Afternoon:
15°c
THE LEVESON inquiry has opened the door to a far broader reconsideration of what is published in our newspapers than its original remit implied. The latest charge is that many papers are guilty of sexism.
Four separate groups - End Violence Against Women, Equality Now, Object and the rape charity Eaves - have called on Leveson to look at how papers treat women.
EVAW's 27-page submission refers to "poor reporting of violence against women stories which were either intrusive, inaccurate, which misrepresented or were misogynistic, victim-blaming or condoning violence against women and girls".
Though at least one piece of its evidence - that the Sun published a "countdown clock" to Charlotte Church's age of consent - has been shown to be false, the group might still have a point.
There cannot be a shadow of doubt that women are routinely presented as sex objects across the media - in films, on TV shows, on billboards, in hundreds of magazines and in newspapers. What is at issue, however, is whether this prompts men to act violently, or merely badly, towards women.
I am not sure: men have been acting badly towards women throughout history and I would contend that the situation for women in advanced societies such as ours is better than ever before. The American television series Mad Men contains scenes in which men unashamedly treat women as second-class sexual playthings that, for those of us who were around in the early Sixties, are easily recognisable.
That the show is centred on advertising reinforces the point. In a telling scene, the "hero", Don Draper, explains to the ambitious - and lone female - copywriter why she should accept a blatantly sexist TV ad: "You know how this works, Peggy. Men want her. And women want to be her."
Though advertising still operates on this assumption, the reality is that women such as Peggy are no longer ploughing a lonely furrow. Women's status in society - at home and in the workplace - has improved hugely since the Sixties, though I concede there is a long way to go.
That's why it's important for women to maintain pressure to achieve full equality. But when it comes to newspapers, there is a fine line, perhaps a wavy line, to be drawn between ethical purity and censorship. How, we must ask, is it possible to achieve both? I note that one of the submissions to Leveson came from a group called Turn Your Back on Page 3. It reminded me of the long history behind this particular phenomenon where it has proved virtually impossible to establish that "glamour" modelling both demeans its participants and harms wider society.
Ever since the Sun began publishing its regular Page Three it has been accused of sexism. Though the word itself was rarely used at the time, it is what the original critics meant. They argued then, as have many since, that it amounted to sex discrimination. The models denied it, saying they did it of their own "free will".
The Sun's editor at the time, the late Larry Lamb, knew it was controversial but viewed it merely as a "modern" and more daring form of the pin-up pictures - known colloquially as "cheesecake" - that were used by his former paper, the Daily Mirror, and other popular titles of the period.
Lamb and the paper's owner, Rupert Murdoch, saw it as not only a reflection of the increasing permissiveness of the era but a wholesome contribution to the sexual revolution. It was a gamble and they most certainly would have dropped it had there been reader hostility. Just the opposite occurred; the Sun's sales, barely 800,000 in 1969, took off throughout the Seventies and by the end of the decade it was out-selling every other daily paper.
Sexism was popular, and the Mirror reluctantly followed suit for a short time. The Daily Star ran its own Page Three from its launch in 1979. And the Sport titles were even less inhibited in their choice of pictures.
A high-profile campaign against Page Three, launched in 1986 by the former Labour MP Clare Short, failed to change the minds of the paper or its readers. Short renewed her campaign in 2004 but found herself on the receiving end of disgraceful ad hominem attack by the Sun, which superimposed her face on a model's body and accused her of being "fat and jealous".
The paper's then editor, incidentally, was a woman - Rebekah Brooks. And, to complete the paradox, one of her most famous campaigns at the Sun was against domestic violence by men.
Roy Greenslade is Professor of Journalism, City University London and writes a blog for the Guardian
Reader views (4)
"TThe models denied it, saying they did it of their own 'free will'."
the issue at stake is not so much discrimination of the models, but the extent to which objectifying women on newspapers contributes in shaping gender stereotypes and roles in the society at large.
I don't quite understand if the author is seriously suggesting that newspapers do not contribute in shaping mainstream ideas and opinions in a society (in this case, reinforcing the equation "woman=sexual objec"t). maybe this is "virtually impossible" to demonstrate.
but if it is so, why bother working as a journalist or writing op-eds?
- g., europe, 08/01/2012 23:41
Report abuse
Be it ethical purity or censorship, bring on the end of Page 3 and sexist imagery. Censorship is the suppression of public communication which may be considered objectionable, harmful or sensitive (from Wiki). I consider the depiction of females in the tabloids to be objectionable, harmful and sensitive. Many others do too. We have people with all types of respectable values in society and we should be respectful of them: men and women with feminist values, fighting daily against sexism; people with religious values who would prefer not to encounter this imagery on a daily basis and those who simply hold repectable values and understand that naked genitalia (that society dictates we should cover up normally!) in sexual poses (soft porn) is not what everyone wants to see. Those who wish to view soft (or hardcore) porn can in their homes, AND in public. What about the rest of us who wish to live daily without coming face to face with pornographic images, which many of us feel are demeaning? Where are our rights not to see this? Where are our rights? The Leveson Inquiry is an inquiry into the culture, practices and ethics of the media. If the findings do not result in action against the media pornification of women then I guess it means it's okay for the media to be sexist, disrespectful and pornographic
- Nicola Blackmore, South Croydon, 05/01/2012 12:57
Report abuse
The end of Page 3 by way of "ethical purity" or "censorship" would be welcome to myself and many, many others. People 'read' (if one can call it that) The Daily Sport and The Sun anywhere - public spaces such as trains, buses and parks. Young children are able to purchase them. They are on display for the general public to see in supermarkets and newsagents. This means that everybody can easily see the sexual (and what many think of as demeaning and subservient) images. The public includes people with all types of values including, religious and feminist and plain respectful, who would far prefer not to have these types of images in their faces. Consider a shy teenage girl on a bus who comes face to face with others who are reading The Daily Sport right in front of her. Consider a Christian person who may not wish to view such images. Think about how that may make these people feel. Or a young man who is accompanying his sister or even his elderly grandmother. Or a woman/man with feminist values who is so tired of having to come into contact with the sexism she/he is fighting against. I for one consider this objectionable, harmful and sensitive in nature. If adults wish to purchase soft or hard porn then they are free to do so and can happily watch/look at it in private, but can't we leave it out of the day-to-day life of all those who would prefer to go about their lives without having to seeing it. Where are our rights? Can't both sides be happy?
- Nicola Blackmore, South Croydon, 05/01/2012 11:03
Report abuse
Well, women can also be machos, don't forget this. Angela Merkel hasn't done so much for Germany's women, as far as I can see it.
Germany's biggest tabloid newspaper, "BILD" also has a "BILD" girl every day - but on page 1. After they introduced the "BILD" boy some years ago, they received thousands of outraged mails by male readers who found the reform "disgusting" (no one ever asked the female readers). Afterwards, they made a survey asking their readers to vote for or against the "BILD" boy. It ended with a slight majority for keeping the "BILD" boy. However, they now have him only once a week, not alternately with the "BILD" girl, as in the beginning. Seems like they gave way - even if a slight majority of their readers being in favor of the "BILD" boy.
- Sara, Berlin, Germany, 04/01/2012 18:37
Report abuse
