Once upon a time a household name who was alleged to have paid a young person for sexually explicit photographs ran the risk of career destruction on Sunday.
It would have been an ideal Sunday tabloid story to curl up with after breakfast in bed, shocking and titillating in equal measure, for the reader at least. But for the subject of the scoop it very often spelled the end of livelihoods, lifestyles and reputations. The costs of being caught out were enormous.
Exposure
Think of some of the legendary exposes of the past: Angus Deaton, one time presenter of the BBC’s Have I Got News For You panel show, who was cut adrift after revelations about his private life were splashed all over the pages of the News of the World. Or TV’s Leslie Grantham, whose Eastenders character, Dirty Den, was killed off once and for all after he was revealed to have performed sex acts over a webcam for an undercover journalist.
But ever since Saturday, when The Sun broke the story about the BBC TV presenter it has led the news agenda but its subject has remained unnamed and the BBC on the back foot as the story has unfolded.
Kelvin Mackenzie, former editor of The Sun in its 80s heyday, told BBC’s Radio 4 World at One programme that in the past the story would have been covered very differently.
He said: “In the good old days when I was editing [The Sun] it was selling for 5 million a day, there will be absolutely no doubt the name would have been there, and any pictures associated with the allegation would have been published. There’s no ifs and buts.”
These sorts of stories were popular with readers and drove sales and understandably competition was fierce among rival titles to get them. So much so that illegal means like phone hacking were sometimes used to obtain them.
It wasn’t a world that could or did last forever, a fact wryly acknowledged by Mackenzie who observed that “the world has changed pretty dramatically over the last 20 odd years.”
Unnamed
So, what has changed and why is the presenter not being named?
Robert Dougans, partner and head of dispute resolution at Preiskel & Co, said there were a number of possible reasons for The Sun’s caution.
He said: “The newspaper may be less than sure of their story, and may be afraid of a claim for infringing his privacy rights. Or there may be a fear of prejudicing a trial.”
This is an important aspect of the story which is going overlooked. The allegations of paying an under 18 year old for explicit photographs could constitute a potential criminal offence.
Hence, the Metropolitan Police Service has asked the BBC to pause its internal investigation into the matter so that specialist officers can determine if it merits a criminal investigation and even Downing Street has weighed in, saying it is keeping an eye on the matter.
There are other legal considerations for editors to weigh up as well.
Dougans said: “Since the Human Rights Act a right of privacy has developed in English law. This gives a person a right of privacy for their private life. If no crime has been committed the presenter has a right to a private life.”
He added: “The law was different in Kelvin Mackenzie’s heyday. Many of his stories about “outing” and the sex lives of people whose private lives are not in the public domain would not now be able to be printed. Of course, the newspaper may also be less than sure of the story.”
Nonetheless, much of the general public is blissfully unaware of the legal implications of naming someone and social media is crackling with rumours, speculation and innuendo.
There isn’t anything new in this. The 2010s were the era of the superinjunction when wealthy footballers and another BBC presenter obtained court orders preventing reports on their private life that were so sweeping they even prohibited reference to the injunctions themselves.
But then the power of social media was used to turn them into a dead letter. The new landscape of Twitter users, hashtags and trending topics would blow away the old world of the wealthy using expensive legal tools to shield themselves from reputational damage, or so it would seem.
Long arm of the law
But social media users were about to learn that the virtual world was just as subject to the writ of the law as its material counterpart and that they too could be pursued for damages if they defamed someone online.
In 2012 a senior Tory politician was accused – unnamed – of child abuse by BBC’s Newsnight. Again social media swirled with speculation. But on this occasion the man in question, Lord McAlpine, took swift, decisive action to defend himself.
Lord McAlpine gave an interview outing himself as the man accused, issuing a strong denial of the claims and his lawyers issued claims for defamation against Twitter users with over 500 followers if they had libelled him.
Risks
So, what do people risk by naming someone on social media?
Dougans said: “They risk a claim in defamation if they name the wrong person – several people who wrongly named Jeremy Vine have already tweeted apologies and may be paying Mr. Vine sums of money. They also potentially risk a claim in privacy if they get it right.”
In 2012 the action taken by his lawyers killed the McAlpine story stone dead but the BBC presenter story is proving to be one with more twists and turns than Spaghetti Junction.
In the last 24 hours not only has the young person in the original story denied there was any wrongdoing on the BBC presenter’s part in a statement issued on their behalf by lawyers but in a further twist, the BBC has learned of new allegations about the presenter from a second person.
There’s no way of telling where the story will eventually end up and who will fall as a result. But at the moment it shows no sign of slowing down.
