Red-top reticence

When I read last week that the Press Complaints Commission had censured FHM magazine for printing a photograph of a topless 14-year-old girl, I looked to the press for coverage and comment. Surely, I thought, newspapers that are so determined to root out “evil” paedophiles and to denounce “pervs” who view child pornography would have something to say. True, the magazine insisted she looked older than 14 and it has promised not to do it again - but I’ve a feeling I’ve heard those excuses somewhere before.

Yet only the Guardian carried more than a paragraph and several papers ignored the story. There was not a word, for example, in the Sun, whose editor, Rebekah Wade, has always been such a sturdy opponent of paedophilia. That wouldn’t be - would it? - because the red-tops fear they might themselves be caught out one day. Grauniad

Made me wonder too.

This entry was written by Tim, posted on Mon Sep 17 2007 at 13:01, filed under Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink. Follow any comments here with the RSS feed for this post. Trackbacks are closed, but you can post a comment.

6 Comments

  1. Allie
    Posted Mon Sep 17 2007 at 20:19 | Permalink

    I suspect that this story points out a rather uncomfortable truth about how our culture views teenage sexuality. The Sun has, I believe, happily used topless models on their sixteenth birthday.

  2. Tim
    Posted Mon Sep 17 2007 at 20:53 | Permalink

    I think there is an awful lot of hypocrisy and lack of balance.

  3. Claire
    Posted Mon Sep 17 2007 at 23:05 | Permalink

    I’m really quite shocked. I wonder what view the childs parents had on the situation?

  4. Gill
    Posted Tue Sep 18 2007 at 16:18 | Permalink

    I actually bought the Guardian today, for lack of proper newspapers left in the shop. What a load of codswallop. Hmmph. Then again I don’t read the Sun either.

  5. Tim
    Posted Tue Sep 18 2007 at 18:00 | Permalink

    Do you look at the pictures?

  6. Gill
    Posted Tue Sep 18 2007 at 22:34 | Permalink

    Sometimes, but from a distance, warily.

Post a Comment

Your email is never published nor shared. Required fields are marked *

*
*
Available Smilies