The farcical dispute between the UK judiciary and parliament this week surrounding injunctions and gagging orders masked the real issue: the end of media control of dissemination of information.
In years to come we may regard May 2011 as a milestone moment in marking the progress of digital and social media on how information reaches us.
For those living offgrid or outside the UK here’s a brief summary of events:
-Footballer takes out a ” injunction” (an injunction whose very existence can not even be mentioned) to prevent news getting out of his alleged affair with a TV celebrity Imogen Thomas
-Sources close to the story are alleged to have leaked details via Twitter
-Footballer’s name is mentioned in tweets by more than 75,000 users and many bogus accounts are set up in both his and Thomas’s name
-Media object strongly to the fact that they are unable to name the footballer while it is common knowledge thanks to social media
-A Member of Parliament (MP) names the footballer on May 20, using “Parliamentary Privilege” or the right of MPs to discuss freely what they want. It can then be reported on.
Right now the traditional media, who have a vested interest in the affair, are portraying this as a battle between, on the one hand, press freedom and noble parliamentarians, and on the other, the out of date judiciary and powerful figures in public life.
This is a distraction: the real issue – and the long-lasting learning from this affair – is that we have clear, tangible evidence that traditional media no longer control dissemination of news and information.
We are now to have an investigation and a debate around privacy, fuelled by years of questionable tabloid intrusion into the personal lives of those in the public gaze.
At the same time, Lord Chief Justice Lord Judge has said. “Modern technology is totally out of control.” His comments belie a lack of understanding about the realities of consumer behaviour and the power of social media.
The fact that Lord Judge calls the internet and social media – used by billions across the planet from all social strata “technology” – marks him out as an anachronism. Yet his comments also demonstrate the steep learning curve that he and his colleagues will confront in years to come, as the public take over the primary role of disseminating information.
Here are the learnings which all parties must take to heart in order to strike the right balance in the forthcoming debate:
-digital media is not territorial. Pre-digital, it was possible to prohibit national media from printing or broadcasting within a territory. Injunctions in one territory can not prevent the spread of information to others without the degree of censorship which China and other nations impose.
-social media channels are not “media”. Social media content is the conversation all around us translated into digital form. It is made up of individuals and their connection to others, through real-world relationships or common interest. Injuncting and suing individuals may have legitimate grounding in law, yet, the reality of being able to identify and injunct either a service with tens of millions of users, or those users individually, is as unworkable as preventing file-sharing has proven. It’s as viable as gagging each and every one of us.
-users will continue to create and share information, irrespective of the law. Prior to the advent of digital and social channels, the public had limited control over how they responded to print and broadcast information. Now users themselves create information, often in advance of traditional media (the Egyptian revolution and the raid on Osama Bin Laden’s compound providing us with just two examples.
Users will also play an increasing role in broadcasting, disseminating and curating information. To those in traditional media, law-making and enforcement this is an inconvenient truth. Yet once we recognise and accept that “technology” has disrupted and changed the relationships between news and individual we can start to have an informed debate about the implications of these behaviours and the actions we need to take.

