Steven Baxter

Patrolling the murkier waters of the mainstream media

How many people really knew it was Ryan Giggs?

Many people hadn’t guessed the identity of “the footballer” until the tabloids weighed in.

By Steven Baxter Published 24 May 2011 19:17

Oh, Ryan Giggs. It was Ryan Giggs all along. Who knew? Well, it's easy for a jumped-up media type like me, who wastes a large proportion of every day trawling through Twitter for shiny things, to think that everyone knew.

But I don't think they did. I'm sure my office isn't the only one in the country where people were only finding out yesterday the identity of "the footballer" who had taken out an injunction to stop a story about his private life from being published by the Sun. When the Daily Mail conducted a straw poll last week to demonstrate that the injunction was a joke, it discovered that, in fact, most people it asked hadn't known that it was Giggs.

Of course, that was just a random sample; but still – it wasn't the widespread open secret that we have been led to believe. Perhaps the injunction did protect the footballer's identity after all, until Twitter users – maybe having their strings pulled by those with the most to gain, maybe not – piled in.

Sometimes that's the problem with being a journalist writing about journalism: there's a temptation to assume that everyone has the same interest in these matters as you do, because many of your friends and peers are also hacks and people who like this kind of thing.

As to the wider population, we will have to wait and see whether everyone really was terribly interested, whether they will continue to be interested, and whether fatigue has already set in on this latest grubby kiss'n'tell.

Bust the flush

For now, it's the only show in town, a carnival float of willy-waving from the triumphant tabs as their campaign to let us know the identity of the naughty celeb has succeeded – thanks to John Hemming MP and parliamentary privilege.

Giggs's photo was splashed over the front pages of every single major newspaper this morning, with the refreshing exception of the Financial Times. Even the "quality" papers wanted a piece of the action – though they pretended to take a rather loftier perch than the dog-with-a-bone zeal of the red tops.

IT'S RYAN GIGGS roars the delighted Sun, taking a bow for its journalistic enterprise in attempting to bring this vital story to the attention of readers everywhere; while the Mirror seems just as happy to blast away with his identity, going with the cheekier NAMING PRIVATE RYAN.

It's in the Mirror's interests to make this as widely known as possible to bust the Sun's flush: now we know the identity of the player, and many of the details of the alleged affair, what else is there to learn? Why buy the Sun if and when the injunction is finally lifted? This state of limbo could hobble its exclusive – though I'm not sure we should shed too many tears.

Other papers whose businesses thrive on gleefully revealing the details of celebrity shagging for the prurient pleasure of their readers are equally delighted that the "legal farce" has come to an end.

The Daily Star takes a particularly cruel decision to print a photo of Giggs with his children in his arms, as if they were somehow relevant to this matter. Is this downright nastiness intended to encourage others not to fight for their privacy? Is it just plain mean? Or is it to cling on to that tiny fibre of public-interest justification for this story – look at him, pretending to be a family man! – instead of the reality, that we just want to read about the sexual dalliances of the rich and famous?

Do it to death

Meanwhile, the self-proclaimed World's Greatest Newspaper, the Daily Express, surprisingly decides to lead on something else.

Sure, there's a massive photo of Giggs and his wife, as you'd expect, but it goes instead with panic-porn about the Icelandic volcanic ash cloud – banking on worried readers preferring to be scared by the apocalyptic fug of doom than show an interest in media matters.

It's interesting, when you consider that Express readers might be the least likely to be pottering around on Twitter in their spare time, and would therefore be least likely to have heard of this business already. But then maybe the Express has decided it's just a story that has been done to death – and it could be right, you know.

Maybe this story will run and run, because we really do care so much about the right to write about footballers' sex lives that we want the right to privacy ripped apart. Maybe everyone outside of newsrooms really is as interested in all of this as we are.

In which case, this is just the first salvo in a long, long battle. But I can't help wondering if the tale isn't as good as we're being told it is – not now the genie is out of the bottle.

Tags: Ryan Giggs

More from Steven Baxter

View the discussion thread.

22 comments

Wed, 2011-05-25 10:35 — Gwyn (not verified)

First i googled, then i goggled, then i giggled

Wed, 2011-05-25 10:35 — jie4v7i14

As an amusing aside, some "lads" turned up and trashed some reporters cars who were camped outside Giggs' house yesterday. I admire their loyalty for doing this, but it should certainly not be condoned, maybe.....
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-13530027

Wed, 2011-05-25 11:55 — Mr. Divine (not verified)

Eamonn; there is no way that Giggs does Miss Wales all the time. He's quite old now so he doesn't have the stamina. Often he comes late in the game replacing Rooney when the Evertonian baldy's shooting is askew.

With only 10 minutes to go Giggs knows that this might be his last chance to shine before he is put out to stud in nearby Oldham FC.

Giggs surprises the opposition by his skittish moves down the left wing, cutting inside and scoring away from home when no one is looking. The Welsh Wizard's wonderful trickery is now the talk of the nation despite his attempts to hide his hidden goal scoring talents in a court of law.

All hail parliamentary privilege and may God ridicule all faces of the media. Who do these faces think they are?

Fri, 2011-05-27 18:51 — Fergus Pickering (not verified)

Well I did, sport. I got it from some Spectator blog. They tend to know more of these important things than you do. I suppose it is because people at The Staggers are pure in spirit.

Mon, 2011-10-17 05:47 — Abraham2

Tue, 2011-05-31 18:07 — Ziggy (not verified)

I knew ages before it came out, read it online. I couldn't actually care less what celebs do in their private life (though I do think if you're in the public eye and don't want negative press it might be a good idea not to have an affair in the first place!), but these superinjunctions are ludicrous and make a mockery of the idea of free speech. What if a corrupt politician or a billion pound corporation put a gagging order on something.

I think it's spineless that the press don't just ignore this bollocks and run the stories anyway. For those who care, the other people with superinjunctions are:

1. Hugh Bonneville- who slept with Wayne Rooney's prostitute.

2. David Threlfall- who had an affair on Shameless with Pauline McLynn then got her fired.

3. Gordon Ramsay- who sexually harassed 2 members of his staff.

There are others rumoured but these are the ones that are pretty certain.

Thu, 2011-05-26 11:08 — JTAE (not verified)

Terrible article. Yeah, privacy is important. However, if you have a high profile - built because of peoples lusts for what's good about you - then you have to accept that any bad traits you may have are also going to be subject to the same level of profile.

You know, Giggs could not have messed about. He did though, and he got caught. He didn't come out and admit he was wrong, however; what he attempted do instead was firstly to attack the news papers, and then secondly to attack the public sphere itself, in trying to gag Twitter. Not only is it obviously futile, and either totally arrogant or totally ignorant, it's obvious his lawyers were totally rinsing the guy when they didn't advise against it.

You want a precedent? Tiger Woods, when he got caught, came out and admitted he was wrong. The papers reported for a while, and then left him to get on with his life. Ryan Giggs instead attempted to control the media to hide his infidelity, building the furore about it himself, and it has made him look utterly unapologetic, and utterly comtemptuous.

Tue, 2011-05-24 19:32 — Trojan Horace

Well I did know the name of the unfortunate footballer, and so did other friends not in the media. And no, it's not a public interest story to out Giggs - he's not charged with making moral judgements with our tax pounds: I probably wouldn't have known if the rich and powerful weren't abusing those facilities by purchasing favours from the legal profession and the courts by obtaining super-injunctions. Gagging orders is a conundrum that needs fixing - and the courts need to be clearer about where the lines of the right to privacy lie and how best to enforce it.

Tue, 2011-05-24 19:51 — Eamonn Fitzpatrick (not verified)

Ryan Giggs has said that although he enjoys living in England he does Miss Wales occasionally !

Tue, 2011-05-24 20:09 — Spud Middleton (not verified)

Ryan Giggs was humping Imogen Thomas? Jesus wept...has the girl no shame? I kinda feel dirty now.

OK...I was a little the worse for drink the night I bumped into her in the kebab shop, took her around the back, bent her over the wheelie bin and gave her the message...so the girl liked a drink...a good time...I'm broad-minded...I'm not gonna condemn anyone for their natural instincts, their primitive lusts.

But FFS...Ryan fuckin Giggs..how low can you get?

I hope there's nobody from twitter sees this post. My reputation'll be shot to pieces. If anyone with a Twitter account who earns less that £150000pa is reading this, be warned: I'll make sure Justice Eady takes you for every penny you've got. I'll happily see your kids begging outside Primark.

My inalienable right to pork who or what I want where or when I want without you knowing about it is sacrosanct...even if it's you. Remember that.

Tue, 2011-05-24 20:15 — Eamonn Fitzpatrick (not verified)

Ryan Giggs Ryan giggs running down the wing Ryan giggs Ryan Giggs is shaggin imogen !He does her up the Sh..ter now its all up on Twitter Ryan Giggs ryan giggs ryan giggs

Tue, 2011-05-24 21:04 — Fruininut

How fast you can find information is a good indicator of how skilled you are with a computer.

Fri, 2011-05-27 12:27 — Dan (Etular) (not verified)

In my eyes, the fact that he cheated on his wife or whatever is hugely unimportant (then again, seeing as how countless other footballers and sports-people have been outed for having done the exact same, he shouldn't really be any different).

What is important, however, is the fact that his wealth and status allowed him legal protection that the ordinary person would not be allowed for doing a job that is not constructive or necessary for the survival of society - Quite literally, playing a game.

The monetary system is, in my eyes, drastically flawed - and the Sports industry take full advantage of it - with costs of around £5-10 for a local game; with many of the "higher" teams costing well-over £20-£30 in some cases for one match!

We speak about the concept of Socialism, and income equality, but if people are willing to waste such insane amounts of money on a trivial 90 or so minutes in which they segregate themselves to choose one team over another, I don't see much faith in the concept as long the monetary system remains the way it is. That is, ofcourse, ignoring the fact that it adheres to blatant cheating, diving, shirt-pulling and lacks any concept of the words "Rules" and/or "Honour".

Take away the system, take away the protection, and all is well. In all honesty, in my belief, no person, sport or not, should be outed by the press without their consent. It's their private life, and any details of the affair should remain private unless they decide for it to be public knowledge. However, in this current system, to let a certain "privileged class" of people to protect themselves and cheat the system based on wealth, whilst countless others with such wealth have been "outed", is simply inane.

Keeping that in mind, however, Giggs also attempted to suppress Imogen from retelling the event - which I condemn. Although I'm against the concept of such issues being released in the press, Imogen had full right to tell whomever she wanted about the affair - and Giggs prevented her.

In that sense, I praise the action for being made public knowledge due to the defeat of the attempted "super-injunction" based purely on "wealth superiority"; as well as Imogen's suppression being lifted - and she's now able to tell whomever she pleases of the event.

Tue, 2011-05-24 21:20 — Spud Middleton (not verified)

"How fast you can find information is a good indicator of how skilled you are with a computer."

No it isn't. I just Googled it. Came back: don't listen to that moron, he's talking shite...took me 0.47 seconds.

Tue, 2011-05-24 21:34 — spent brain (not verified)

"How fast you can find information is a good indicator of how skilled you are with a computer."

"I just Googled it"

what does 'Googled' means ?

Tue, 2011-05-24 21:41 — Lou (not verified)

Lol Spud.... NS should give you a blog on here and pay you for your observations and brilliant repartée.

Tue, 2011-05-24 22:20 — kenny jenkins

So now we all know it was Ryan Giggs. What I've yet to establish is why anybody would be interested.

Thu, 2011-05-26 16:13 — Frrt (not verified)

Old news. Knew his name as he was inserting the evidence into her bottom! I heard he is doing Ewan McGregor now and there is another super injunction protecting their secret!

Tue, 2011-05-24 22:36 — Mr. Divine (not verified)

There is no way I would want to be famous. Maybe I'll have more money but at what price? It's like having a team of private detectives watching your every move. You wont know if those bushes contain hidden cameras. Even when you're sitting down and having a drink in your back garden and a small plane flies past you'll be thinking, 'Are there any photographers on that?' Even minor faces like Steven Baxter will feel the force of paranoia.

Tue, 2011-05-24 22:49 — Spud Middleton (not verified)

"what does 'Googled' mean ?"

I hope you're not takin the piss here. Rest assured if you are I'm superinjunct you senseless. However, as I'm a trusting and altruistic soul I'll take your enquiry in good faith.

Google is a verb whose etymology is generally considered to relate to the old Norse word "Gogoolein".

"Gogoolein" was a ritual divination in which a live ferret was disembowelled over a beige shag-pile carpet, following which the initiated were able to interpret signs and meanings from the bloodsplatter.

Now, I didn't actually have a ferret on me..or a beige shagpile, so I dropped a handful of mince onto a cream teatowel. Always happier with a confirmatory reading, I followed up by throwing some turkey dinosaurs at my yellow Ben Sherman polo shirt which was going in the wash anyway. This is by no means an ideal substitute, but in the hands of an experienced shaman and master of the esoteric arts, it was sufficient for a determination with a 95% confidence interval.