On the whole, we don't tend to turn to The Sun for medical advice. Insensitive headlines about torpedoed foreign ships and prurient trivia about the borderline famous - yes, absolutely. But practical guidance on cancer prevention? Not quite so much.
Until now.
As well as all the Leveson-related rigmarole, The Sun has another persistent problem: its ongoing efforts to justify 'Page Three'. Obviously nobody is unduly worried about a newspaper having a third page. Indeed, we'd be quite surprised if it didn't. In the case of The Sun though, it's their habit of publishing pictures of young women exposing their chests which causes all the fuss.
The argument against this practice is nothing new.
For decades campaigners for women's rights have targeted these daily images, pointing to them as an overt example of crass sexism and objectification. The Sun's response has always been lame and somewhat unconvincing, making vague statements about 'harmless fun' and 'admiring beauty'. In essence, those in favour of 'Page Three' have been locked in stalemate with those against, for years.
In 2013, Rupert Murdoch (publisher of The Sun) issued a tweet to say he thought there was no place for the feature in the 21st century, and yet the spreads have continued unabated. Then, today, The Sun revealed its latest attempt to justify 'Page Three'. Moving the piece to page one, the paper has gone to great lengths to link shots of half-naked women to a campaign against breast cancer. 'Check 'Em Tuesday' is the subtitle, accompanied by a snap of Beauty Editor, Lauren Ezekiel grasping at her bosom.
This is quite a smart move. From now on, anyone raising objections to 'Page Three' and its models can be challenged with the suggestion they are somehow against women's health. The paper has cleverly built its own counter-argument. Unfortunately, it has done so using a horrible illness.
Interestingly, further inside the paper, there is a reasonably intelligent and certainly moving spread on breast cancer and its prevention. It's in the women's section and appears thirty or so pages after the 'Check 'Em Tuesday' splash.
So, what's the problem here? 'Page Three' isn't illegal - and surely anything that encourages women to check themselves for the early signs of cancer (essential if treatment is to be successful) must be a good thing, right? Only up to a point. Here's a taste of the copy The Sun ran today:
“Page 3’s are the most famous boobs in Britain and will act as a fantastic reminder to all Sun readers to get to know their breasts.”
Note the use of the word 'boobs' there. It's a daft word at the best of times, but in this context it's an indicator of The Sun's difficult relationship with women's bodies. Breasts represent very different things to different people. To straight men and gay women, they can be erogenous zones and part of physical attraction. To babies, they can be the source of nourishment; while physicians regard them as a part of the anatomy which should be monitored for changes and symptoms. The Sun's campaign struggles for credibility because historically, it has always viewed breasts as items of titilation at which to leer, largely existing for the stimulation of the male observer. To suddenly hand ownership back to women is a leap that's hard to buy.
Magnus Shaw is a copywriter, blogger and consultant
