Journo mate of mine wanted to do his MA thesis on political bias in News In Briefs, by comparing the political views of the Page 3 models with those expressed by a random selection of scantily clad 22 year olds.

They wouldn’t let him.

Um don’t mean to be a boring feminazi, but isn’t this a tad sexist?

Can’t help but feel there are undertones of glamour model = stupid.

Always worth a look – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=urjCIibolr4

Um don’t mean to be a boring feminazi, but isn’t this a tad sexist?

Quite right Ellie.

We should no more expect a glamour model to be uninformed on Human Rights legislation then we should suspect Ed Milliband to be ignorant about the benefits of moisturising or for David Cameron not to know what vajazzling is.

Only on LC…………….

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5YPJ0o1L8Ys

Um don’t mean to be a boring feminazi, but isn’t this a tad sexist?

No.

The point is that The Sun has a long, rich history of putting editorial opinions in the pouting mouths of Page 3 girls.

http://www.bloggerheads.com/page-3/

HI all I don’t mean to spam but this was the first post I found that relates to gender issues. I want to share this article by Mark Simpson about misandry.

It is from 2002 but it has been updated to include references to that ‘whataboutthemenz’ concept used in internet discussions about gender.

If you want to discuss the issues further feel free to leave a comment on his blog or mine where it has been cross-posted.

http://www.marksimpson.com/blog/2011/02/09/misandry-the-acceptable-prejudice/

@Ellie Mae

Are you for real? Is that the most sexist thing you see here? Hollie may very well be a political genius, but ‘News in Briefs’ is clearly not the models’ own views, which along with Page 3 existing in the first place, is extremely sexist.

@Ellie,

I don’t think there’s necessarily a ‘glamour model = stupid’ undertone here, but the news in brief girls often show a higher level of political awareness than the average early twenty something. Political interest is not the sole measure of intelligence, I know many very clever and well educated 20 year olds who don’t know the first thing about the ECHR.

We can either assume that the Sun uses these girls as a mouthpiece for their own political agenda, or that these girls are actually expressing their own views. If the latter is the case then if follows that when selecting the girls the Sun judges not only on looks and figure, but also political astuteness and and opinions which closely resemble that of the newspaper.

I’ll leave you to decide which is the more likely option.

@2. No, no its not. Surely the way its worded screams out it was written by an editorial committee, not actually any person’s quote.

Surely its more sexist to show pictures of someone with their tits out and then provide a quote written by some-one back office (probably male)?

@4 – I’m sensing from your post you honestly feel the views expressed are those of the girl on Page 3, rather than the Sun’s editorial team, and that the Page 3 girl is asked for her views on the issues of the day at the photo-shoot which are then transcribed and added to News in Briefs as direct quotes? Can you confirm?

@9 – its not the content, its the way its written. It screams ‘designed by committee’. They always read like PR/Press Release speak, its not natural speak. If it were their opinion there would be no need for it to be like that.

@4 – Pagar, sorry, my brain just caught up with my fingers, I’m with you now…

@ 11

I don’t think it is their own opinion, I had hoped that was clear from my first comment.

Meanwhile in the Sunday Times Jeremy Clarkson gets his moobs out

A Channel 4 documentary about the UK’s Supreme Court

Typical Murdoch ploy. Speak the language of the working class, or topless model, while pushing the politics of the billionaire.

Global elites don’t need no stinking human rights. They buy their own. This is the man remember who ditched a book by Chris Patten so as not to offend the Communist Chinese. Tells you all you need to know about Murdoch’s contempt for freedom.

@ Ellie Mae Totally agree. Don’t ever apologise for pointing out attitudes like this out. True, the model in question probably didn’t say any of what she’s been credited with. However, the LC tone here seems to be ‘ha, ha, they really expect us to think a naked woman has anything valid or intelligent to to say. As if!.’

I think it’s kind of funny. I think more than a few Sun readers will get the joke.

This is not sexist, but based on my own experience: models really aren’t that smart.

Why doesn’t Hollie pack her stuff (she doesn’t have too many clothes anyway, apparently), move to a country without human rights protection and then try to publish her photos there: http://andreasmoser.wordpress.com/2011/02/09/human-rights-with-hollie/

Hm, I believe that Jodie Marsh has 11 GCSEs from A* to A and 3 A-levels, so it’s not the case that all glamour models are stupid as some seem to think on this thread.

And yes, the Sun should either put its spokeswomen on Newsnight or stop using them to lie to its audience.

I can recommend the Wikipedia entry for Jodie Marsh:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jodie_Marsh

John Nash is indoubtedly highly intelligent and he was awarded a Nobel laureate in 1994 for his work in games theory – the concept of a Nash equilibrium in a game is named after him. For long spans in his life he has been incapacitated by schizophrenia.

In short, there isn’t necessarily much correlation between personal intelligence and sanity.

16

Yes exactly.

Of course I don’t think that’s her opinion, for fuck’s sake. For a start, I’m pretty sure there are political types who aren’t aware of what she’s talking about – let alone ordinary people. Secondly, you’d be hard-pressed to find a glamour model in the Sun who started espousing pro-trade union sentiments, or suspicion of the Murdoch empire. Obviously it is a vehicle for the editorials, and I’m surprised that was ever in question.

The reason I suggested it was sexist is because of the unecessary jeering about her appearing on Newsnight, and the implication that it would be farcical because she is a stupid big-titted woman, who doesn’t have anything constructive to contribute.

I notice the fact that she is topless is emphasised in the resulting takedown – as though that somehow makes it more implausible that the opinion could be hers.

The reason I suggested it was sexist is because of the unecessary jeering about her appearing on Newsnight, and the implication that it would be farcical because she is a stupid big-titted woman, who doesn’t have anything constructive to contribute.

Or it could be that it’s farcical because she’d be forced to defend someone’s else’s views. And, hey, if you’d clicked through to the article you’d find it went on thusly…

I bet she can’t. I bet, at best, she’ll walk in briefed by editors but unable to think on her feet, because these aren’t her thoughts.

Which renders the hunt for implications somewhat futile.

@ Sally

Typical Murdoch ploy. Speak the language of the working class, or topless model, while pushing the politics of the billionaire

You’ve surpassed yourself there, girl!!!!

Ellie’s right: the article’s assumption is that models are too stupid to hold valid opinions, whether the Sun comment reflects her true opinion or not.

I’ll admit though that my own IQ drops considerably when my pants are off.

And since you cropped her photo her remarks are taken out of context.

Would it be too much to ask for some alt text for image-based articles? I gather from previous comments that the image has been cropped, but I’m still reluctant to enable images while reading in the office just to see (any of) Page 3.

@ 22 Ellie Mae

“The reason I suggested it was sexist is because of the unecessary jeering about her appearing on Newsnight, and the implication that it would be farcical because she is a stupid big-titted woman, who doesn’t have anything constructive to contribute.”

I don’t actually see much evidence of that here, but I admit that makes it a bit of a rarity. Normally when people take the piss out of News in Briefs there is a strong implication that OBVIOUSLY lovely Karen (23, from Essex) couldn’t possibly understand anything more complicated than shoes.