Celebrities aren't living to public's hopes

One of the modules I had to study this year for my degree was called "Ethics of Journalism". In this module, I had to do an essay regarding the News of the World phone hacking scandal. Since I finished the module two weeks ago, a lot has happened since.

John Hemmings, a Liberal Democrat MP announced in the House of Commons that former Wales international football player Ryan Giggs had an affair with former Big Brother contestant Imogen Thomas. Mr. Hemmings received parliamentary rights to say that this incident occurred. He said during Jeremy Vine Show on BBC Radio 2 on Tuesday that he felt someone had to officially announce it because of Twitter speculations and the fact that The Sunday Herald's front cover on the 22nd May shown a picture of Ryan Giggs, censoring only his eyes.

Since Hemming's announcement, a lot of focus has been at Manchester United's headquarters. Ryan Giggs has played for the football club for about twenty years and is still going strong. He could face Barcelona this Saturday in the Champions League final at Wembley.

At a press conference yesterday, Sir Alex Ferguson was asked about Giggs's situation for the game in which the Scot responded "all the players here are important, every single one of them". He didn’t quite answer the question but after the press conference, he was caught asking his PR secretary to ban the journalist who asked that question in United's next conference on Friday.

I always try to respect Sir Alex Ferguson due to what he has done at Manchester United, winning countless amounts of trophies and individual awards but wanting to ban a journalist from a press conference just because of a question which he didn't like is a tad ridiculous. During his career, he has discredited the role of journalism, starting from his decision never to be interviewed by the BBC again. This behaviour baffles me and it shows his weakness and his preference to be silent.

I must admit though, journalists tend to be a pain. News of the World among other papers such as The Daily Mirror and The Daily Telegraph have, in the past have secretly hired investigative journalists just to find information and appearing to ruin reputations of well-known people. The PCC have to approve these headlines and allow publishing the articles if they are in the public interest.

News of the World knows that celebrities have the biggest influence on the general public. Anyone "famous" can be classed as a celebrity - sports starts, TV presenters, chefs such as Jamie Oliver etc. These people, people look up to. This newspaper always wants to find a way to say that people have done wrong or shocking. They have hired the Fake Sheikh and gained some access to secret information from the Royal Family as well as doing other things which they claim to be "in the public interest".

Is it in the public interest though? Do we really need to know the financial situation of Prince Michael of Kent? Do we really need to know about the answer phone message exchanges regarding Prince William's knee injury? Celebrities, like the general public have private lives and it is up to them if they want to publically announce it.

There are some who decide to lift, or drop (whichever way you look at it) the "super-injunction"; therefore their private lives are revealed, intended for the public's interest. Take John Terry as a fine example. A family, married man, captain of his country at the highest level of football was known to have had an affair with fellow Englishman Wayne Bridge's ex-girlfriend Veronica Perroncel. Terry had accepted the punishment of losing England's captaincy, but 13 months later, manager Fabio Capello gave the role back to the Chelsea star.

The most recent celebrity to reveal some part of their private life is TV presenter and BBC journalist Andrew Marr who felt "embarrassed" and "uneasy" about his super-injunction. Now Ryan Giggs's name is cropped up, how long is it until all the super-injunctions are lifted?

If I am honest, I think the whole super-injunction is a complete waste. I mean, isn't it in the celebrity's job description that the public want to know everything about them? I agree they must have some sort of privacy but celebrities must not be that disgraced by what they do.

Having an affair or bribing someone is, in any situation a wrong thing to do, so why do celebrities do it? So many young people look up to the likes of John Terry and Ryan Giggs yet their affairs will look bad on them, and the youth will then wonder what the right thing to do. John Terry was punished by the England team but Giggs is yet to be penalised of some sort so will the youth think that what Giggs had done was the right thing?

As it pains for me to say it but Katie Price a.k.a. Jordan is doing her job as a celebrity perfectly. Yes, she is always the centre of attention and I don't expect every celebrity to do this but she has nothing to hide, she has the confidence and never disgraced by what she does.

If you get the big bucks, you are automatically in the limelight and there is no way going back. If you are a TV presenter or anything like that you have no choice but to be classed as a celebrity. These people who are still having this super-injunction are not living to their public's expectations and the longer they are in this trap, the more impatient the public get and their popularity declines.

Twitter can only speculate. Some of the speculations appear to be untrue. Gabby Logan was said to be appalled by the rumours she was having an affair with BBC pundit Alan Shearer while Jemima Khan denies having it off with Top Gear presenter, Jeremy Clarkson. According to The Independent this morning, there are "at least 333 gagging orders" have been revealed or are still in the protection of super-injunctions.

David Cameron has said the super-injunctions are making him feel uneasy and a decision has to be made about them. Well, Prime Minister, actions speak louder than words. Make a decision, and make it fast.