I've been a journalist for fourteen years. I have never named a defendant before charge (largely because we don't know heir name, and secondly because we are more vulnerable to libel laws than our peers at national newspapers) I'd say at our local crown court, we cover about one per cent of rape cases that come up each year due to having no court reporter anymore. This is the case for pretty much every local journalist I know.
I can count on one hand the number of celebrities who have been named publicly before charge and then found innocent. So, five men who have had their 'lives ruined'. Should the law change to protect these handful of privileged men? Because they are the only people a law change would benefit.
Our police forces need to be able to, in extenuating circumstances, appeal for victims of serial rapists to come forward by naming the man they believe to be involved. As I said above, they very rarely use this tool. I've never reported on a single case in my whole career.
And as for those people asking for anonymity until conviction: I'm pretty sure you have no idea how court reporting works.
We attend only the most serious rape cases. Maybe three every year, due to staffing. Should there be anonymity for the accused, we wouldn't attend any rape cases at all. It is impossible to report a case without naming either victim or defendant. It becomes 'a man raped a woman in a place that we can't name because it might identify the defendant or the victim etc etc.' And is just a complete nonsense. So editors will just not bother sending anyone to court and no women anywhere will ever see their attackers named, and there will be an end to the principle of open justice in rape cases - that justice is not only done, but it is also seen to be done. Adverse publicity is a huge deterrent for criminals, especially sex attackers.
For those people whose partners have been genuinely falsely accused, and heir names dragged through the mud, I'm sorry. But was it because they were named, before charge, in the local paper? Or was it idiots on Facebook who named them and called for compulsory castration etc? Because gagging the media would not stop these people on social media.
Only a more vigorous application of contempt of court law would stop the idiots who think it's fine to name those whom a court order says cannot be named (the Spalding murders, the Ched Evans case etc). If I deliberately named the Spalding murderers in my paper, the trial judge would probably send me to jail. But those who name em on FB, with a much wider audience, are simply given a small fine. I would support tougher sentences for people genuinely in contempt of court.
As for the OP, no, YANBU. The law should not be changed to protect five rich, privileged men.