The Sun to drop Page 3, reports Times

[removeduser_487563287433]

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-30891939

The Times, which is owned by the same group as The Sun, News Corp, is reportedly going to run its last Page 3 in Friday's edition. For those out of the know, Page 3 is a feature that simply has a topless girl on the page. It's been controversial since its emergence since the early seventies, and has been the focus on a campaign against it in recent years. Page 3 girls have been as young as 15, and on other occasions 15 year olds were featured in countdowns to their sixteenth birthday.

It's a good decision for the business. Page 3 is, even among the red tops, an anachronism. News of the World is gone, and The Star is owned by a pornographer and not really trying to be a genuine newspaper, as The Sun most certainly is. They'll be the usual outcry of feminists ruining everything for everybody, of course, but being rational it's a sound move.

Business is certainly at the heart of it - unlike the Daily Mail or the Guardian (with grossly different strategies, its worth saying), The Sun has failed to develop a significant online presence and Murdoch's Times isn't even trying with its paywall - and the plummeting figures of print sales cannot be ignored forever. The Guardian reports its understood the decision may be reversed should it result in a significant drop in sales.

http://www.theguardian.com/media/201...pless-pictures

[Stavroforos]

Great, no idea what place this sort of nonsense has outside of actual pornography bought as such.

[Dante Von Hespburg]

I would say finally. Perhaps now we'll see 'The Sun' as having aspirations towards being an actual newspaper? (Though by the standard of reporting this may still be too much to ask for...).

It was actually embarrassing in the first place the fact that Page 3- usually in 'actual' newspapers dedicated to a major headline of one sort or another, was solely here dedicated to a topless woman, with the abjectly insulting tiny paragraph on their 'thoughts of world issues' - which i doubt was written by said Topless model anyway since usually it was so basic and in a way satirically, stereotypical of what one would expect for a 'models viewpoint' that is MUST have been a fabrication, and probably one quite insulting to the model herself, whose actual in-depth views were not represented, or indeed even if it was their own views- they weren't given the page space to make it worthwhile and for it to be anything but insulting to them. A paragraph is not enough for even an 'opinion piece' on a political or economic argument to be taken seriously.

Ranting aside though, i don't believe this will be able to save the newspaper. It's 'brand' has been tarnished far too much already for any real metamorphosis to take place (Though Ferrets correct me if i'm wrong here- i suck at marketing ) i can't see actual 'newsreaders' choosing the Sun over another paper to get their news- especially as it's haunted by stories of the 'Age 3+ reading age' and the sleazy way it was presented. It's lack of online appeal to doesn't do it any favours. I think long term, it's dead really.

[caratacus]

I thought it had been dropped years ago and surprised it has gone on for so long!! Just shows where thousands of readers have their brains. Viewing images of attractive naked girls is always going to be popular pastime for guys. But soft porn has no place in a newspaper, if you can call The Sun a newspaper. Those missing this feature will no doubt gravitate to the Star, which is an even bigger joke of a news rag. Strange all the controversy about feeding babies in public places when breasts have been used to sell morning newspapers for years.

I thought Tesco made a good move recently, in insisting that newspapers be displayed in racks without the covers showing. As both the Sun and Star regularly have scantily clad females on the cover, in addition to what is inside.There is enough porn online without it facing everybody that enters a supermarket to buy a pint of milk.

[Bobz]

I thought it had been dropped years ago and surprised it has gone on for so long!!

Same, I really do not know why it has continued for so long. It's completely pointless when you can see as many naked women as you like on sites dedicated for them.

[Cope]

Only feminists could spend thirty years campaigning for female sexual liberation and then turn around and blame men for the "sexualization" of women. #logic.

Same, I really do not know why it has continued for so long. It's completely pointless when you can see as many naked women as you like on sites dedicated for them.

Unless you're a sky customer living in the UK.

[Condottiere 40K]

The internet kinda made it obsolete.

[Phier]

The internet kinda made it obsolete.

This.

Its not like you will gain any readership with boobs these days. This isn't a victory for anything, but just a blip in the dying throws of print media. Not sure how its even political at this point.

Seeing newspapers failing left and right is sort of sad to me, but then again I haven't bought a paper since 2001 when I used to take the train and didn't have phone/pad net access.

[HannibalExMachina]

you mean, showing 15 yo old teats in media is legal over there, wtf? and if not, why no legal action?

[General Retreat]

you mean, showing 15 yo old teats in media is legal over there, wtf? and if not, why no legal action?

Um... No, it's not. I'd be shocked if they got away with that. I do know there was a creepy incident where they ran a countdown to Emma Watson's 16th birthday, but that had nothing to do with naked photographs or page 3.

If The Sun had actually posted softcore pornography of minors, lets just say phone hacking wouldn't be the media scandal the British public'd be most furious about.

As to page 3 itself, glad to see it's gone. Echoing Dante's sentiments on The Sun becoming a proper newspaper though.

[removeduser_487563287433]

Um... No, it's not. I'd be shocked if they got away with that. I do know there was a creepy incident where they ran a countdown to Emma Watson's 16th birthday, but that had nothing to do with naked photographs or page 3.

If The Sun had actually posted softcore pornography of minors, lets just say phone hacking wouldn't be the media scandal the British public'd be most furious about.

As to page 3 itself, glad to see it's gone. Echoing Dante's sentiments on The Sun becoming a proper newspaper though.

You overestimate the British public.

[Cope]

You overestimate the British public.

And I think you underestimate them.

The mob is always ready for a lynching.

[Nicov55]

That "paper" is not even worth wraping fish with.

[Condottiere 40K]

Wasn't the ability to flush down half the Sun newspaper the minimum requirement to certify a toilet, in days gone by?

[neoptolemos]

The only page in SUN that worth something now is gone!
sad news?

[Captain Jin]

I'll never forget stopping at the airport in Ireland on my way to Iraq in 2005. There she was. Miss Keeley Hazell, winner of a Page 3 competition in December the previous year, on the cover of Zoo magazine. I was in love. I took her to Iraq and... and well she kept me sane.

Anyway, I didn't think there was anything worth anything in the Sun anyway besides Page 3. It was always a bit odd of a practice to me, but I thought of it more like a tabloid or sort of not very legit news source anyhow.

[GussieFinkNottle]

About bloody time.

[removeduser_487563287433]

I actually must post a correction - it was the Star, not the Sun, that did the birthday countdown. The Sun has however used 15 year old models.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Page_3#..._2015_decision

[Dr Zoidberg]

Jeez Ferrets, you could have at least posted a few examples so we knew what was being cut....

[General Retreat]

Ferrets, that controversy page doesn't mention what you're claiming at all. And the Sun ran those countdowns as well and was quite correctly savaged for it by protestors and women's rights groups.

Given the amount of scrutiny said groups give the Sun, I'm sure they'd be screaming 'paedophile editors' (among other things) from the rooftops if they'd run with underage models.

I'm just absolutely incredulous that 1) The British public would let that blow over, or 2) it could be swept under the rug.