Media: Robbie Williams and his 'gay' libel victory (Evening Standard)
By David Rowan
It was one more piece of bad news that Mirror Group Newspapers could have done without. Already struggling to impose job cuts and reverse circulation falls, management at Canary Wharf must now divert "substantial" resources to topping up Robbie Williams's bank account. The singer's libel victory in the High Court yesterday - following equally humiliating payouts to David Beckham, Naomi Campbell and Kate Moss - threatens to tarnish not only the papers' finances, but also their editorial integrity. How could the People splash on claims of Williams's supposed homosexuality when it now readily admits that the allegations were unfounded?
The People story ran in August last year under the headline "Robbie's secret gay lover". A dancer, Nathan Conroy, claimed he had met Williams at the Hacienda nightclub in Manchester and been kissed "like I had never been kissed before". Conroy alleged that Williams then beckoned him into the toilets where a 20-minute intimate encounter supposedly took place - claims repeated in Richard Desmond's Star and Hot Stars magazines, which have also apologised and paid damages. Details of the case remain undisclosed as part of the out-of-court settlement.
The singer has faced false rumours about his sexuality since his former band, Take That, was being promoted in gay clubs. He has even joked about the rumours, once claiming on Top of the Pops that he would be coming out as gay the following day, "so get in there while you can, girls". Yet when he read the People story - timed to coincide with his autobiography, which suggested that his numerous sexual conquests had invariably been female - he was genuinely furious at the suggestion that he had deceived his fans, according to a professional adviser.
His press team, at the PR firm Taylor Herring, had known that the dancer's lurid claims were being shopped around, and had warned off editors who took the trouble to check. The People, the adviser suggests, did not call to verify the story. Mark Thomas, the paper's editor, did not respond to the Standard's request for an interview, but in a statement The People accepted that it had "published the story in good faith but now accept[s] the allegations were untrue". It also apologised unreservedly to Williams for "any injury or distress caused", agreeing to pay his costs and damages described as "substantial".
This was not the paper's only awkward courtroom surrender in recent months. In August, it paid David Beckham further "substantial" libel damages after falsely claiming that he "mounted an astonishing telephone hate campaign against his former nanny". In court, the paper accepted that it had falsely attributed quotes to an unnamed "Beckham family source". The previous week, Mirror Group paid another "substantial" sum to Kate Moss after The People's sister paper, the Sunday Mirror, falsely claimed that Moss had collapsed into a drug-induced coma four years earlier.
"There is an irresponsibility around some areas of the press that's greater than it was five or 10 years ago," says Ian Monk, a former Daily Mail, Express and Sun executive who now represents celebrities including Alex Best and Wayne Rooney. "You can read stuff in papers today that is complete and utter fantasy. The battle for circulation is pushing them further towards the extremes of fact, and there's an element of stories being made up. Sometimes, where there are personal or commercial implications, the star's only recourse is to go to court." (Rooney is currently suing The Sun over allegations, which he strongly denies, that he beat his fiancee, Coleen McLoughlin, although Monk stresses that these wider observations are unrelated to that action.)
But Richard Wallace, editor of the Mirror, says he has seen no evidence of tabloid journalists fabricating stories. "It's one of those great myths that we just make this stuff up," he says. "The reason why it's fairly rare these days that any serious legal action is taken is because we endeavour to get these things right." Wallace also rejects suggestions that his own paper's expose of "Cocaine" Kate Moss's drug-taking in September had any link to her successful litigation against its Sunday sister paper.
"The implication that a decision was made to go and get her is just not the case," he says. "That's not the way tabloid newspapers work - I haven't got the resources sitting here like Doctor Evil to think, 'Who can we ruin today?' It was genuinely a coincidence."
Wallace is more concerned with the "self-interested" motives of those who advise celebrities to sue newspapers when they might otherwise negotiate corrections where required. "If I'm a lawyer and I want to make a few bucks, then I'll go and find a celebrity and say, 'Look, I can get you money for that.' And some of these people listen."
The Mirror Group has good reason to blame high-powered libel lawyers for encouraging celebrities to sue. The "no win, no fee" system allows firms to take on cases that would otherwise prove financially impossible even for many public figures - and then bill publications for up to £1,000 an hour if they win. Schillings, one of the most feared practices, sent in a bill for £594,470 when it represented Naomi Campbell in a two-day hearing against the Mirror. Schillings, which did not respond to requests for comments, is currently representing celebrities including Kate Hudson, Teri Hatcher and Wayne Rooney in their claims against national newspapers and magazines.
David Price, who runs a high-profile media-law practice, accepts that celebrities are in a strong position to bring successful claims. "Juries tend to like them, judges love them in their court, and that gives them an easier ride generally," he says. Yet up against the British tabloids, upon whose support their careers ultimately depend, they can never truly win, he suggests.
"You can win a battle with the tabloids, but you're not going to win a war, as the Beckhams have found," he says. "If the paper loses, it puts a premium on getting your scalp next time if they can. And if a celebrity sues over one story but not a later one, it gives those subsequent stories credibility. The next time a story is written about Robbie Williams that is defamatory, people will assume that if he doesn't sue, the chances are that it's true."
Another eminent libel solicitor, David Hooper, agrees that litigation can be a high-risk means of managing a celebrity's PR. "If someone makes an allegation that is completely false, and you have no skeletons in the cupboard, then it can be a very good way of vindicating you, as the message gets through to every newspaper's legal department," Hooper says. "Your problem is if you have skeletons, which can come out in court. Sometimes litigants can be a little forgetful."
As for Robbie Williams, he has the satisfaction of knowing that his sexuality is, for now, off-limits to the red-tops. But will his victory encourage a new wave of celebrity lawsuits?
"I don't think so," says Richard Wallace. "They need the press - they might not like it, but they do. So Robbie's won himself a bit of money - congratulations. I'm sure he'll spend it wisely."
(Evening Standard, December 7 2005)
.. . . AND READ MORE MEDIA INTERVIEWS HERE . . .
It was one more piece of bad news that Mirror Group Newspapers could have done without. Already struggling to impose job cuts and reverse circulation falls, management at Canary Wharf must now divert "substantial" resources to topping up Robbie Williams's bank account. The singer's libel victory in the High Court yesterday - following equally humiliating payouts to David Beckham, Naomi Campbell and Kate Moss - threatens to tarnish not only the papers' finances, but also their editorial integrity. How could the People splash on claims of Williams's supposed homosexuality when it now readily admits that the allegations were unfounded?
The People story ran in August last year under the headline "Robbie's secret gay lover". A dancer, Nathan Conroy, claimed he had met Williams at the Hacienda nightclub in Manchester and been kissed "like I had never been kissed before". Conroy alleged that Williams then beckoned him into the toilets where a 20-minute intimate encounter supposedly took place - claims repeated in Richard Desmond's Star and Hot Stars magazines, which have also apologised and paid damages. Details of the case remain undisclosed as part of the out-of-court settlement.
The singer has faced false rumours about his sexuality since his former band, Take That, was being promoted in gay clubs. He has even joked about the rumours, once claiming on Top of the Pops that he would be coming out as gay the following day, "so get in there while you can, girls". Yet when he read the People story - timed to coincide with his autobiography, which suggested that his numerous sexual conquests had invariably been female - he was genuinely furious at the suggestion that he had deceived his fans, according to a professional adviser.
His press team, at the PR firm Taylor Herring, had known that the dancer's lurid claims were being shopped around, and had warned off editors who took the trouble to check. The People, the adviser suggests, did not call to verify the story. Mark Thomas, the paper's editor, did not respond to the Standard's request for an interview, but in a statement The People accepted that it had "published the story in good faith but now accept[s] the allegations were untrue". It also apologised unreservedly to Williams for "any injury or distress caused", agreeing to pay his costs and damages described as "substantial".
This was not the paper's only awkward courtroom surrender in recent months. In August, it paid David Beckham further "substantial" libel damages after falsely claiming that he "mounted an astonishing telephone hate campaign against his former nanny". In court, the paper accepted that it had falsely attributed quotes to an unnamed "Beckham family source". The previous week, Mirror Group paid another "substantial" sum to Kate Moss after The People's sister paper, the Sunday Mirror, falsely claimed that Moss had collapsed into a drug-induced coma four years earlier.
"There is an irresponsibility around some areas of the press that's greater than it was five or 10 years ago," says Ian Monk, a former Daily Mail, Express and Sun executive who now represents celebrities including Alex Best and Wayne Rooney. "You can read stuff in papers today that is complete and utter fantasy. The battle for circulation is pushing them further towards the extremes of fact, and there's an element of stories being made up. Sometimes, where there are personal or commercial implications, the star's only recourse is to go to court." (Rooney is currently suing The Sun over allegations, which he strongly denies, that he beat his fiancee, Coleen McLoughlin, although Monk stresses that these wider observations are unrelated to that action.)
But Richard Wallace, editor of the Mirror, says he has seen no evidence of tabloid journalists fabricating stories. "It's one of those great myths that we just make this stuff up," he says. "The reason why it's fairly rare these days that any serious legal action is taken is because we endeavour to get these things right." Wallace also rejects suggestions that his own paper's expose of "Cocaine" Kate Moss's drug-taking in September had any link to her successful litigation against its Sunday sister paper.
"The implication that a decision was made to go and get her is just not the case," he says. "That's not the way tabloid newspapers work - I haven't got the resources sitting here like Doctor Evil to think, 'Who can we ruin today?' It was genuinely a coincidence."
Wallace is more concerned with the "self-interested" motives of those who advise celebrities to sue newspapers when they might otherwise negotiate corrections where required. "If I'm a lawyer and I want to make a few bucks, then I'll go and find a celebrity and say, 'Look, I can get you money for that.' And some of these people listen."
The Mirror Group has good reason to blame high-powered libel lawyers for encouraging celebrities to sue. The "no win, no fee" system allows firms to take on cases that would otherwise prove financially impossible even for many public figures - and then bill publications for up to £1,000 an hour if they win. Schillings, one of the most feared practices, sent in a bill for £594,470 when it represented Naomi Campbell in a two-day hearing against the Mirror. Schillings, which did not respond to requests for comments, is currently representing celebrities including Kate Hudson, Teri Hatcher and Wayne Rooney in their claims against national newspapers and magazines.
David Price, who runs a high-profile media-law practice, accepts that celebrities are in a strong position to bring successful claims. "Juries tend to like them, judges love them in their court, and that gives them an easier ride generally," he says. Yet up against the British tabloids, upon whose support their careers ultimately depend, they can never truly win, he suggests.
"You can win a battle with the tabloids, but you're not going to win a war, as the Beckhams have found," he says. "If the paper loses, it puts a premium on getting your scalp next time if they can. And if a celebrity sues over one story but not a later one, it gives those subsequent stories credibility. The next time a story is written about Robbie Williams that is defamatory, people will assume that if he doesn't sue, the chances are that it's true."
Another eminent libel solicitor, David Hooper, agrees that litigation can be a high-risk means of managing a celebrity's PR. "If someone makes an allegation that is completely false, and you have no skeletons in the cupboard, then it can be a very good way of vindicating you, as the message gets through to every newspaper's legal department," Hooper says. "Your problem is if you have skeletons, which can come out in court. Sometimes litigants can be a little forgetful."
As for Robbie Williams, he has the satisfaction of knowing that his sexuality is, for now, off-limits to the red-tops. But will his victory encourage a new wave of celebrity lawsuits?
"I don't think so," says Richard Wallace. "They need the press - they might not like it, but they do. So Robbie's won himself a bit of money - congratulations. I'm sure he'll spend it wisely."
(Evening Standard, December 7 2005)
.. . . AND READ MORE MEDIA INTERVIEWS HERE . . .
posted by David Rowan at Wednesday, December 07, 2005
<< Home