The Sun should ditch Page 3 and make the paper relevant for today\’s reader
That\’s one of the editorial staff of The Guardian telling The Sun what it should print.
You know, one of the people running a falling circulation and grossly loss making paper telling the people running a profitable newspaper how to make it \”relevant\”.
My favourite p.3 story is about the girl who posed for them and when told that her fee would be £80 (this is some time ago) she promptly got her purse out…
it’s breathtaking isn’t it?
and what does “relevant” mean? A reasonable proportion of male teenagers are extremely keen on looking at naked women, does that make pictures of naked women “relevant” to them?
@Luis Enrique… I can assure you that it is not just male teenagers… This old josser still has his spirits lifted by the sight of a nicely-turned ankle! 🙂
Apparently, posting a comment politely asking where their Mens’ blog is is not in compliance with their community standards…
“Apparently, posting a comment politely asking where their Mens’ blog is is not in compliance with their community standards…”
Are you talking about The Sun or The Grauniad?
the problem Guardianistas have is one of arrogance – they believe the paper sets opinion and that their readers therefore cleave to the paper’s line on stuff, whereas Murdoch’s genius is to realise that the arrow of causality runs the other way and that people read papers that reflect and agree with their already existing opinions. In essence the Graun thinks that men stare at tits because they read the Sun, whereas in fact they read the Sun because they like looking at tits. There isn’t a piece of research anywhere in the world ever that shows that a paper can change the opinions of its readership – if it goes against the grain people stop buying it.
Isn’t the Guardianista point of view is that making a profit is evil, and making a loss virtuous? They’re just trying to nudge The Sun onto the path of righteous relevance.
“while of course there are far worse instances of misogyny and abuse to worry about, the No More Page 3 campaign has garnered lots of attention and 107,000 signatories so far.”
Seeing a perky pair of tits on a comely lass who volunteered to be photographed is “misogyny” and “abuse”.
Luis – “relevant” is one of those leftie Newspeak buzzwords. In this context, it means “tediously politically correct”.
Just as “vibrant” means “ghetto”, “diversity” means “fewer white men”, “investment” means “spending”, and “check your privilege” means “shut up”.
Flatcap Army,
One of my favourite stats is the fact that, through the Thatcher years, when The Sun unequivocally supported her, about half their readership voted Labour.
Guardian-readers are fond of claiming that Sun-readers are mindless morons who just think whatever the paper tells them to, but the evidence is against them. Meanwhile, find a Guardian-reader who’ll vote Conservative, or support a reduction in income tax, or think the handgun ban goes too far.
It is actually a tremendous distraction from the very real problem of ‘Asian’ gangs sexually exploiting white under age girls, but for obvious political reasons the Left cannot face this problem so has manufactured a noisy and pointless alternative instead.
‘[While] of course there are far worse instances of misogyny and abuse to worry about, the No More Page 3 campaign has garnered lots of attention and 107,000 signatories so far’.
‘Shhh … don’t talk about the Islamists! They’re our friends!’
Talking of hubris, Tim, I assume you saw this piece in the ‘Indie’ earlier this week.
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/commentators/theyll-want-to-bring-back-hanging-next-what-rightwing-lunacy-is-there-inside-the-conservative-rebels-alternative-queens-speech-8672008.html
The comments, incidentally, have been heavily edited since the last time I saw them. In fact, most of them have disappeared.
I presume that this has nothing to do with the fact that most of them absolutely monstered Macintyre, and told him that if he thought that decriminalising the non-payment of the licence fee was the mark of a fascist lunatic, then he personally needed a check-up from the neck up.
Hmmm… 107,000 signatures, you say? Against the millions who support the Sun every day by buying it? Seems like the protesters have lost, doesn’t it?
@Rob – yes. Similarly, lots of fuss about hunting (killed I’d say 1000 per hour).
And nothing about halal slaughter >1000 per hour.
Ooops hunting killed fewer than 1000 foxes per year.
(I have discovered a comment glitch – it doesn’t like the less than symbol.)