The group behind this campaign who have renamed themselves Child Eye Line UK have now started campaigning against Marks & Spencer, Morrisons, WH SMith & Disney for displaying The Sun and are claiming magazines like Chat should not be in GP surgeries.
The Sun hasn't dropped Page 3. All that has happened is that Murdoch has taken it behind a paywall. This way, it appeases the sex-negative feminist campaign groups as well as Murdoch's bottom line. The only thing is, you can find billions of nude pictures for free online, so the prudes have not won at all.
"Sexism in media" - only applies to topless pictures of women. If The Sun was still running the Page 7 fella, you'd hear nothing from them. They don't campaign for gender equality, they campaign for "gender justice".
I can't see many women suddenly picking up the Sun on the back of this. And if they did, I can't imagine they'd be impressed by the content sans Page 3, particularly those who subscribe to the no more page 3 cause.
If removing Page 3 reverses the declining sales that the Sun, I'll be very surprised.
I can't see many women suddenly picking up the Sun either. However, businesses do have longer term business plans and the market (even a declining one) is constantly changing as, at one end customers are lost as they change their values, opinions, or just die off ... and at the other, new customers enter the market. A couple of years down the line and there will be customers coming into the market who've never even heard of the Page 3 campaign, or who couldn't care less. They'll buy whichever paper tells them what they want to hear.
Your comment: "I can't imagine they'd be impressed by the content sans Page 3, particularly those who subscribe to the no more page 3 cause." is very pertinent as it does beg the question, "What was the campaign's leverage?"
"Get rid of Page 3 because we don't buy The Sun and we're not going to even if you do get rid of Page 3?"
The most successful campaign against businesses are the ones in which existing customers demand a change otherwise they'll stop buying the product. This one was a bit like committed Pepsi drinkers demanded that Coke change their product! ;-)
Love him or hate him, Murdoch isn't an idiot when it comes to business, and there's a complex relationship between digital news subscribers (PC or smartphone) and printed news buyers. A report in "The Media Briefing" (the intelligence-gathering platform for the global media industry) said that The Sun newspaper's readers tend to favour smartphones over PCs (which fits in with your comment regarding the younger profile of Sun readers) and that's not the case with the readers of other titles. NewsUK (The Sun's publishers) see the way forward as having the smartphone as a companion to the newspaper, rather than a substitution. They will have a target audience, and I'd imagine the younger female is less likely to want topless models in the newspaper, while the younger male can still get his "Page 3 fix" from The Sun's website.
Just assessing Page 3 in isolation is, I think, a tad blinkered. Murdoch will be looking at the big picture as he's in the business of making money, not satisfying a group of vocal campaigners who don't even buy The Sun anyway.
Not even about images anymore Dad Dancer remember when it was the newspapers it was all about the soft porn well they can't use that as an excuse for wanting Chat banned
Their profile also has the hashtags: #Morrisonsvictory and #WHsmithvictory
Anyone know what these are about? They definitely look like a bunch of nut jobs!
They have contacted any shop that displays newspapers and complained until they remove the newspapers from view, the have contacted Disney to complain they advertised "Frozen" on The Sun newspaper claiming a children's film should not be associated with the paper.
They have contacted any shop that displays newspapers and complained until they remove the newspapers from view, the have contacted Disney to complain they advertised "Frozen" on The Sun newspaper claiming a children's film should not be associated with the paper.
They're definitely psychos!
Or are they unemployed mothers who have 'full time mummy' on their facebook profile with nothing better to do?
A woman can have an opinion without getting her chest out to do so. Strange, but true.
The Sun was looking completely out of date by continuing the feature. There are plenty of places you can see naked women - they don't need to be in a "newspaper".
This is the nub of the issue IMO, rather than it being some puritan concern.
Of course, the suggestion that The Sun is treated as a newspaper, rather than a comic, is another debate! The problem with Page 3 in The Sun is that, excluding the sports section, most of the men featured are running the country, while the women are there to look pretty. If there were more women in power, or being written about for work in science, then it wouldn't matter so much.
The internet, and dedicated magazines, means that anyone who wants to see bare breasts can do so easily. I'm not going to claim that's not objectification, but not being in a daily 'newspaper' means it much is less damaging.
I agree there was also a double standers issue somewhere in it.
Something like Heat magazine is aimed (mainly) at women which is fair enough. FHM/Zoo etc aimed for blokes.
A "news"paper should be for everybody and whilst page 3 is now no more, it still features scantily clad women. Or perhaps tomorrow they will have page 3 featuring David Gandy in his pants? No of course not! Women just want a bit of equality, that is all
My understanding is that The Sun still plans to feature models in lingerie even if Page 3 bites the dust, so I think it probably is just about nipples!
I guess Voltaire's famous quote: 'I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it.' doesn't strike a chord with you then?
Are you serious? Quoting Voltaire because some gutter rag has removed a daily pair of tits from their output? Have they been banned by law? Not that I agree with the feminists on this but are you saying that they don't have a right to protest? Surely that's as much as being part of a free society as freedom of the press?
I guess Voltaire's famous quote: 'I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it.' doesn't strike a chord with you then?
Do you often find yourself defending feminists' rights to say stuff?
I'm glad my baby daughter doesn't have to grow up in a country where there is bare breasts for the titillation of certain men in a supposed family "news"paper. One victory against the objectification of girls and women.
I'm glad my baby daughter doesn't have to grow up in a country where there is bare breasts for the titillation of certain men in a supposed family "news"paper. One victory against the objectification of girls and women.
Yet getting your tits out in public to feed her is ok?
Comments
You're right, I only see my wifes on my birthday...
Although comparing it with Charlie Hebdo is not valid.
According to the group this magazine should not be allowed in a health centre:
https://twitter.com/gx99g/status/554658387326414848/photo/1
They have also forced Virgin to move the adult channels despite the fact you cannot view the adult channels unless you subscribe.
"Sexism in media" - only applies to topless pictures of women. If The Sun was still running the Page 7 fella, you'd hear nothing from them. They don't campaign for gender equality, they campaign for "gender justice".
no?..... im not sure anyone else does, either.
wepons of mass distraction indeed....
I can't see many women suddenly picking up the Sun either. However, businesses do have longer term business plans and the market (even a declining one) is constantly changing as, at one end customers are lost as they change their values, opinions, or just die off ... and at the other, new customers enter the market. A couple of years down the line and there will be customers coming into the market who've never even heard of the Page 3 campaign, or who couldn't care less. They'll buy whichever paper tells them what they want to hear.
Your comment: "I can't imagine they'd be impressed by the content sans Page 3, particularly those who subscribe to the no more page 3 cause." is very pertinent as it does beg the question, "What was the campaign's leverage?"
"Get rid of Page 3 because we don't buy The Sun and we're not going to even if you do get rid of Page 3?"
The most successful campaign against businesses are the ones in which existing customers demand a change otherwise they'll stop buying the product. This one was a bit like committed Pepsi drinkers demanded that Coke change their product! ;-)
Love him or hate him, Murdoch isn't an idiot when it comes to business, and there's a complex relationship between digital news subscribers (PC or smartphone) and printed news buyers. A report in "The Media Briefing" (the intelligence-gathering platform for the global media industry) said that The Sun newspaper's readers tend to favour smartphones over PCs (which fits in with your comment regarding the younger profile of Sun readers) and that's not the case with the readers of other titles. NewsUK (The Sun's publishers) see the way forward as having the smartphone as a companion to the newspaper, rather than a substitution. They will have a target audience, and I'd imagine the younger female is less likely to want topless models in the newspaper, while the younger male can still get his "Page 3 fix" from The Sun's website.
Just assessing Page 3 in isolation is, I think, a tad blinkered. Murdoch will be looking at the big picture as he's in the business of making money, not satisfying a group of vocal campaigners who don't even buy The Sun anyway.
Which nut jobs are responsible for getting rid of page 3?
Read my previous post they are a group called Child Eye Line UK/No More Page 3
https://twitter.com/ChildEyesUK
https://twitter.com/gx99g/status/554658387326414848/photo/1
Their profile also has the hashtags: #Morrisonsvictory and #WHsmithvictory
Anyone know what these are about? They definitely look like a bunch of nut jobs!
They have contacted any shop that displays newspapers and complained until they remove the newspapers from view, the have contacted Disney to complain they advertised "Frozen" on The Sun newspaper claiming a children's film should not be associated with the paper.
They're definitely psychos!
Or are they unemployed mothers who have 'full time mummy' on their facebook profile with nothing better to do?
please please please post this on mumsnet
This is the nub of the issue IMO, rather than it being some puritan concern.
Of course, the suggestion that The Sun is treated as a newspaper, rather than a comic, is another debate! The problem with Page 3 in The Sun is that, excluding the sports section, most of the men featured are running the country, while the women are there to look pretty. If there were more women in power, or being written about for work in science, then it wouldn't matter so much.
The internet, and dedicated magazines, means that anyone who wants to see bare breasts can do so easily. I'm not going to claim that's not objectification, but not being in a daily 'newspaper' means it much is less damaging.
Oh FFS....
Something like Heat magazine is aimed (mainly) at women which is fair enough. FHM/Zoo etc aimed for blokes.
A "news"paper should be for everybody and whilst page 3 is now no more, it still features scantily clad women. Or perhaps tomorrow they will have page 3 featuring David Gandy in his pants? No of course not! Women just want a bit of equality, that is all
Pardon?
Of course not, as it was a decision made by the paper itself and not forced on it. About time too!
Yes, I imagine crazy people with no sense of perspective think that.
My understanding is that The Sun still plans to feature models in lingerie even if Page 3 bites the dust, so I think it probably is just about nipples!
Are you serious? Quoting Voltaire because some gutter rag has removed a daily pair of tits from their output? Have they been banned by law? Not that I agree with the feminists on this but are you saying that they don't have a right to protest? Surely that's as much as being part of a free society as freedom of the press?
Do you often find yourself defending feminists' rights to say stuff?
I'm glad my baby daughter doesn't have to grow up in a country where there is bare breasts for the titillation of certain men in a supposed family "news"paper. One victory against the objectification of girls and women.
Yet getting your tits out in public to feed her is ok?