Terry and the tabs
It's hard to rouse a great deal of sympathy for John Terry, but I'll give it a bash.
True, he has behaved despicably. Yes, he's got form for being deeply unpleasant. And it goes without saying that he represents the kind of weasel, untouchable arrogance that people think of when they think of Premiership footballers. He's a walking stereotype. He's not the victim in all this, as he was responsible for his choices. Not only that, but he attempted to use big-shot lawyers to try and hush it all up.
Bearing all that in mind, though, let's climb down from that high horse for a moment. Amidst all the self-congratulatory "justice has been done" articles in the News of the World yesterday, what was the substance of the actual story that demanded such a huge legal fight? A married man has had an affair with a colleague's partner. I don't think this is the first time in history it's happened, unpleasant as it is for those people involved.
As I said during the Tiger Woods saga, we don't really learn anything new by all this. I would appear to be in the minority by thinking that people are entitled to their own privacy during these times - though of course that would mean everyone wanting things to stay private. Clearly, someone wanted this to go public, and I don't think it's beyond realms to suspect that a little bit of money has changed hands at some point, via Max Clifford and associates.
Maybe these stories shouldn't be banned altogether by some kind of restrictive law; maybe I am wrong on that one, if there's a danger it could be used by those in power to shield themselves from genuine scrutiny. But then, that would suppose that newspapers actually do a lot of genuine scrutinising rather than just mucky kiss-and-tell stories about famous people, which add nothing whatsoever to our understanding of the world. Might it not be enough to hope that they could be outnumbered, by better stories that are really in the public interest, rather than just detailing the sex lives of the rich and famous for people to pore over on a Sunday morning? It might be too much, I think. And let's not forget, for every celebrity endorsement-gatherer like Terry, there will be hundreds of Mr and Mrs Nobodys, whose privacy could be invaded at any time, if the tabloids - and others - deem that it's necessary. That's the price we pay for our brave boys of the fourth estate having the freedom to write about people having sex with each other.
And yes, Terry is England captain, but what he does in his private life won't really affect his ability to call heads or tails, or hand over the England pennant at the start of an international match. I don't think the parents of the England mascot will demand that someone other than this person who has had an affair holds their son or daughter's hand while they go through the tunnel at Wembley. At least I don't think it will. It's stretching it a bit far to complain about an 'England crisis' just because the skipper has had an affair. Terry was made captain by dint of the fact that he could shake hands properly and was so good at football that he's a shoo-in for pretty much every game, not because of some moral probity which has now been found to be lacking. (I realise that in this view I find myself in agreement with Rod Liddle, but these things happen. I'm sure it would upset him as much as it would me to find we are pointing in the same direction on this issue, if he knew who the hell I was.)
True, these celebrities do court positive coverage by appearing in those ghastly magazines and inviting us into their lovely £3million gated mansion complete with toilets the size of swimming baths and giant pictures of themselves scoring goals plastered all over the walls. And I daresay they do make a bit of money from the odd bit and bob of baloney here and there - Terry's appearance as 'dad of the year' has been cited as evidence that we had the right to know about this affair, for example. But as I said about Tiger Woods, no-one sponsored him just because - or even because at all - he was a clean-cut family guy; they did so because he is the second best golfer in all history. With Terry, it's the same - the vast majority of his endorsements have come about because he's a highly talented footballer, not because of the now-proven-to-be-wrong perception that he's not the kind of bloke who'd have an affair with a fellow England player's partner. The sponsors didn't seem to mind when he roared abuse at Americans after 9-11, though; if they didn't have an inkling he wasn't an all-round stand-up citizen then, then they were being slightly naive.
I'm not saying Terry isn't a ghastly human being, because it appears that he is. He's not committed any crime but he has not exactly acted with a whole world of decency. But in our delight at another sporting personality's fall from grace, let's not clutch our pearls too tightly.
I wish, instead, that we didn't find out about these stories at all. Not because they didn't happen, but because there are so many things out there so much more worthy of talking about. So many more deserving scoops, which might really impact on our lives in a meaningful way. They say you get the press you deserve. Do we really deserve this?
Further reading:
Obsolete: Modern media values
A Very Public Sociologist: John Terry and press freedom
Related posts:
Buy my book, it’s great
Switch site
Donate
Recent Posts
- The power of publicity
- Cheerio, cheerio, cheerio…
- Children died
- The letters you never get around to sending
- Applying again
Most Commented On
Recent Comments
- emmaspen on Children died
- emma on The letters you never get around to sending
- Iain on Applying again
- Roger on The letters you never get around to sending
- Dave Hodgkinson on The letters you never get around to sending
About Me
Hello. I'm a Bristol-based writer and soon-to-be-redundant journalist. You can read more about me and the Enemies site here, or follow me on Twitter. Email me if you like - antonvowl at live dot co dot uk
If you're struggling to read the site please use the drop down box below to increase the text size.
February 1st, 2010 - 14:31
As you say, it's hard to argue aboutt the sordid nature of the story, another nail in the coffin of non-prurient news pages.
But does the fact the woman was his international teammate's girlfriend make it more newsworthy? (OK, arbitrary point, since they'd have printed it whoever she was).
But it makes the story relevant and newsworthy from a sporting point of view. Bridge is allegedly on the verge of international retirement, refusing to play alongside and be commanded by Terry. Which means Capello has effectively had his selection hand forced by his captain's social misdemeanours. During the run-up to a World Cup. (Bridge is only the back-up, but he's a very good back-up).
I'd whip the armband off him quicker than you could say "alimony".
February 1st, 2010 - 15:14
This story frustrates me for one main reason, not because of Terry's behaviour (enough comment has been dedicated to that) but that the idea that an amoral press should have the gaul to declare that, essentially a private story that effectly is going to destroy the lives of four adults and 3 completely innocent children should be deemed public interest. How exactly is it? it's not, it's about creating a rabid media storm that's going to grow and grow because the press are too damn ridiculous or lazy to report the actual news…sans opinion!
February 1st, 2010 - 15:22
I felt pretty much the same until I read that he's sold the rights to his wedding. Now I just think there's nobody with any principles in this story at all.
February 1st, 2010 - 15:58
It's things like this that drive me mad, but also make it kind of newsworthy, because you know there a loads of these sort of things in place –
One phrase in the confidentiality contract read: "As a result of my dealings with you there has been speculation about a relationship with you.
"Whilst I do not make any admission as to the truth or otherwise of such speculation, I do not want such information to be disclosed."
It's that sort of sinister/childish legal balls, the sight of the media and public figure locked in mutual strangulation, that has almost become the new news – meta-news if you like.
February 1st, 2010 - 16:44
The issue about the captaincy is a sporting, and rather pointless one. This is and should have stayed a private matter between the families. If Terry has shown a certain level of sporting courage (against Burnley), albeit, again, a rather pointless one; his reaction, as a person, by going and apologising, face-to-face with Wayne Bridge, would show far more character. We know nothing of each of the relationships involved, that level of debate would be far too detailed and balanced for the press, but he has betrayed someone, and he should, privately, do the last decent option left for him.
The important issue for society is the fact that a judge rules it is in the public interest for the press to be allowed to print this story. An individual with character flaws. What they refuse to overturn is the super-injunction of an oil-refinery firm (Trafigura), and its dumping of toxic waste. Or the illness this caused to thousands of locals.
This is not in the public interest, according to the laws of our land.
So we, the public, are interested in this, that is the simple fact, and we should be asking more questions about that, than the above examples of press freedom and censure.
February 1st, 2010 - 21:54
Couple of things:
1. These super-injuctions have got to stop. It's legal nonsense.
2. Even the judge noted with distaste that Terry had been motivated more by the desire to protect his commercial interests than the privacy of his ex-lover.
3. The 'cash for private tour of Stamford Bridge' thing showed him to be a venal twat, lacking in even the most basic of self-preservation skills. Not the qualities one looks for in an sporting captain just before a MASSIVE tournament.
Or you could just ban him cos he's Chelsea scum. Give it to that nice Steven Gerrard instead!
Julia
February 1st, 2010 - 22:32
How about a different viewpoint?
The injunction succeeds and no news gets out. Ashley Cole is injured and Wayne Bridge is the next best player in that position. Wayne Bridge refuses to play under John Terry. Suddenly there is a story on the back pages, and nobody is allowed to know why this has happened. Regardless of whether you think sport is important, his actions now have consequences which reach beyond his ability to do his own job.
I hate the gloating that goes on in the red tops when this kind of thing is revealed but by /not/ reporting it they would still affect the lives of thousands of England supporters. You may say football, schmootball but that doesn't mean those people don't want to know.
Slightly devil's advocate, but as Matthew said in the first comment, sporting endeavour is affected by social misdemeanour, and that can't be right.
February 2nd, 2010 - 02:30
I honestly, could not care less about John Terry's private life more than I would the guy who lives 14 doors to the left of my uncle who lives 45 miles away from my Grandma. The super-injunction is the issue, and it is a ridiculous legal get-out-of-jail for about a million card. It should not exist, and the worst thing about the whole argument, is that a judge thinks it is more in the 'public interest' than polluting peoples breathing apparatus with toxic sludge, which incidentally had just turned a nice little profit. Oh the joys of the rule of law.