way that makes believe the law has

more important things to focus on than preventing celebrity’s private lives from being

published. The article was written by Tim Shipman, the deputy political editor, and

the content of the article shows the diligent effort of the newspapers overall portrayal

of the injunction case. Content within this article covers the law more so than other

articles but it shows effort to favour freedom of expression and uses David Cameron

as the main source and point of opinion to back up the ‘draconian’ use of gagging

orders.

Clear amongst other articles were the terms ‘unmasked’ (MIR6, SUN3), ‘hiding’

(MIR2, MIR4, MIR6, MAI4, SUN2) and ‘secret’ across the majority of the articles.

This clearly defines the injunction as something that Giggs was using to hide behind,

rather than using it in correspondence to the PCC’s guidelines or Article 8. The lack

of definition as shown in the latter section and the focus on the language surrounding

the injunction itself means that the tabloid articles can define it in their own way.

37

Readers are likely to interpret injunctions within this particular framework. Because

of the gap of information on privacy laws and their use, the articles are less likely to

make the reader consider the beneficial or legitimate aspects of privacy laws.

Emphasis on Judges and Lawyers

From the tabloids perspective, there is a clear distaste for judges providing

injunctions. Often the role of judges were emphasised throughout the articles. There

was a clear gap within the articles analysed in that they chose not to write about the

press’ role in the use of injunctions. This suggests that the tabloid press made efforts

to focus on the role of the law professionals which deters the role of the tabloid press

from their responsibilities. This diligent effort to emphasise the judges and lawyers

role within the case was seen throughout each newspaper. The examples are shown

below from each:

SUN4 David Cameron: ‘The danger is that judgments are effectively writing a

new law’

MAI5 ‘developed by judges on the back of Labour's Human Rights Act’

MIR2 ‘back-door privacy law is being created by judges’

These examples can be used as a generalisation to the reoccurring theme of judges

throughout the articles. The quotes underlined above are all stimulating sentences

that imply the judges are actually making the law. This also insinuates that the law

doesn’t already exist, thus it weakens the importance of it. By focusing on the judges

roll and actively choosing not to focus on the press’ role, it could invoke the reader to

think more about the process of the injunction and its ‘wrong-doings’. Arguably, it

38

actively chooses not to focus on the press’s role in the case of injunctions, because

this could reveal their own wrong doings, or tarnish their fight for the treasured

freedom of expression.

SUN4 uses David Cameron as an ‘official’ source to make their opinion more of a

‘fact’ to the readers. Tuchman (1978) comments that the practice of using sources in

text can be to make opinions of the newspaper into ‘facts’ for the readers. As the

Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, Cameron undoubtedly holds authority, making

it easier to strengthen the opinion working in favour of how the press want to portray

their story. MAI2 and MIR2 also use Cameron to back up their opinion on the use of

judges within injunctions. No other official sources to show a different stance on the

argument are used which makes the articles seem bias.

Fairclough (1995, p.51) states how newspapers will often use the same set of official

sources. It became apparent that throughout the tabloid articles David Cameron

proved to be a popular opinion to refer to, and this could be because his opinion can

be used to mirror the newspapers perspective on the story as he evidently saw

negative issues with the injunction law.

Interestingly the tabloid press clearly oppose the lawyer’s role within providing

injunctions, which is similar to how they portray the judges within the story of Ryan

Giggs and Imogen Thomas. For example:

SUN2 ‘Lawyer Mark Stephens said: "If you are getting an injunction then in

those circumstances you are doing nothing much more than painting a target

on your back waiting for the Tweeterati to find out who you are."’

39

MAI5 Mr Hemming: ‘However, when his lawyers decided to go on a "search

and destroy" against the ordinary people who gossip on Twitter he had taken

a step that should not be done anonymously’

MIR5 ‘The information about this injunction was always going to come out -

there was no way to stop it. Lawyers tend to look at things in terms of a purely

legal situation.’

MAI5 and SUN2 both use an official source to portray their opinion on the Lawyers

role. By emphasising the lawyer’s suggestion that there was an issue with the

injunction, readers again, are more likely to take that opinion as a ‘fact’. Interestingly

MI5 states ‘Lawyers tend to look at things in terms of a purely legal situation’. This

undermines the Lawyers role, and it is significant that there is a clear gap within the

article about the press’ role around injunctions. Instead, the tabloid press chose to

emphasise the judges and lawyers role. Further to this emphasis on the cost of the

injunction in relation to the judges, lawyers and court was found within articles which

will be shown below.

Emphasis on the cost of the injunction in relation to Judges, Lawyer’s

and the Court

Tabloid newspapers made an emphatic effort to link the cost of the injunction to

Judges, Lawyers and the Court. The press displays the opinion across a number of

articles that the law is ‘privileged to the rich’. Examples are shown below, and again

they have been underlined to clearly show the terms relating to this finding:

Judges:

MIR5 ‘It's up to the judges to decide which is more important... and

40

increasingly the rich and famous are becoming the rich and nameless.’

Lawyers:

MAI5 ‘He has spent at least £150,000 on lawyers to keep the affair secret

even though tens of thousands of computer users have posted his name on

Twitter and other internet sites’.

Courts:

SUN2 ‘The courts are said to have issued around 30 super-injunctions,

costing £100,000 each.’

An emphasis of the cost is also seen in MAI4, MIR6, MIR1, MIR5 and SUN3,

illustrating it is a recurring theme. Particularly interesting was the militant framing of

the cost in relation to Judges, Lawyers and the Courts. By linking the cost to

occupations involved in the injunction it reaffirms that the law is only available to the

rich. The public are then likely to see the law as a privilege and would be less likely

to look into the privacy laws and the benefits they can have; even, feel contempt for

the law, thus siding with the press’ case. It is particularly interesting to think about

other ways in which the injunction could have been talked about. Instead of focusing

on the cost, the stories could have been made more personal to provoke the reader

to think about their own personal life and what it would mean for it to be made public.

All articles actively chose not to make it personal or to relate the stories to the public

in this way.

Discussion of the representation of the law

This discussion will include all of the above findings in relation to the laws

surrounding the injunction and how it was represented within the tabloid

41

newspapers. To make the discussion easier to follow, everything will be discussed in

the order that the findings were organised.

Throughout the findings it is evident that the tabloids within the sample have had

extremely similar ways in which they have reported the story, therefore this section

can be generalised and will be referred to as a collective in most parts. It should be

made clear now, that due to the sample size the findings cannot be generally

representative to the whole of tabloids and the way in which injunctions are reported.

It is however representative of the newspapers within the sample within the

timescale chosen.

The findings clearly show how each newspaper chose to use the term ‘super

injunction’ within articles, even though The report of the committee on Super-

injunctions (2011, p.iv) states only two known injunctions have been taken out since

January 2010. Clearly here the PCC (2012) failed to pursue its purpose in which ‘the

press must take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information’.

Interestingly The Sun chose to report about it more so than others. An explanation

towards this could be because they were directly involved in getting the injunction

lifted and therefore may have wanted to create more of a threat.

Petley (2013, p.xiii), clearly states that the press wrongly exaggerated the term in

order to create ‘the alleged threat to press freedom’ although there are no studies to

suggest exactly how the press might do this. Therefore the findings can go beyond

Petley’s statement as they clearly show that not only did they produce misleading

content which suggests that super-injunctions are being granted, they also involved

no definition of injunctions or the correct term for the injunction taken out for Giggs.

Further to this the language in particular around the terms used, project threat and

42

frame the use of injunction in particular as a ‘secret’ or something to ‘hide’ behind.

The implications of this on the public could create a moral panic as defined by Cohen

(1972) and from the findings it seems unsurprising if the tabloid press had intentions

of doing so.

MAI2 and MIR1 suggest that ‘feature’ articles may cause more of a threat to

injunctions. MIR1 referred to the use of ‘Super Prince Injunctions’ and MAI2 referred

to the use of privacy laws as having originally been for ‘child murder cases’. The

feature section in a newspaper generally allows more ‘voice’ and opinion to the

article. In light of this, the findings also show in the ‘emphasis on judges and lawyers’

section the repetitive use of David Cameron as a source within the newspaper as

Cameron clearly opposed the use of injunctions within the time of super injunction

spring 2011. Further studies could look into the use of ‘feature articles’ in tabloids

around a time of threat towards freedom of expression. Although small scale, the

findings could suggest that 1. The feature pages and, 2. The official sources used,

are ways in which the newspaper officially reinforce opinion. This illuminates how the

press react to the threat of freedom of expression.

The findings also show that the articles clearly link the elements of the law, the

courts, and judges and lawyers to the cost of injunctions. This creates the perception

that there is an inequality in the law. This is beneficial for the tabloid press because

as Lambert (2011, p.52) states, it invokes the public to think there is a ‘secret elite of

few who could afford a court order to gag the media on reporting.’ The findings show

exactly how the press creates this. In creating this clear line between who can and

can’t obtain an injunction, the public are less likely to take the story personally. By

having no personal link to the law the public are less likely to create the opinion that

injunctions are good, and the perceived representation of their exclusivity could

43

induce contempt toward injunctions. This can be seen as a way in which the tabloid

attempt to champion freedom of expression and strengthen their cause.

All findings and discussions clearly show how the press are trying to avoid regulation

and retain kiss-and-tell stories. It is not a new phenomenon for the press to react in a

way to avoid regulation as Cassels (2013, p.250-251) states. Numerous issues with

the use of injunctions and the press have become apparent from the findings in the

law section; clearly the PCC isn’t enforcing its guidelines for injunctions, suggesting

a revision of current regulation is needed. The clear opposing standpoint that the

press have on injunctions within the findings here also suggest that there is a

problem with the conflict of freedom of expression and rights to privacy.

The representation of Celebrities

This section will now focus on the findings which correspond to the second half of

the literature review, which focuses on ‘the use of celebrities’ within the media. It will

look into the way in which Imogen Thomas and Ryan Giggs were represented within

the tabloid press, before showing how gossip was represented within the articles.

The last section will look into how gossip is represented, particularly focusing on the

structure of gossip.

It is important to express here that the findings will be set out in a different way to the

latter section, because it is beneficial towards the findings to express them in this

way. The findings towards the representation of Imogen Thomas and Ryan Giggs

will be more narrative to show the development of the story. Within the findings on

Giggs is the section called ‘emphasis on the public ‘knowing’’ which will be set out in

44

a similar way to previous findings. The section on gossip is the last section and will

also be set out in a more narrative way with evidence from the articles where

necessary.

Imogen Thomas

The tabloid press used Thomas’ voice to represent the inequality in injunctions which

could create further disliking to the law. It is evident in each newspaper analysed that

the story developed around Thomas was portrayed in a similar way. 1. Thomas was

named and a story was created around her ‘stress’ due to the law, 2. Around the

time Giggs was named there was little or no mention of her and 3. The newspaper

chose to portray her in a different way after the naming of Giggs. This is however a

generalisation of the articles, and there were some differences found within the

development of the story. The findings will be described to show the development of

the story around Thomas including relevant findings and differences.

Interestingly the tabloid press could build up a story around Thomas which included

details of the injunction without naming Giggs. Two main themes were evident

throughout the development of Thomas before Giggs was named within the articles

on the 24th May 2011. The first portrayed the injunction as unfair, and ensured that

the cost of the injunction was mentioned in relation to Thomas to express how she

could not afford it (SUN3, MAI2 and MIR1). The second theme showed that each

newspaper has articles within the sample which choose to use Imogen’s voice to

portray her ‘stress’ that had stemmed from the injunction. In particular MIR3 and

MIA3 use the exact same quote from Thomas, ‘“What’s more, I can’t even defend

myself because I have been gagged. Where’s the fairness in that? What about my

reputation?”’. By using emotional portrayal of the injunction linked to the cost of the

45

injunction too, the tabloid press attempt to portray the inequality in the law and

generally seem on Thomas’s side. This links particularly to how the tabloid press

thematized the link between the cost of the injunction and the judges, lawyers and

courts. Although the development of the story within the articles generally seems to

portray Thomas in a similar way that seems to be on ‘her side’, there was one

anomaly within the findings. MAI1 chose to disclose Thomas’s past sexual

relationships which suggests that they were interested in disclosing gossip.

Notably, during the time Giggs had been named within the press, articles from the

24th- 25th of May 2011 show little or no interest in Thomas. This suggests that the

press’ interest was in naming Giggs and that Thomas’s name was merely used to

develop the story and portray the inequality within injunctions – the press were

essentially stoking the fire. MIR5 and SUN4 chose not to involve any information on

Thomas and MAI5 and MIR4 name Thomas once, but only in connection to the

previous stories.

Bloor and Bloor (2007, p.58) explain how ‘text carries resonances of all texts that

have proceeded it’ therefore it can be argued that Thomas’s name was involved

within these articles simply to link it to the previous ones that were reported before

Giggs was named. Interestingly after Giggs had been named The Daily Mail and The

Mirror both portray Thomas differently to their previous stories. MAI4 suggests that,

‘Imogen Thomas was many things, but she was certainly no victim’ and MIR6 states

that Thomas is ‘no angel’. Later articles in The Daily Mail and The Mirror showed

little interest in mentioning Thomas, whereas SUN6 ensures it uses Thomas’ voice to

disclose details of the affair which links to the gossip content of the story. The

sudden change in how much Thomas was mentioned within the articles and how she

46

was portrayed differently after Giggs was named particularly shows that the news

values of the stories were more interested in naming Ryan Giggs.

Ryan Giggs

The development for the story and representation of Giggs was obviously different

due to the fact that he couldn’t be named within the press before he was named in

Parliament. However with the use of Thomas’ name he could be presented within the

press as a ‘Premier League footballer’ for example, illustrating how the tabloid press

developed a story to disclose information about him before he was officially named.

Many articles referred to him as a ‘family man’ and used negative language around

the stories which were referring to him, which is similar to how a number of articles

portrayed the injunction itself as shown in previous findings. After he was named

they further reported about his reputation and showed him in a light which portrayed

that the tabloids believe he was ‘hiding’ behind the injunction. As mentioned this is

similar to how the tabloid press within certain articles framed the use of injunction as

a law to ‘hide’ behind. This suggests that Giggs is used as a figurehead to express

their opinion on the law that hinders their freedom of expression. It therefore

corroborates that they are against the use of injunctions in the celebrity domain. The

development of the story on Giggs will be explained to help discussion before going

on to show how the tabloid press used two other themes within the story which

involved: 1. referring to how the public knew Giggs has taken out the injunction

already and, 2. how they suggest that the injunction was the reason as to why it was

so widely talked about in the first place.

47

Development of the story of Ryan Giggs

Before Giggs was named, SUN2 and SUN3 portrayed his identity and suggested

that he was ‘hiding’ and using phrases such as ‘love cheat’. This can be seen too in

MIR2 who also use the term ‘hiding’ and ‘to protect his reputation’ and also is

included in MAI1 which states ‘to supress details of his sordid sex life’. By portraying

his image already in this way suggests that the press believe that injunctions are a

threat to their freedom of expression. Interesting is the gap in the story which could

portray the story in a different way and suggest that he is entitled to privacy.

Emphasis on his family life was referred to throughout the development of the story

and later scrutinised in stories that could officially name him.

Rather than protecting his private family life, a number of articles refer to Giggs as a

‘family man’ (MIR4, MIR2, MAI1, MAI2, MAI5, SUN4 and SUN5). After the 24th of

May 2011 the tabloid press particularly focused on his image and themes within the

text suggest they ‘shame’ Giggs. This can be seen in MIR5 who refer to his family

image and his so-far ‘good’ reputation in the press revealing that ‘the Mirror can

today reveal it was all a sham’. His image too was referred to in reference to his

father Danny Wilson, SUN5 and MAI4, where both use his father as a source stating

in SUN5 that his father said towards Giggs: ‘“I’m disappointed in you” ’. MAI4 stated

‘Should we be really surprised though? Apart from anything else, his father, ex-rugby

league star Danny Wilson, was a womaniser’. This suggests that the tabloid press

particularly wanted to name Giggs and suggests that they ‘shame’ him and his

reputation due to the desire to report private details.

Emphasis on the public ‘knowing’ and blame on the injunction

48

Each tabloid shows a general interest in how the public knew it was Giggs who had

obtained the injunction. The way in which this interest is portrayed illustrates that the

press feel they have a responsibility on reporting because so many people in the

public knew the person behind the injunction was Giggs. The Sun particularly

focused on this aspect more so than The Daily Mail and The Mirror, although

elements of this theme were seen in all. For example:

SUN2 Former Lord Chancellor Lord Falconer: "When everyone knows who

the injunctions are about than they become pretty pointless."

SUN3 ‘Gagging love rat could be revealed’.

SUN6 ‘FOUR out of five Brits know Ryan Giggs romped with Imogen Thomas

- despite an injunction still being in place’.

Particularly interesting out of the examples shown is SUN3 which is a headline and

claims: ‘Gagging love rat could be revealed’. Bloor and Bloor (2007, p.52) refers to

how newspapers sometimes predict something that is ‘going’ to happen, and they

often use headlines to do this. In this case the prediction can be argued as a direct

link to the opinion that the injunction had already failed its purpose because so many

people knew about it. The statements also suggest the inherent failure of injunctions

and therefore there uselessness.

MIR5 had a headline which stated ‘NO ONE CAN STOP GOSSIP’ and this is a good

example of the overall feel of the tabloid articles studied. Articles MAI3, MIR3, MIR6,

SUN2 and SUN6 all have content within them that either suggest the public will know

or that the public do know. It is beneficial for the tabloids to report on it in this way

49

because it highlights the issues with injunctions and brings up questions as to why

they cannot report about it.

In relation to this the press displays efforts to frame the injunction as being a failure

in and of itself. It opines that the reason as to why it became so talked about, was

because of the legal actions that had been obtained. This is shown within a number

of articles, particularly around the time Giggs was named on twitter and in

Parliament. For example, ‘A statement from Danny Wilson, Giggs’ father: ‘"No one

would be talking about it now. He's made it ten times worse”’ (SUN5). It is clear that

MAI5 and MIR5 also intended to relate the injunction to the fact that it was so widely

known. This makes believe that the press would not be reporting on it so much if the

injunction was not out, yet because of the vast amount of articles on the reporting it

is clear that they have desire to sell the story.

Gossip

The tabloid press include gossip throughout the majority of the articles. The findings

towards celebrities will be shown below, firstly focusing on how within the sample the

tabloid press chose to report about the story twice in one publishing, then it will look

further into the structure of gossip before finishing with the findings which show how

certain articles named other celebrity injunctions and affairs.

Covering the same story twice within the newspaper

It is important to express how the sample contained two articles from each

newspaper that were on the same date; i.e. after Giggs had been named. It should

be noted here that this wasn’t deliberate when choosing the sample. It shows that

50

the news value of the story itself became more important as Giggs was named. This

can be presumed because a considerable more amount of articles were printed.

As stated by Smith and Higgins (2013, p.70) ‘Occasionally, a story will also appear in

the same newspaper in different sections, as its potential for engaging different

values is such that it may be deemed to merit separate coverage’. However,

because of the story and its content and the interest tabloids have in kiss-and-tell

stories the analysis showed that there was little difference in the content between the

stories on the same date. The content mainly contained gossip meaning it was

valued as a newsworthy story to each audience the newspaper story was presented

to. The newspapers involved in this are: SUN5, SUN6, MAI4, MAI5, MIR4 and MIR5.

Each of the stories involved certain aspects of gossip within them, which is

unsurprising because the story about Giggs and Thomas involves disclosure of their

private lives. Thus, the tabloid newspapers wanted to entice the public into the story

that they believe to be of public interest, and to do so freedom of expression is

favoured, to enable the disclosing of the private relations of celebrities.

The Structure of Gossip

Ten articles out of the eighteen within the sample started the article off with ‘gossip’

of some sort about the affair of Giggs. SUN5 consisted of a slightly more personal

article towards Giggs which involved gossip content about his father - this was an

editorial and therefore it often involves more of an opinionated story. Often it can be

seen in the title that the article will contain gossip or disclose further information, for

example in MAI4:

MAI4 ‘FLIRTY TEXTS, SECRET LIASONS IN A HOTEL… AND THE

SORDID TRUTH BEHIND THAT FAMILY MAN IMAGE’

51

The article then went on to disclose information about the affair within the first

sentence. Other articles such as MAI6, MAI1, SUN6, SUN1, MIR6, MIR4, MIR3 and

MIR2 all start off with details regarding to Giggs’s affair. In relation to the wider

picture this suggests that the tabloid press have a strong desire for ‘outing’ Giggs

and disclosing personal details about the affair. In previous findings it has been

shown how the press have used language such as ‘sordid secrets’ and ‘unable to

name’; this finding was recurrent throughout the articles and expresses the desire

that the tabloid press had to name Giggs and to portray the story as a ‘secret’ and

the injunction law as a ‘hiding’ escape for celebrities. This backs up the idea that the

tabloid press particularly find the gossip content of the story more important than the

debates of the time to do with regulation of privacy laws.

The structure and placing of gossip proved to be interesting, where in some articles

the journalist significantly chose to start the story off with gossip content. MIR3

interestingly structures gossip in a list form at the end of the article. Straight after

defending the PCC after ‘Mr Grant’ had suggested that the PCC was “absolutely

toothless” The Mirror listed a number of celebrities who had supposedly had an affair

in the past or taken out an injunction. The defence to the PCC is seen below:

MIR3 "It is now well established - including recently by the Prime Minister -

that the PCC has improved significantly over the years, handling people's

complaints and protecting their privacy effectively, privately and at no cost."’

The text then turns straight away to ‘THE SEX FILES’ which in a list form reels off

known affairs and injunctions. For example:

MIR3 ‘PREMIER League goalie used lawyers to hush up story about him

sending X-rated snaps to girl.’

52

And

MIR3 ‘ASHLEY Cole has repeatedly issued legal warnings over his affairs.

Wife Cheryl divorced him’

The text is quite contradictory to suggest that the PCC ‘has improved significantly

over the years’ in ‘protecting their privacy effectively’, ironically this story was around

the time of debate surrounding the use of injunctions. Secondly the text then turns

immediately to gossip which is expressed in a list form for easy reading. This shows

that MIR3 had little interest in the regulatory issues that surrounded the use of

injunctions within this time. It favoured freedom of expression and expressing that

the PCC is ‘well established’ rather than establishing that there were debates about

PCC that occurred from the use of injunctions around this time.

Disclosing information on other celebrity injunctions

The tabloid newspaper takes great interest in kiss-and-tell stories as expressed

within the literature review and it is evident that it uses this particular story to drag

gossip out and involve details of other injunctions. This acts as a ‘teaser’ to readers

and also states that the tabloid press consider this as news worthy story, again. For

example MAI2 uses other injunction cases to explain the ‘severity’ of how injunctions

are supposedly being taken out:

MAI2 ‘On Wednesday a judge issued one of the most draconian gagging

orders in British legal history Z a world-wide permanent ban to suppress

‘intimate’ photographs of a TV star and family man with a woman who was not

his wife’

53

This is similar to the findings about Giggs and the disclosure of his occupation before

he was named. In MIR5 the article also chose to name past injunctions and SUN3

discloses information about another as well, stating:

SUN3 ‘The hearing follows the revelation that another Premier League idol

used gagging orders to cover up affairs just before and after his wedding’

Within these findings it becomes apparent that the newspapers use the Giggs case

to ‘out’ other celebrities and create gossip. This could therefore be the case for other

stories that are similar; i.e. when other celebrities take out anonymised injunctions.

Discussion of the representation of Celebrities

This discussion consists of all the findings throughout the ‘the representation of

celebrities’ section. Again the discussion will be written to mirror the layout of the

findings in order to make it easy to follow and it will ensure that it brings out relevant

debates and points from the literature review.

The way in which Thomas was presented shows three main themes in how the

stories around her developed throughout the sample. The change in how she was

represented was particularly interesting. Within the first few stories in the sample

only MAI1 chose to report about her sexual past, where the majority of the articles

focused on her representing the inequality of the law and allowed her voice.

Interestingly apart from MAI1 other articles which focused on Imogen Thomas

showed little action in ‘shaming’ her before Giggs was named. The articles

suggested that the tabloid press had built up the story of Giggs by using Thomas’s

name. And were only not interested in the gossip side, because all other aspects of

the story could, at the time, be used to favour their agenda.

54

The findings here can be linked back to Robertson and Nicol (2007, p.287) who

stated that ‘the hypocrisy or false image which publication might expose will

sometimes outweigh heavily on the other side of the balance’. This study has found

that the tabloid press may name the person who isn’t protected by the injunction

(Thomas) to develop a story and disclose information about the other person who is

protected by the injunction (Giggs). This is a clear issue with the use of anonymised

injunctions within the celebrity domain that needs addressing especially with the

tabloid press, as this research has found. It can be suggested that this point is

evident within the sample because of the change in representation of Imogen

Thomas within the Daily Mail. Further, The Mirror was significantly different to

previous stories before Giggs was named and Thomas was seen as ‘no angel’, and

little reporting revolved around her in each newspaper within the sample. Therefore it

seems that her name could merely be used to build up a story around the injunction

and allow them to report details of the affair, and their gripes with injunctions.

MAI1 was the only article within the sample which ‘shamed’ Thomas and could show

attempts how the press can allegedly deter people from similar behaviour

(Rowbottom, 2013, p.15). When taking this into account and linking it to the story

and wider findings this could suggest that there was little evidence to suggest that

there was an interest in telling the story for these purposes. This suggests that

Warren and Brandies (1890) are correct in certain aspects of what the press report;

that gossip has become a trade.

Like Thomas, Giggs was also ‘shamed’ within articles after he had been named, and

interestingly before. Journalists could use Thomas to shame Giggs in aspects such

as referring to him as a ‘love cheat’. The findings show how Giggs is ‘shamed’ within

articles which relates to his family life and presumably had a massive effect on his

55

reputation; in effect showing why celebrities may want to gain an injunction as it is of

vested interest to protect identity (Solove, 2007, p.33-34). The shaming goes against

Mill (1859, p.22) and his harm theory and particularly as to why the injunction was

taken out in the first place. In retrospect, the ‘shaming’ of Giggs could have had the

effect on the public that Baggini (2002, p.80) Rowbottom (2013, p.15) and Dyer

(1986) would suggest is positive. It can create social norms and deter people from

certain behaviour. However when looking at the findings together, the gaps and

emphasis on certain themes definitely points to the story having interest in ‘shaming’

injunctions themselves more so. Therefore the ‘shaming’ of Giggs was often linked to

the opinion that injunctions are not wanted. This suggests that the tabloid press

favour freedom of expression as stated by Petley (2013, p.xi), Gallant and Epworth

(2001, p.9) and Tomlinson (2013) in relation to kiss-and-tell stories.

As stated by Fischer (2007), often you can remove the names of the people involved

in the story and it’s a familiar story, i.e. an affair is somewhat common between

public affairs. As Giggs and Thomas are famous the story becomes of interest, and

the findings show how the articles diligently put emphasis on the public knowing,

then generally blamed the injunction for why it had become popular knowledge. It

could be suggested that again, The Sun chose to put more emphasis on this

because they The Sun was directly involved in attempting to get the injunction lifted.

Within the PCC (2012) guidelines, journalists must consider how much of the story is

already in the public eye. A clear tension can be seen within the articles when the

public’s knowledge on the story is reported. This suggests that the press believe they

have the right to report stories such as the Ryan Giggs case according to this

guideline, and this particularly raises an issue with anonymised injunctions and how

they work alongside the press.

56

The use of gossip within the articles showed that a great amount was focused on

involving gossip content within the first part of the article, showing that the sample

chosen considered the gossip as news worthy and fundamental to the story. This

becomes more significant when the gap of regulatory issues within the text is

considered as it shows they considered the freedom of expression more over the

use of the law itself. As Tunstall (1996, p.11) states, tabloid material is mainly ‘look

at’ material, linking to how the tabloid use gossip within the first few lines of the

majority of the story within the sample to make it easier for the public to read. This

could arguably be a way in which the tabloid press used the story to ensure that the

gossip content and freedom of expression is favoured over the regulatory talks of the

time. To further illustrate these points, MIR3 backs up Tunstall (1996, p.11) to show

that the tabloid press use ‘quick read material’ within this context to favour freedom

of expression. This can be seen as yet another way the tabloid press respond to

privacy laws, in making it easier for the public to read the private happenings of

celebrities, and compelling them to follow the story throughout.

Chapter 6: Conclusion

As shown by the research, the ‘Super Injunction Spring 2011’ raised particular issues

with the use of injunctions in conjunction to the press. Little studies have been

available to articulate and demonstrate an in-depth analysis into the issues of tabloid

press in regards to the use of injunctions. However, the literature review of this study

clearly suggests that: 1. Tabloid press favour freedom of expression over privacy

laws, and 2. The tabloid press have a desire to report kiss-and-tell stories (and a

vast amount of celebrity injunctions involve kiss-and-tell). The findings of the

57

research highlight the paradox of the perceived threat of injunctions to the tabloid

press, at the same time as the tabloid press being a threat to the purpose of

injunctions.

This research aimed to delve into eighteen articles reporting on the Ryan Giggs

case, from The Mirror, The Daily Mail and The Sun, in order to understand the way in

which the tabloid press articulated and framed the story. The purpose of this was to

analyse whether they are for, or against, the use of injunctions and how they may

report in favour of freedom of expression. This also helped to understand the

overarching issues with the use of injunctions in relation to the tabloid’s desires.

Due to the lack of theories in existence about the use of tabloid newspapers in

conjunction with celebrity injunctions, the research used literature around the

pertinent concepts of injunctions and the laws surrounding them, and the use of

celebrities - particularly focusing on ‘naming and shaming’ and gossip. These

concepts were seen as the most valuable in relation to how the tabloid press are

regulated and how they report on celebrities in the wider context. The concepts

chosen helped to fuel and direct the critical discourse analysis, which enabled the

micro study to apply to the broader issues of anonymised injunctions as a whole.

This arguably helped to overcome the criticisms of critical discourse analysis, (Luke,

2002) as stated in the methodology section.

Fairclough’s (1995) system of ‘linguistic analysis’ was undoubtedly beneficial

towards reaching certain aims within this research and understanding the stories

within the tabloid press with more depth. By combining the suggested content

analysis from Fairclough (1995, p.105) with critical discourse analysis and the

suggested way of breaking down a question from Altheide (1996, p.46), the overall

58

research aim could then be dissected into three main aims when conducting the

critical discourse analysis. So rather than the research aim becoming obscured, it

was able to coherently analyse these themes within the articles and understand the

tabloids choice of language more so than if the themes were not chosen.

It is important to state before explaining the extent to which the research aims were

met, that this research doesn’t claim to have gained understanding on how all

injunctions may be reported within the tabloid press. This is due to the small sample

and the time limit that the research had to be conducted in. Further to this, it is also

understood that not all celebrity injunctions can create such wide news coverage, or

possess the same news values. This particularly depends on the level of stardom

and fame of the celebrities involved, and so can have an effect on the extent to

which the tabloid press are inclined to report on the story. Injunctions do not always

create the same story either, and they may not fail like the case of Ryan Giggs’ did.

However, this research has undoubtedly helped gain valuable findings in relation to

the Ryan Giggs story and issues with tabloids and injunctions. Though these findings

could not validly be described as universal, they are a contribution which help to

conceptualise and understand the wider picture of how the tabloid press may report

around injunctions and celebrities, and highlight the need to research the topic

further.

The findings have shown that the papers within the sample are clearly contemptible

towards the use of injunctions by celebrities. The ways in which this is evident is the

persistent way in which the newspapers chose not to define the injunction, chose to

report misleading information (referring to the use of ‘super-injunction’) and framed

the existence, and use of injunctions, with negative language. It was also evident

that not only were there clear negative connotations around the use of injunctions,

59

but, the press also claimed that Ryan Giggs had obtained the injunction for the

wrong reasons. This was despite the fact that when an injunction is granted, an

individual is then protected by Article 8, which includes the ‘Right to Respect for

Private and Family Life’ (Gallant and Epworth, 2001, p.5) specifically in the press. In

relation to Article 8, the tabloid press showed further opposition to the occupations

involved in granting injunctions, e.g. lawyers and judges; suggesting their desire for

freedom of expression over the rights to privacy in relation to kiss-and-tell type

stories, and emphasising their contempt for the administers of said legislation. In

combination, these two points illustrate how the press framed Ryan Giggs and

Lawyers and Judges in order to attack every aspect of injunctions.

It is therefore clear that the tabloid press and their views and desire to write about

kiss-and-tell stories do not fit within the laws surrounding injunctions. There is an

evident issue of conflict between Article 10 and Article 8 of the Human Rights Act in

relation to these. As well as this, the research has highlighted that the PCC (2012)

clearly needs amending, if it is to rectify the evident incompetence, or superficiality,

of enforcing its policies. If celebrities wish to obtain an injunction without the fear of

knowing it might fail in its purpose – i.e. in terms of naming and shaming, and

tarnishing celebrities’ reputations - then guarantees around injunctions must be put

in place by the PCC. As this research has already shown the difficulty in regulating

and enforcing injunctions in terms of social networking, (i.e. the impracticality of

arresting the 75,000 people that named Giggs on Twitter), the success of any

amendments are at this point questionable, and therefore pose the question; ‘can

injunctions ever be realistically enforced?’.

In light of this, it may be beneficial to re-think elements of the PCC (2012) guidelines.

Particularly, that ‘the press must take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or

60

distorted information’, and, ‘everyone is entitled to respect for his or her private life’

unless there is evidence to suggest that the public largely know about it already. In

relation to the latter, further research could look into the use of social networking in

relation to injunctions. The tabloid press used the fact that Ryan Giggs was known

on twitter to legitimise the fact that they should be allowed to report on it, as it was

already considered public knowledge. Clearly there is an issue with injunctions in

regards to the advances in technology and their ability to spread gossip fast, in terms

of keeping legislation up to date with these technological advances as Browne stated

(Question Time, 2011b). This indicates that unless all variables are taken into

account when reassessing the criteria of injunctions and their enforcement, failure

will always be a possibility.

The research has also found a clear issue with anonymised injunctions and the

tabloid press, and the sample was particularly beneficial in helping to pick this up.

Charlotte Harris (Question Time, 2011a) observed that when an anonymised

injunction reaches court, the public panel and the press have rights to know

elements of the injunction, in order to decide whether the injunction should be

granted or not. The names are not stated within the report but the press show clear

desire that they want to report the case. Within this study it is understood that the

tabloid press used Imogen Thomas to create a story on Ryan Giggs, which

seemingly acted as a gateway to the failing of the injunction. The tabloid press can

somewhat report the injunctions and the details of the story, but yet aren’t allowed to

name the individual(s) protected. In this case, the tabloid press clearly used this to

their advantage; allowing them to report the kiss-and-tell story in a back-door

fashion, diminishing the weight of the injunction granted. The press were therefore

implicitly disobeying the premise of the injunction through a legal loop-hole, which

61

clearly illustrates a problem with the foundation of anonymised injunctions, and the

press’ explicit lack of respect for them. It also suggests that when considering

amendments to the guidelines of injunctions, that it may be more beneficial to give

protection to both the parties involved in kiss-and-tell stories. This would prevent the

tabloid press from expressing the inequality of the law which is seen as a way to

deter the readers from acknowledging the real issues with injunctions. This research

gives meaning to Robertson and Nicol (2007, p.287) who suggests that the exposure

and publication of the person involved in the injunction who isn’t protected will be

predominant in the story.

Undoubtedly there are opinions which could lead to the idea that celebrities should

accept they are within the public eye and of interest to the public, even, that their

exposure is beneficial to the public’s values (Hermes, 1995, Turner et al, 2000,

Baggini, 2002, Dyer, 1986, Rowbottom, 2013), which would indicate that injunctions

should be abolished. These views would be representative of the press’ response to

the threat to freedom of expression. However, the findings have explicitly shown that

the press’ reporting Ryan Giggs’ affair showed aspects of shaming which undeniably

will have had an effect on his career, his family and his reputation. This is also

evident in the use of naming Imogen Thomas too. This, like Rowbottom (2013, p.7)

suggests, clearly shows that a wrong has arisen in naming and shaming a celebrity

affair and consequently the research thus concludes with suggestions to amend the

use of injunctions, rather than abolish them, based on further recommended

research which this study has surmised to be beneficial for the future discourse of

injunctions, and for the freedom of expression in the press.

62

Chapter 7: Bibliography

Altheide, D. (1996) Newspapers, Magazines, and Electronic Documents, in Altheide,

D. (Ed) Qualitative Media Analysis, Thousand Oaks, Sage Publications, pp45-60.

Baggini, J. (2002) Making Sense: Philosophy Behind the Headlines, USA, Oxford

University Press.

Barnes, R. (2010) Outrageous Invasions, Oxford, University Press.

BBC. (2011) ‘Sunday Herald named footballer accused on Twitter’, BBC News,

Sunday May 22 2011. Available from: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-13491086

BBC. (2013) ‘Press regulation watchdog 'could take a year to set up'’, BBC News, Thursday

October 31 2013. Available from: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24754362 (accessed

13/04/14).

BBC. (2013a) ‘Press regulation: Privy Council grants royal charter’, BBC News, Wednesday

October 30 2013, Available from: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24746137 (accessed

13/04/14)

Berry, D. (1999) Ethics and Media Culture: Practices and Representations,

Burlington, Focal Press.

63

Bloor, M. and Bloor, T. (2007) The Practice of Critical Discourse Analysis: An

Introduction, London, Hodder Education.

Bowcott, O. (2011) ‘Cameron reveals unease overjudges creating a privacy law: PM

says parliament, not courts should legislate Superinjunctions used by rich to avoid

scandal’, The Guardian, Friday April 22 2011, p6.

Bowcott, O. (2013) ‘Courts see rise in applications for privacy injunctions’, The

Guardian, Thursday September 19 2013. Available from:

http://www.theguardian.com/law/2013/sep/19/courts-rise-privacy-injunctions

(accessed 13/04/14)

Bryman, A. (2012) Social Research Methods, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

Cassels,T. (2013) Professional Regulatory Bodies, in Crone, T. (Ed) Law and the

Media, 4th Edition, Burlington, Focal Press, pp249-261.

Cohen, S. (1972) Folk Devils and Moral Panics, London, Granada Publishing

Limited.

Conboy, M. (2006) Tabloid Britain: Constructing a Community Through Language,

New York, Routledge.

Dawson-Collins, S. (2013) Contempt of Court, in Crone, T. (Ed) Law and the Media,

4th Edition, Burlington, Focal Press, pp166-183.

Deacon, D. (2007) ‘Yesterday’s Papers and Today’s Technology: Digital Newspaper

Archives and ‘Push Button’ Content Analysis’, European Journal of Communication,

22 (3), pp5-22. Available from: http://ejc.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/22/1/5

(accessed 15/03/14)

64

Douglas, T. (2011) ‘Newspaper breaks super-injunction’, BBC NEWS, Monday May

23 2011, Available from: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-13501653

(assessed 10/03/13)

Dyer, R. (1986) Heavenly Bodies: Film Stars and Society, London, Macmillan

Education Ltd.

Evans, M. (2011) ‘David Cameron: Twitter gossip makes super-injunctions

unsustainable and unfair’, The Telegraph, Monday May 23 2011. Available from:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/twitter/8530203/David-Cameron-Twitter-

gossip-makes-super-injunctions-unsustainable-and-unfair.html (accessed 15/03/14)

Fairclough, N. (1995) Media Discourse, London, Arnold.

Fairclough, N. (2003) Analysing Discourse: Textual Analysis for Social Research,

London, Routledge.

Fischer, F. and Forester, J. (1993) Policy discourse and the politics of Washington

think tanks, In Fischer, F. and Forester, J. (Eds.) The Argumentative Turn in Policy

Analysis and Planning, USA, Duke University Press, pp21-42.

Fischer, J. (2007) ‘Public Shame and the End of Media Management’, Huff Post

Media, Tuesday June 5 2007. Available from: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-

fischer/public-shame-and-the-end-_b_50842.html (accessed 11/04/14)

Gallant, S., and Epworth, J. (2001) Media Law, A practical guide to managing

publication risks, London, Sweet and Maxwell.

Gamson, W. and Modigliani, A. (1989) Media discourse and public opinion on

nuclear power: A

65

Constructionist Approach. The American Journal of Sociology, 95 (1),pp1-37.

Available from: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2780405 (accessed 10/04/14).

Gov. (2013) Final Royal Charter on self-regulation of the Press, Crown Copyright,

Available from:

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/

254116/Final_Royal_Charter_25_October_2013_clean__Final_.pdf (accessed

26/02/14).

Garner, B. (2011) Dictionary of Modern Legal Use, 3rd Edition, Oxford, Oxford

University Press.

Gladwell, M. (2000) The Tipping Point: How Little Things Can Make a Big Difference,

London, Abacus.

Goffman, E. (1974) Frame Analysis: An Essay on the Organization of Experience,

New York, Harper & Row.

Greenslade, R. (2011) ‘G2: Shortcuts: Media Law: Farewell to the kiss ‘n’ tell?’, The

Guardian, Thursday April 21 2011, p2.

Hastings, A. (1998) Connecting Linguistic Structures and Social Practices: a

Discursive Approach to Social Policy Analysis, Journal of Social Policy, 27 (2), 191–

211, Available from: http://journals.cambridge.org/abstract_S0047279498005248

(accessed 11/03/14)

Hawthorne, N. (1851) The Scarlet Letter, London, Knight and Son.

Hermes, J. (1995) Reading Women’s Magazines: An Analysis of Everyday Media

Use, Cambridge, Polity Press.

66

Holmes, S. and Redmond, S. (2006) Framing Celebrity: New directions in celebrity

culture, New York, Routledge.

Inside World Soccer. (2011) ‘Ryan Giggs named as love cheat’, Inside World

Soccer, Tuesday May 24 2011. Available from:

http://www.insideworldsoccer.com/2011/05/ryan-giggs-named-as-love-cheat.html

(assessed 20/04/2014)

Lambert, P. (2011) Courting Publicity: Twitter and Television Cameras in Court,

West Sussex, Bloomsbury Professional Ltd.

Luke, A. (2002) Beyond Science and Ideology Critique: Developments in critical

discourse analysis. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 22, pp96-110. Available

From: http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0267190502000053 (accessed 10/03/14)

Lull, J. and Hinerman, S. (1997) Media Scandals: Morality and Desire in the Popular

Culture Marketplace, Oxford, Polity Press.

Mill, J. (1859) On Liberty, London, Liberal Arts Press.

Petley, J. (2013) Media and Public Shaming Drawing the Boundaries of Disclosure,

London, I.B.Tauris & Co. LTD.

Question Time. (2011a) Right to Privacy for Rich and Corrupt: part 1/2, 26 May

2011, available from: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qY85Gmo3o3s (accessed

10/01/14)

Question Time. (2011b) Right to Privacy for Rich and Corrupt: part 2/2, 26 May

2011, available from: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PieuestjKD0 (accessed

10/01/14)

67

Rayner, G. (2011) ‘Ryan Giggs named as Premier League footballer in gagging

order row’, The Telegraph, Monday May 23 2011. Available from:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/twitter/8531175/Ryan-Giggs-named-as-

Premier-League-footballer-in-gagging-order-row.html (accessed 15/03/14)

Rein, I., Kotler, P. and Stoller, M. (1997) High Visibility: The Making and Marketing of

Professionals into Celebrities, Lincolnwood, NTC Business Books.

Richardson, J. (2007) Analysing Newspapers: An Approach from critical Discourse

Analysis, New York, Palgrave Maclmillan.

Robertson, G,. and Nicol, A. (2007) Media Law, London, Penguin Book LTD.

Rowbottom, J. (2013) To Punish, Inform, and Criticise: The Goals of Naming and

Shaming, in Petley, J. (Ed) Media and Public Shaming: Drawing the Boundaries of

Disclosure, London, I.B.Tauris & Co. LTD, pp1-18.

Rozenberg, J. (2004) Privacy and the Press, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

Sabbagh, D. (2011) ‘Opinion: It should be curtains for celebrities with a bedroom

secret’, The Guardian, Friday April 22 2011, p6.

Sabbagh, D. and Halliday, J. (2011) ‘Injunction remains despite MP’s revelation’, The

Guardian, Monday May 23 2011. Available from:

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2011/may/23/ryan-giggs-injunction-mp

(accessed 27/03/14)

Solove, D. (2007) the future of reputation: gossip, rumor, and privacy on the internet,

USA, Binghamtom Valley Composition.

Smith, A. and Higgins, M. (2013) The Language of Journalism: A Multi-genre

Perspective, London, Bloomsbury.

68

The Guardian. (2014) ‘ABCs: National daily newspaper circulation January 2014’,

The Guardian, Friday February 14 2014. Available from:

http://www.theguardian.com/media/table/2014/mar/14/abcs-national-newspapers

(accessed 10/04/14)

(PCC) The Press Complaints Commission (2012) Editors’ Code of Practice, London,

The Press Standards Board of Finance Ltd. Available from:

http://www.pcc.org.uk/cop/practice.html (accessed 09/03/14)

The Report of the Committee on Super-Injunctions. (2011) Super-Injunctions,

Anonymised Injunctions and Open Justice, Available from:

http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resources/JCO/Documents/Reports/super-injunction-

report-20052011.pdf (accessed 10/04/2014)

Tomlinson, H. (2013) The Law under the European Convention on Human Rights, in

Crone, T. (Ed) Law and the Media, 4th Edition, Burlington, Focal Press, pp267-282.

Tuchman, G. (1978). Making news: A study in the Construction of Reality, New York,

Free Press.

Tunstall, J. (1996) Newspaper Power the New National Press in Britain, Oxford,

Clarendon Press.

Turner, G. (2004) Understanding Celebrity, London, Sage Publications.

Turner, G., Bonner, F. and D. Marshall. (2000) Fame Games: The Production of

Celebrity in Australia, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

Warren, S. and Brandeis, L. (1890) ‘The Right to Privacy’, Havard Law Review, IV

(5). Available from:

http://groups.csail.mit.edu/mac/classes/6.805/articles/privacy/Privacy_brand_warr2.h

tml (accessed 11/04/14)

69

Weintraub, J. (1997) The Theory and Politics of the Public/Private Distinction, in

Weintraub, J. and Kumr, K. (Ed) Public and Private in Thought and Practice:

Perspectives on a Grand Dichotomy, London, The University of Chicago Press, pp1-

42.

Wintour, P. and Sabbagh, D. (2011) ‘Privacy laws in chaos as MP names Giggs over

injunction: Man Utd star identified in parliament: Review of rules on Twitter and

social media’, The Guardian, Tuesday May 24 2011, p1.

70

Chapter 8: Appendices

DATA:

The Sun

SUN1:O’Shea, G. (2011) ‘SOCCER’S LOVE RAT ‘WANTED TO WED IMOGEN’’, The Sun,

Wednesday April 27 2011, p11.

SUN2:Wells, T. (2011) ‘TWIT HITS THE BAN; Super-Injunctions blown away by online

frenzy ‘naming’ stars with sleazy secrets’, The Sun, Tuesday May 10 2011, p9.

SUN3:Flynn, B. (2011) ‘Gagging love rat could be revealed’, The Sun, Monday April 16

2011, p7.

SUN4:Parker, N. and Dunn, T. (2011) ‘IT’S RYAN GIGGS; After 75,000 tweets and one

massive legal battle, footballer at centre of Twitter privacy storm is named as MP

tells Parliament… RYAN FURY’, The Sun, Tuesday May 24 2011, pp1,4.

SUN5:Coles, J. (2011) ‘I’M GUTTED; ACE’S FAMILY LET DOWN EXCLUSIVE’, The Sun,

Wednesday May 25 2011, p6.

71

SUN6:O’Shea, G., Nash, E. and Flynn, B. (2011) ‘I called it off a million times… but he kept

on coming back; UNITED STAR’S SECRET FLING WITH BIG BROTHER BEAUTY

IMOGEN TRIED TO DITCH GIGGS’, The Sun, Wednesday May 25 2011, pp4,5.

The Mirror

MIR1:Austin, M. (2011) ‘KISS OF DEATH FOR FREEDOM’, Sunday Mirror, Sunday April

24 2011, p14.

MIR2:Owen, N. (2011) ‘NOW PREM ACE CONFESSES TO WIFE: I CHEATED WITH

IMOGEN; PARTNER IS LEFT ‘IN TEARS’, Sunday Mirror, Sunday May 1 2011, p21.

MIR3:Hanna, L. (2011) ‘‘BLACKMAIL CLAIM IS OUTRAGEOUS… YET AGAIN HE CAN

HIDE WHILE MY NAME IS TRASHED. HOW CAN THAT BE FAIR?’; BB GIRL’S

FURY AT COURT GAG’, The Mirror, Tuesday May 17 2011, p5.

MIR4:Fricker, M. (2011) ‘BETRAYED… THE DEVOTED WIFE IN THE SHADOWS; THE

GIGGSY FILES FALL FROM GRACE’, The Mirror, Tuesday May 24 2011, pp4,5.

MIR5:Stephens, M. (2011) ‘NO ONE CAN STOP GOSSIP’ The Mirror, Tuesday May 24

2011, p3.

MIR6:Parry, R. (2011) ‘WED DEVIL; SHAMED GIGGS IN FIGHT TO SAVE MARRIAGE’.

The Mirror, Wednesday May 25 2011, pp6,7.

Daily Mail

72

MAI1:Greenhill, S. (2011) ‘ANOTHER DAY, ANOTHER GAGGING ORDER’, Daily Mail,

Friday April 15 2011.

MAI2:Shipman, T. (2011) ‘PM ISSUES WARNING ABOUT GAGGING ORDERS’, Daily

Mail, Friday April 22 2011.

MAI3:Allen, V. and McDermott, N. (2011) ‘MY REPUTATION’S BEEN TRASHED AND

I’VE BEEN GAGGED’, Daily Mail, Tuesday May 17 2011.

MAI4:Bracchi, P. (2011) ‘FLIRTY TEXTS, SECRET LIAISONS IN A HOTEL… AND THE

SORDID TRUTH BEHIND THAT FAMILY MAN IMAGE’, Daily Mail, Tuesday May 24

2011.

MAI5:Doughty, S. (2011) ‘MPs: WE WILL NOT BE GAGGED, M’LUD’, Daily Mail, Tuesday

May 24 2011.

MAI6:Tozer, J. (2011) ‘AS GIGGS SHOWS THE STRAIN, HIS WIFE DITCHES THE

RING’, Daily Mail, Wednesday May 25 2011.

73

74