Social Media is not Super-injunction Kryptonite

The recent outburst of super-injunction controversy raises major concerns about privacy. Things got out of control when Twitter users – allegedly including Piers Morgan, Boy George, Dom Joly and journalist Toby Young - made details of celebrities who had achieved super-injunctions public. It seems the almighty mob of social media users, with its worldwide status and arrogant sense of unrestricted freedom, is rebelliously challenging the English judicial system.


The purpose of a super-injunction is to guarantee a person absolute confidentiality regarding strictly private matters. This means that individuals and the collective media are banned from publishing anything about the applicant that is deemed private, and also prohibits any reference to the existence of the injunction itself.

However, social networking sites - which have made it easy for people to make public announcements and liberally voice personal opinions - are making the enforcement of these super-injunctions extremely difficult. It was initially thought impossible to take any action against the Twitter users who tweeted and re-tweeted defamatory announcements regarding super-injunctions, but it is wrong for social media users to be able to effortlessly sidestep the highly restrictive constraints imposed on the traditional media. Those individuals who breach court orders should pay damages just as any media company should. Thankfully this has now been recognised by Attorney General Dominic Grieve who warned that anyone who was under the impression that modern methods of communication could allow them to “act with impunity” may be in for “a rude shock”.

The whole nature of the super-injunction controversy raises worrying issues. It seems people are becoming increasingly obsessed with knowing every intimate detail of both their friends’ and public figures’ lives, irrespective of whether it really concerns or affects them in any way. Fuelled by the gossip culture, rather than people having a right to privacy, there is now a strong sense that people are demanding a right to be informed of everyone else’s private matters.

Journalists and newspapers have spoken out against super-injunctions, protesting that the freedom of the media and their freedom of speech are being compromised and that as a result, they are being prevented from serving the so-called public interest. However, claiming that they are being repressed by legally approved sanctions regarding a public figure’s private life is simply absurd. The media is an incredibly powerful entity which can greatly influence public opinion in both a constructive and destructive manner, and this is a fact of which they are well aware. Their primary interest – and one that may explain their objections to super-injunctions - is to make money and it doesn’t take a genius to tell you that revealing scandal and private matters sells newspapers and boosts circulation, which sells advertising.

MP’s who have revealed details of super-injunctions in Parliament have also been in the firing line for abusing their parliamentary privilege, with one incident being described by Labour MP Mr Cryer as “an act of gross opportunism by a politician on an ego trip." Just as is the case with the media, there is certainly every reason to be suspicious of the motivation behind these MP’s announcements because they too have the selfish interests of both their own and their party’s popularity in mind.

However, privacy is not an issue to be taken lightly and Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights and the 1998 Human Rights Act offers protection for one's "private and family life, his home and his correspondence" that is considered – importantly - "necessary in a democratic society".

Celebrities deserve a private life as much as everyone else. It is not a logical consequence that someone who has entered into the public eye for being a talented sportsman, singer or actor should be stripped of the right to respect of personal privacy. More so, knowing their personal life is definitely not “necessary in a democratic society". There is no doubt that those who dared to flout the law via Twitter would be horrified at the thought of details of their own private affairs being callously splashed over the Internet. So maybe this should be something to consider before crossing into the dangerous territory of passing judgement and publicly humiliating others.

Effectively managing social media is clearly complex but the premise is simple: people should not consciously breach the law. Serious thought on how to address privacy issues in the world of modern technology is necessary and Prime Minister David Cameron conceded to this view commenting that, “The law and the practice has got to catch up with how people consume media today.”

As a corollary, thought must also be given to the merits of particular super-injunctions. This is why new guidelines have been issued following a report published by Lord Neuberger on 19th May 2011. In cases where they are justifiable and short-term secrecy is “strictly necessary” – such as protecting the name of a juvenile who is accused of a crime - they should be upheld and not made a mockery by social networking sites.

Moreover, information posted on the Internet is often false. This can result in raising unnecessary public concern and, in the case of super injunctions, lead to innocent celebrities being named and shamed for injunctions that they didn’t apply for. One example of this involved Jemima Khan being alleged of taking out a super-injunction to prevent the publication of intimate photos of her with Jeremy Clarkson. The mother of two denied the claims and expressed anger towards those responsible saying, “I hope the people who made this story up realise that my sons will be bullied at school because of it. Plus I’m getting vile hate tweets.”

The very nature of social media renders it extremely difficult to manage, but as Steven Barnett, professor of communications at the University of Westminster said: "Those who deliberately and systematically attempt to undermine the decisions of the courts should be sought out and brought to justice."

PR Controversy Fuels Seven Figure Contracts

If the media thinks it has struck a blow to the large public relations companies recently exposed as indulging in arguably unethical activities, then the Fourth Estate sorely needs a reality check.

The row over global PR companies cooperating with controversial foreign Governments has given these agencies free – and potentially extremely lucrative – publicity, because the truth is that controversial PR can be a goldmine for PR companies willing to take on ethically questionable clients.

“Google-gate” – in which Burson-Marsteller were hired by Facebook allegedly to pitch negative stories about Google to the US media – focused on Burson-Marsteller’s tactics to disparage the search and digital media company. The company has not stayed away from controversial clients previously, and allegedly worked with the Nigerian government after claims of genocide in the Nigerian Civil War and the Argentine junta following the disappearance of 35,000 civilians. Putting a positive spin on these types of issues is clearly not in the same stratosphere of PR as promoting the latest bronzer or lip gloss to Cosmo.

Burson-Marsteller isn’t the only agency to have taken on controversial clients. Bell Pottinger has been harshly criticised by protestors for its decision to work for the Bahrain government following the recent clashes between government forces and anti-regime demonstrators. The contract was previously held by Weber-Shandwick and is, according to PR Week, “understood to be worth a seven-figure sum annually.”

Television presenter and “renowned PR expert” Lauren Laverne laid into major PR companies on Channel 4’s damp squib of a satire show 10 O’Clock Live. Those bearing her brutal brunt included Bell Pottinger, Brown Lloyd James for its alleged work with Colonel Gadaffi, and Burson-Marsteller for its work in supposedly assisting a number of dictatorial regimes.

Lord Bell has defended his company, saying: “The implication that in some way my company and I damage the reputation of the industry is absurd,” adding that his company “abides by all the regulations of a public company.” Regarding the contract in Bahrain, he reiterated Bell Pottinger’s role: “We work for the Economic Development board. Whatever happens, the economy has got to grow. We're nothing to do with the constitution; we're nothing to do with Sunnis and Shiites.”

2011 has already thrown up some monumental news stories, not least the anti-regime uprisings in Northern Africa and the Middle East. With increasing calls for political reform, governments are more desperate than ever for some of the most skilled PR experts to protect their reputations, and to spin what has been called the “unspinnable”.

Google-gate merely served as a reminder of the nature of competitive business in the PR industry. Steve Earl, MD of Speed Communications, argued that the primary thing that Burson-Marsteller got wrong was its “amateur and clumsy” methods of smearing, suggesting the PR industry should just “admit” such practices “rather than getting all high and mighty”.

Yet this bad publicity has had negligible effect on these firms. There have been no headlines of clients cancelling their contracts since the surge of focus on PR agencies’ ethics. One may ask whether clients should be comfortable - ethically - funding a company that works for clients that are morally questionable. Supplier selection is a key element for an effective corporate social responsibility strategy. Employees for such companies may well ask themselves whether they feel comfortable working on such accounts. No doubt many will relish playing the Prince or Princess of Darkness role.

Yet what many clients – especially controversial clients – really want is a firm who are happy to be morally ambiguous. While Bell Pottinger has suspended its contract in Bahrain due to a ‘three-month period of emergency rule’, it has announced plans to revisit the contract after this period. It'll be interesting to see whether the policies of whatever regime emerges after the three month period will have an impact on BM deciding to continue the work

If a lack of ethical behavior has become integral to successful PR businesses we have to question whether clients actually care. While a company may not condone the practices of a PR agency, as long as they get some good publicity - or their competitors get bad publicity in the Google-gate case - they may not be too worried about the means that produce their desired ends. As a result PR consultancies that are willing to cross ethical boundaries for a fee will continue to win the most lucrative contracts in the world.

Media in the media

At Parker Wayne and Kent we receive the FT daily email, and usually we give it an interested glance over before moving on to the working day. Not so today, and the coverage was so amazing that I just had to write about it. Of the many brilliant stories in the paper today none of them grab your attention like the news that 63 year old former governor of California Arnold Schwarzenegger is working with Spiderman creator Stan Lee on a new comic book character called ‘The Governator’. Based on the former movie stars 7 years in office the character will be the centre of a childrens TV series next year, in which the Governator will be pitted against Gangsters Imposters Racketeers Liars and Irredeemable Ex-Cons (or Girlie Men).
Whether or not this is a wonderful April Fools Day prank, the internet is currently blazing with super hero news – whether the new Wonder Woman costume or casting announcements for Christopher Nolan’s the Dark Knight Rises – and Schwarzenegger demonstrates that he still knows how to take the media by storm. Earlier in the week Arnie met Prime Minister David Cameron at the 1922 committee to advise on the current Libyan situation. Schwarzenegger endorsed Prime Minister Camerons’ leadership and applauded his action saying that the government were doing: “A great job on Libya, a great job for Britain in making it live within its means and a great job with policies to protect the environment."
Media in Libya has also been at the forefront of the FT today, as the first uncensored broadcast in 42 years was transmitted over the recently renamed Free Libya Radio Station. This event coincides with journalists launching free newspapers that are being seen as increasingly valuable tools for the opposition against Gaddafi’s forces.
In Turkey, however, the escalating controversy surrounding the arrests of several journalists has highlighted a more worrying attitude toward a free media. The European Union and US State department joined the rising criticism over this latest PR nightmare for the Turkish government, as their record for a free press continues to worsen.
This issue hits closer to home as James Murdoch is promoted to Deputy Chief Operations Officer and into the New York office of media giant News Corp. This move that has caused bafflement over at the FT as it comes at a time when News Corps highly publicised and controversial acquisition of BSkyB is at a final and delicate stage, not to mention the continuing controversy over the News of the World phone hacking scandal. The ever expanding control over the media exhibited by News Corp has caused grave concern and strong opposition from those who insist that the media in this country must exhibit plurality. The final decision from UK Culture Secretary Jeremy Hunt will be delivered after the parliamentary recess on April 26th.
Publicis have also announced plans for succession in which Jean Yves Naouri is taking over as Executive Chairman of Publicis Worldwide to become the successor of Maurice Levy. The agency has relied upon Naouris’ technological expertise to deal with companies like Microsoft and Google, and will now rely on him in this senior position to continue to push digital advertising into new innovative areas.
Googles’ recent announcement of a new social networking feature could bring a viral element to search advertising for the first time. As a fight back against Facebook – who overtook Google as the most visited site in the US last year – Google have created the +1 button. Similar to the Facebook ‘Like’ button users will be able to set personal preferences and appear in their friends search results, vastly increasing the potential benefits for marketers.
Digital marketing’s focus on social media has led to 96% of marketers planning to spend more of their budget on it according to a survey of members of the World Federation of Advertisers conducted by Millward Brown. Half of these are unsure of the returns however, and a further quarter even says payback is average or poor. The point here – as the FT highlights – is that those 96% of marketers are seeking consumer engagement, and yet simply having a social media presence doesn’t guarantee this. True engagement comes from using social media not as an end in and of itself, but as part of a broader marketing strategy. PepsiCo have set up a glass wall to monitor the social media on its product Gatorade. The screen shows every tweet, like, and mention, while being monitored by a team of five representatives each from a different part of the company, such as PR, customer service and branding. Gatorade Mission Control, as it is known, allows the company to understand “the heartbeat of the consumer.”
The news is increasingly dominated by stories about the way in which stories are told, and the varying methods by which those stories are reaching consumers. The FT focuses on these because the implications for business are enormous. A strong media presence is more important than ever, and – with huge PR companies having been the target of some bad PR themselves lately – it’s vital that companies are able to put their trust in an ethical practice that is able to deliver the ever-expanding and ever-more significant media needs of the modern business.

Have a heroic new year

Got a Google Bike

Google's kinda scarey.

It records all your searches; develops a profile about you from your use of the search engine and your visits to other websites; if you use gmail it reads your emails so that it can serve you adverts; if you use Google Maps it literally knows where you are down to a point of 3 metres; its secret algorithm is NOT the Dewey Decimal System, so it should concern everyone about how decisions are made about the editorial policy, the prioritisation of websites in search results and the information that comes top of search rankings.

But it is very easy.

So whilst people should be concerned about Google, naturally there are benefits, and just like walking into McDonalds for a hot meal that's ready in less than a minute, the convenience of the service means that people can sell out their ethics and concerns about dealing with companies that raise ethical concerns.

However, since my last bike got stolen, I decided I wasn't going to mess around - I got myself a Google bike.

Never heard of one? Well this is where some of that scarey stuff that Google does has a security utility.

The chip forged into the Google Bike's frame means you can track via Google Maps by synching it with your mobile phone or sticking a code into the app on your PC. I like it because if someone steals it, I can instantly find out exactly where it is within 3 square metres - and so can the police.

Of course, it's also handy if you just forget where you parked the bloody thing. Doubtless parents might get Google Bikes so that they can keep track of their kids when they go out cycling.

So whilst Google can be scarey, the social utility of some of its applications is undeniable. Maybe I fear the untransparent monotlith of information gathering that is Google. Or from my experience with the Google Bike, maybe I don't mind Google and it's tracking, info gathering, profiling activities, as long as I'm in charge of it.

The Social Network - Review

NB: I hate spoilers, so this blog won't give away plot, but will talk about themes in the film.

Aaron Sorkin? I didn't even know he was the screenplay writer until it popped up on the opening credits, and as a HUGE West Wing fan (I have to watch an episode before I go to sleep every night - no kidding. Get lost!) I figured I'd be into Social Network. (It's him and David Mamet that are so seriously wicked.)

And Sorkin hits you with a first scene that is masterful in its integration into a face to face conversation of the crap cliches and meaningless, trite content of social media messages and comments that belie true feelings and honesty.

Seriously, it's worth going purely to experience the first scene's cynical regard for the changes in human communication that social media has impacted upon us.

You can read about the anti-hero claptrap from other reviews, but instead consider the contemporary portrayal of geeks in films recently, of which this film is a prime example. Whatever happened to Hollywood's loveable poindexters? Y'know like Lucas, the guys from Weird Science, and Revenge of The Nerds? (Jesus, the temptation to summise that we're in "Generation G" for "geek" is incredible. Cliched device duly avoided.)

Executive producer Kevin Spacey follows-up the vibe of his film 21 - which explores the corruption of geekdom - with an even stronger and darker assertion that successful nerdity leads to megalomania.

But of all things, almost counter-intuitively until you reflect on it, this film is about superficial friendship and insincere communication. But then it's about Facebook, so of course it is.

The only entity in the film that retains integrity is The Social Network. (I don't want to spoil it, but I'm dying to make a point about a character which you might also argue retains integrity - but the very last scene proves that not to be the case.)

Fiction or not, it's a tragic depiction of the loneliness of the man at the centre of the world's largest social network, the man who commoditised friendship.

But regardless of whether the sense of affirmation for my cynicism towards social network "relationships" was from my own imposition on the film or whether it was an intentional reflection of my views, it was the most powerful thing I took away.

Lots of other things were just lessons I'd already learnt. Never blog when you're hammered. But great ideas come to you when you're pissed - in both the UK and US sense. Defamation is defamation, on the 'net or not. Pretty girls on websites drive traffic. A "the" is great for bands, not for brands. People you think are "cool" will disappoint you when you realise their reality.

Questions I asked myself after the film:

Whatever happened to Faceparty.com?

Why was my university only on the second round of UK invites?

Why the hell would people put photos of themselves drunk on the internet? Looking in the mirror when I'm drunk is frightening enough, why the hell would I want to relive that?

Lessons I think are intended by the film:

If you've got a true friend who's become simply a facebook friend, go hook up with them, have a real chat about real stuff.

Also ask yourself, how many of your Facebook friends you would give $25mn to?

And if you really think that social network friendships are real friendships, take your social media face out of your social media arse, go down the pub, and talk to someone you don't know about something real. And if you like them, learn something from them and think you can add to each other's lives, stay in touch with them. Ask them if they're on Facebook.

Outrage For The X Factor Machine

It’s official. The nation is obsessed with the media monstrosity that is The X Factor. Auto-tuning auditions, exploiting the mentally ill, the innocent and the deluded hopefuls, and the production team’s decisions to drop anyone with real talent but no emotional back-story. Not despite, but because of, the continuous negative coverage related to the show, the public are tuning in and ratings seem to be at an all time high. The publicity strategy for this year’s X Factor campaign (cue back drop fireworks, stings and rapturous audience applause please)…causing, and sustaining, public outrage.

When Cheryl Cole chose not to let eighteen-year-old Gamu Nhengu through to the live shows after a flawless performance at Cole’s million-pound pad in Ascot, the public were furious. They blamed Ms Cole’s decision to end the young girls dream on her immigration status, as Miss Nhengu and her family have recently been refused permission to stay in the UK and face deportation back to their violent and unstable home country, Zimbabwe. Although cleared of racism after Cole punched a black toilet attendant in 2003, her decision not to let Miss Nhengu through to the live shows sparked a huge race row. Seeing the usually obsessed-by-everything-Cheryl-Cole-says-and-everything-Cheryl-Cole-does nation turn against her was fairly man-bites-dog, so great publicity for the show.

Call us cynical but at the back of X Factor publicists’ minds, the toilet attendant fiasco is something that has been forgiven but not forgotten from Ms Cole’s past. Faced with a black African contestant, the publicists were able to turn a controversial event in Ms Cole’s past into a valuable media asset to publicise the show through outrage.

We’re not the only minds that this possibility has popped into, Mark Borkowski commented in a recent article, on his website Mark My Words that: “I strongly suspect that they may be deliberately leaking info and then claiming to be upset, thus generating more stories. All of this boosts the show, the ability to make money, and more often than not it is at the expense of the ‘talent’.”

Social networking sites are undoubtedly one of the best ways for people to express their personal feelings, vent some anger and generate debate. And the vehemence in which people portray their opinions through these sites is a hell of a lot more aggressive than what is portrayed in print or broadcast media. With 17,000 people joining a Facebook page ‘Gamu should have got through’ in a matter of hours after the show was aired, and a ‘Hate Cheryl Cole’ trend emerging on Twitter, these two social networking sites were clearly a great method of supporting the media strategy. And The X Factor is clearly aware of this. If they want to create hype, using social networking sites is probably the best way to go about it and they’re certainly not going to generate the same amount of fuss about the show if they put through the public’s favourite, maintain Cheryl Cole’s ‘the nation’s sweetheart’ title and simply let the overall winner get that expected Christmas number one spot they’ve always dreamed of.

However, one’s fall is another’s rise. The “Mr Nasty” music mogul and fellow X Factor judge Simon Cowell is coming off looking like the good guy. Again. Granted it is his show, so why wouldn’t he want some positive PR. Using Miss Nhengu’s uncertain future, BBC News reported Mr Cowell “has thrown his weight behind the campaign to save X Factor singer Gamu Nhengu from being sent back to Zimbabwe.” Simon Cowell commented: “We have lawyers working with her lawyers – not because we have to – but because I really feel for their situation, and that’s outside of the show.” How good of him. Although I’m sure the price he’s paying for his lawyers will be like a drop in the ocean compared to the money gleaned from sustaining viewers to the ad breaks during The X Factor, whether or not Miss Nhengu’s potential deportation is “outside of the show”, the media coverage of the threat is a boon to the programme’s view figures.

Nick Ede, Creative Director of Eden Cancan, comments that: “The controversy surrounding the judges’ choices is always of interest and there will always be media stories to fuel the public’s interest in the build-up to the first live shows. It’s a win for The X Factor but a loss for Cole.”

So with Cole getting the negative coverage this time round, the tables really have turned as Cowell has managed to go from Mr Bad Guy, to Mr Nice Guy – at least for now. On the contrary, the incredibly powerful entrepreneur is never going to come out of the show any worse off from any negative publicity the show receives. This is, after all, the man who attacked last years Rage Against the Machine campaign to sabotage the Christmas number one spot from winner Joe McElderry, telling The Daily Star: “It’s all very Scrooge.” Of course, he probably wasn’t that bothered by it at all as he does after all own rights in Sony BMG’s catalogue – who Rage Against the Machine are signed to. So for Simon Cowell, it was always a win-win situation. He’d earn money from sales of “Klling in the name” and “The Climb”.

Profiting from the positive and the negative – what a genius.

It wouldn’t be unfair to suspect that the previous 2008 campaign to get Jeff Buckley’s Hallelujah to the number one spot and deprive winner Alexandra Burke of the Christmas number one with her version of the song, was a test run for the Rage Against the Machine campaign. Social networking sites went lunatic, and although Alexandra Burke still managed to win the top spot, fans were angered on either side of the debate. This perhaps resulted in the show realising just how much benefit they can gain from pissing people off.

So when Ms Cole kicked off Gamu-gate, social networking sites were swamped by X Factor viewers’ campaigns demanding the reinstatement of Miss Nhengu and hundreds of fans lined the streets outside the eighteen-year-old’s house to show their support for her.

How on earth did they get her address? Has the show no consideration of public safety?

Well, actually they probably do. It’s quite easy to come to the conclusion that the X Factor publicity team may’ve organised such an event. Cheryl Cole on the other hand reportedly received death threats over her controversial decision.

So we could finish this all off by saying the same trite stuff that “people are clearly forgetting that this is just another reality TV show. It’s a competition. It’s just a bit of fun…”
But no – what people are clearly forgetting is that the X Factor is a masterful media product, a powerful publicity machine and a genius money-making, ad-unit selling device. Question and criticise the ethics, but be amazed and aware of its raison d’être.

All the so-called ‘leaking’ of stories about the show and about its contestants seems like an inexcusable way for a huge corporation to exploit innocent contestants who have no idea what they are letting themselves in for. Miss Nhengu recently told The News of the World that: “If I hadn’t been on X Factor everything would have been fine. Someone else would have been the scapegoat instead of me.” All these hopefuls want is a chance to live their dream of becoming the next Leona Lewis, but if the show actually treated them with any respect, they wouldn’t receive the publicity the show craves so badly.

So this years PR campaign of causing public outrage is doing pretty damn well so far, but what those who are so outraged need to see is that while it’s all very well campaigning against decisions made by the show, bitching about it by the water cooler and criticising the ethics of the show, if you really want to make the point, stop watching the show.

Try it. See if you can. We challenge you.