Super-Injunctions - What a Waste of Time

The hot topic for this week is the stream of super-injunctions taken out by athletes and celebrities to protect their reputation. The identities of these people is a court bound secret, but by the power of the Internet, the whole world seems to know! So in this post, I want to discuss the point of super-injunctions as a PR defence and whether the whole process could just be a complete waste of time.

The reason given for taking out a super-injunction seems to be to protect their family, but surely its not for that reason. It's because the celebrity doesn't want to damage his reputation and his sponsorship deals - it's all about the money. If the celebrity cared about his (or her, let's not be biased) family, he wouldn't have had an affair in the first place! And is it really worth it? With the Internet around, the truth will out eventually.

Could the better way to handle an affair be to be honest about it? Someone in PR, recommending honesty?! Never! But I am going to go out on a limb here and say yes. The celebrity should own up for his/her mistakes and move forward. A family affair is a private issue but by being in the public eye, rumours about the celebrities actions could actually become more damaging than if they are straight up about it. The whole situation would have to be carefully managed, of course. The juicy details could be highly damaging and a kiss-and-tell from the mistress wouldn't help anything but in the long run, honesty must be the way forward? 

Perhaps this is me taking the moral high ground and thinking about what I would want to happen if it was me. The safety net of a super-injunction might turn into a paranoia trap that haunts me for the rest of my life. So, as the catholics would say (although I am definitely not religious!), absolve yourself of your sins and you will be forgiven. The public have a soft spot for people who come back from scandal and prove themselves. Unless you're Ashley Cole of course.

What do you think? Is honesty the best way forward?

Do Fly-on-the-wall TV shows help or hinder celebrities?

I don't know about anyone else reading this, but I love watching fly-on-the-wall reality shows. I don't know exactly what it is about them that intrigues me but I guess it is the "behind-the-scenes" look at celebrity's real lives which appeals to me. We live in a society where celebrities are an important part and it is good to have the opportunity to see that celebrities are just like the rest of us. 

Two of the most popular reality shows on British TV are 'Peter Andre - The Next Chapter' and Katie Price's 'What Katie Did Next'. A former couple born out of a reality show (I'm A Celebrity), they ruled British TV for many years in their joint show, where their bickering seemed to capture the nation's hearts. Now, in their post-divorce separate reality shows, they still carry on courting the cameras. So what are the advantages for them?

Peter Andre came out of his divorce smelling like roses and so it makes sense for him to stay close to the public by exposing his personal life and kids to the cameras. He further endears himself to the audience, although it has to be said that all of the shows may be subject to heavy editing! As for Katie Price/Reid, she seems to have lost her sparkle with the public, but has somehow managed to recreate her Katie and Peter show into the Katie and Alex show. As a person, she comes across as unemotional and whereas before, this added to the dynamics of the relationship with Peter on-screen, by remaining so hard now, she opens herself up to harsh criticism and people therefore find the recent media 'slaughter' justified. 

A classic example of a reality show gone drastically wrong is Kerry Katona. Her career and personal life breakdown was all documented on camera and made it difficult for her to recover from it. Without the reality show, her agent could have managed the stories and shaped them into something positive (if possible!). But with her entire life documented, she couldn't hide the truth from the public and it severely impacted on her reputation. Apart from keeping her in the public eye and the much needed money, there really were no other advantages to her shooting the series. 

It is sometimes better to keep the mystery rather than showing the public everything because it means there is always something more to give. People are often more interested if there is an aspect of the unknown about someone because the curiosity is overwhelming. To satisfy them by making a reality show can sometimes be the answer, but often, keeping the public interested about who you really are can be more advantageous. 

On the other hand, a reality show gives fans another facet of celebrity and gives them a chance to see the real person behind the facade. There is a skeptical view that the celebrity is heavily edited to make them look good but it is fair to say that a good representation of the subject's personality will always come across. Another advantage to the reality shows is that you can see the truth behind the media's stories. Katie Price often cites this as a reason to continue her show as the media will often twist a story so much and even invent wild stories of their own with no substance. The show gives them the chance to prove the media wrong, and expose their lies.

Obviously, it is the celebrity's individual choice if they want to take part in a fly-on-the-wall show and from past experiences, it is clear that it could go either way. If everybody took part in a documentary series, it would shatter the fantasy of Hollywood and the platform of celebrity would be changed forever. We have to weigh up whether we need to know everything or whether life is better with an air of mystery.