The super injunction: Judge vs. Journo

2012-02-14 10:47:26 by Craig

Journalists are responsible for reporting the news; it’s what they’re trained to do. So is it really fair to prevent them from doing their job, because some high-profile celebrity doesn’t want the world (and their wife) to discover their dark secret?

Even the Prime Minister feels ‘uneasy’ about the increase in strict gagging orders, suggesting this controversial intervention is not politically nor ethically correct. Newspapers and MP’s now want to challenge the courts, as they believe the imposition of such injunctions should come from Parliament, and not the courts themselves.

But with communication channels expanding rapidly, is there such thing as a secret anymore?

One Twitter user has revealed the names of such celebs, and according to media experts, the celebrities’ lawyers seemed ‘powerless to act’, displaying how easy it is for super injunctions to backfire. But despite the Twitter claims, journalists are still forbidden to elaborate.

Others claim that by taking out a gagging order, celebrities are putting a target on their backs, as people desperately want to discover their identity.

Understandably, the purpose of these super injunctions is to protect peoples personal lives and reputations, but when the truth does finally come out – as alleged on Twitter – then the super injunction may in fact have done more harm than good.

Crises can be difficult to handle, but well-managed and structured issues and crisis management can make all the difference. Admitting to error means a lot to the public, and working hard to fix the problem can save your reputation. Super injunctions on the other hand, are a cowardly approach to dealing with mistakes, causing further damage to reputation and becoming an even larger crisis when revealed.

In the words of Henry Kissinger – ‘An issue ignored is a crisis ensured’.