BY LUCY CAULKETT
The media are used to sensationalising everything. It is their life blood, hyperbole has ever more recently became the air they breathe to, and polarisation comprises the cut and thrust of their rhetoric. No more was this emphasised than the furore surrounding Page 3 this week, The Sun’s flagship dose of sauce in every weekday edition. For many it is numerous things, to countless men, it’s a harmless dose of titillation (pardon the pun) that accompanies their daily cuppa and intake of football gossip. To many women, it indicates the same thing, even Madonna was once quoted to have said she enjoys looking at it (though the songstress could teach the papers a thing or two on how to sensationalise) and Germaine Greer in a recent on the subject, asked her handy man why he enjoys Page 3, he informed her that it: “cheers him up.”
Cheer from the titular (another pun) segment in the daily newspaper is not deemed as innocuous to many, however. Feminists – Greer notwithstanding – argue that the sight of Page 3 in a leading national newspaper conveys a message pertaining to women’s inferiority. Voices from the no to page 3 campaign insist that it sexually objectifies women. The notion that it sends out an implication to girls and young women that their value only equates to their measure of beauty in the eyes of men is a strong and valid one. It appeared that The Sun had got this after nearly 45 years of wilful ignorance this week.
On Tuesday, The Times reported that The Sun was dropping Page 3. It prompted a firestorm from supporters and naysayers alike. Yet the paper seemed to have a two day hiatus before returning to the old ways this morning, despite The Times reporting that The Sun’s owner (and The Times’ owner for that matter) Rupert Murdoch, had signed off on the decision. Strident opinions on both sides of the spectrum sounded off on the disappearance of the smut-cum-national-institution. Those in favour maintain it’s damaging inference of women’s use in society and the inherent dangers of sexualisation in the young (as kids can see virtual nudity every day in the paper). To those highlighting the double-edged sword of objectification versus choice. Yet the whole thing appears to have been a little too early celebrated or mourned, as Thursday heralded Page 3’s return.
The front page declared smugly, “We’ve had a mammary lapse.” Adding further under the picture as usual:
“Further to recent reports in all other media outlets, we would like to clarify that this is Page 3 and this is a picture of Nicole, 22, from Bournemouth. “We would like to apologise on behalf of the print and broadcast journalists who have spent the last two days talking and writing about us.”
The reasons for the brief recess remains unknown, but publicity is likely to be the undercurrent weighing down this whole debacle. The NHS had signalled the possible end to their long tradition of depicting naked women with voluptuous boobs in their first few pages-probably inspired by the idea of maximising sales. He had asked his twitter followers ”aren’t beautiful women more attractive at least in some beautiful clothes? Of course, the unwavering answer is yes, we only want to be seen naked by our significant other. Looks like the Murdock empire might be slowly coming to its knees. It hasn’t been a good year for The Sun and their ilk. The Phone Hacking scandal was borne by the full weight of the newspaper and a major casualty of their misdemeanours was long standing Sunday edition The News of the World. Furthermore, the ubiquity of the internet has damaged the all-pervasive influence of the papers, several sources of news can be accessed instantaneously. The days of the paper’s political clout are waning, as are the days of: “It Was The Sun What Won It!” As a headline following a General Election. What gives The Sun it’s glare in this day and age? The same thing that always has, a portable rag that provides a dose of sport and a bit of tit. Yet, the patriarchal rule that governs most spheres of life including the media industry has found it fir to sexually objectivize women for so many decades. Thankfully, it seems like the longstanding campaign initiated by Lucy Anne Homes, has finally hit home. There was recently circulating rumour that the termination of page 3 girls on Britain’s highest paper might have just been a tease, but I doubt this to be the case. Notwithstanding the fact some other papers like the Daily Express or the Daily Star choose to ignorantly continue in the unwitting subordination of women to men, the decision by the Sun Newspaper is undoubtedly a victory to feminism and morality.
Emperor Murdoch is an aged dinosaur and in all honesty, the majority of us would freely admit that a young, bare-breasted woman has no place in a newspaper (unless pertaining to a particular news story perhaps). Attempts at parity were offered in the past, with The Sun’s Page 8, which depicted a ripped young man, semi-naked, but this didn’t take. Either down to perceived psychological differences between male physical stimuli and female emotional stimuli and the demographic of the paper itself, or both. This is also conflicts with the notion of choice, Feminism has battled to the point where women have choice in the lives they wish to lead. This choice of course has led to the dichotomy where a woman can be a politician or Page 3 Girl, this cognitive dissonance can be lost sometimes on those who believe in freedom, the male gaze clashes with this. The internet age is leading to a jousting of oppositions, a melee where middle ground is expanding rapidly, somewhere we have to inhabit.
