I was browsing news items on RNZ and bumped into one I had not yet heard about. Apparently some ‘celebrities’ in Britain were involved in a steamy sex scandal. However, these were consenting adults and nothing illegal happened. What made the story into international news was the fact that the celebrities involved obtained an extremely strict injunction banning publication of any details in England and Wales. The injunction has no authority anywhere else but media in many countries, including here, are tiptoeing around it anyway. In spite of that, the likely identities of those involved are all over the Internet. It took me about 10 minutes to find them. I don’t see how it is possible that they will be kept ‘secret’ much longer. Yet many news organisations, including those not bound by the injunction, are carefully avoiding publication of any details.
Now that I know who the parties probably are, I actually wish I didn’t. I feel sorry for one of them in particular, though all the gory details are not yet known. I do wonder about the role of the news media in this, though. They are clearly itching to shout it out to the world, but it is equally clear that they don’t dare. So instead they resort to dishonest tactics by dropping hints and proclaiming ‘I know something you don’t and I’m not going to tell you but you would be really shocked if I did’. I particularly detest this kind of craven journalism and I am disappointed that RNZ, whom I hold in high regard, are guilty of it. Either they should report the full story as it is known, or they should say nothing. What they did say was more than enough to make me and anyone else who sees the item aware of it, and able to discover the details, so what point is served by such squeamishness? I personally feel it would have been better if they had said nothing at all and just waited until the story came out as it certainly will.