This, plus the fact that naming abusers often prompts more victims to come forward, corroborates allegations of specific patterns of behaviour, and can lead to convictions which might not have been feasible beforehand.
Regardless, people have a fundamental right to freedom of expression and to tell the truth about their own experiences, even when and where that paints another person in a bad light. In this case, I'd expect that people willing to share their stories with ITN and Guardian Group will have been well advised by those media outlets' legal teams, if not their own, about the possibility of sabotaging potential criminal proceedings and either take the necessary precautions to ensure they do not cross that threshold, or that they are certain they have no intention of reporting a criminal offence in the first place.
We have established defamation laws in the UK, so people who do want to make allegations are already at serious risk of legal comeback if they are less than honest, and these work on the basis that the onus is upon the individual making the claim to be able to lend some credence to it rather than the subject having to prove the claim is false. This works by and large, and it can also be a handy barometer of who is actually telling the truth. First of all, people do not seek Injunctions to prevent the reporting of lies, because defamation law covers that to begin with, but secondly, it means that people like Ulrika Jonsson and Katherine Ryan can make some very serious allegations about specific men, and then the public can draw it's own conclusion about the fact these men do nothing of any note to challenge the person making the allegation.
For the people still making "innocent until proven guilty" defences of PPT, you could bear in mind that although the judge stated they have come to no conclusion about the truth of the allegations, there appears to be no contention whatsoever from PPT's legal team that they are untrue to begin with.