To be deeply cynical regarding The Sun's page 3 campaign?

[Spanglecrab]

I am a man (33 years old and 40-38-36 if it's relevant to anyone) and work in an industry where there is usually a copy of the sun laying around - although I'm not a fan myself.

Today the front page headline is - page 3 saved my life and tells the story of a mum of four who as a direct result of the sun's check'em Tuesday campaign has discovered stage two cancer that would otherwise have gone unchecked.

Now I would never dispute that this is a good news story having witnessed the heartbreak and misery caused by cancer first hand but AIBU to wonder if the real reason for the campaign as far as the proprietor is concerned is not to save Wendy and others like her but instead to save page 3 itself?

Also even assuming that my suspicion is correct does saving the life of one women and quite possibly many more justify having to put up with page 3 and the casual sexism that it promotes?

They could support the breast cancer campaign without having having sexualised images of women on page 3. But they don't.

Personally? Its just a marketing ploy against the NoMorePage3 campaign and whilst I'm very pleased that Wendy got the help she needed that poor excuse for a "news"paper has a lot more to answer for.

Its nicknamed The Scum for a reason.

I saw this this morning and did a face.

Breast cancer checks are rather a fig leaf for Page 3. Charity and "successes" like a breast cancer pre-diagnosis don't mean one has to excuse everything the charitable/campaigning organisation does.

It's a bit like the way a Certain Someone, recently and posthumously vilified, did a lot of charity work. One would definitely rather he hadn"t done the other stuff, too!

If that's the case then surely there should be a campaign for checking testicles too - and some dude in speedos with his balls hanging out like that episode of inbetweeners.

Sex sells

OP How can you be so cynical?

I suppose it could be true, all things are possible.

The only thing to be said in favour of the Sun is that it is not the Daily Mail. The price of freedom is that a great deal of nasty crap gets printed on trees with chemicals for the edification of the brain-dead.

Yanbu

@ Rounded. Poor Simon, I have never cringed for a fictional character so much.

rounded

pluCaChange I'm with you most of the way but not sure if I would compare the sun to saville if that's what you were alluding to.

I don't think the campaign is ever going to win over those who are opposed to sexual images of women in a mainstream media outlet so who are they trying to convince?

OP, nobody's forcing you to open it and enjoy the titties. As for everyone else - if you don't like it, don't buy it.

Titties? Riiiiight. What are you? 12

why censor boobs in films etc (automatic 15 rating) but sell the images to anyone via the sun?

bigdog not so worried for me - as you rightly say I can chose but as I'm sure you noticed from my op I'm more worried about the impact of casual sexism. It obviously too late for you but I'm not so keen on the same happening to my son or daughter

Yanbu, disingenuous bull.

phwoar at ops vital stats

Oh, well, you seemed to be on the same wavelength - saying "does saving the life of one women and quite possibly many more justify having to put up with page 3 and the casual sexism that it promotes?"

I think we can be idealists, and call people and organisations on hypocritical "good works".

It made me cringe when I saw it in a shop today. It is entirely possible for them to encourage awareness of breast cancer without using soft porn.

A very cynical ploy on their part.

plu it's an astute observation but alluding to Saville as a comparison pushes things a bit too far

OP I think your username is awesome!

I am sure The Sun had nothing BUT the interests of women and their health all these years ...I mean it's worth the damage of sexualising women and reducing them in the 'news' to 'titties' on a daily basis if it saves one life

yanbu

I didn't say that name, though. Perhaps, in a while, as various Operations of justice (Yewtree, Westminster paedophile ring, if the latter ever gets underway, etc.), my comment could apply to other public figures, which is rather the point. Charity and good works should not be allowed to obscure other, less beneficial, acts.

So the Sun has supposedly got someone to check herself and find positive signs of breast cancer (and I haven't read the article, so I don't know whether she read Page 3 herself, or whether her OH, for example, alerted her). The Sun has got many more pages than just Page 3, in which to encourage breast cancer checks. Furthermore, combining the sex-message of Page 3 with "breast cancer" could also bypass women who don't see themselves primarily as sex-beings (I'm thinking particularly of older women, given that the risk of breast cancer rises with age). That makes using Page 3 to target breast cancer rather "off" targeting! Why not have similar campaigns on other pages, those proven to speak to different demographics, so that all of the Sun's readership is covered?!

That's so desperate on the part of the Sun it is almost funny. It is almost as convincing as Serena, 23,needing to appear topless in order to offer her insights on the Middle East crisis.

OTOh, I was deeply grateful to the Sun for its good works in providing free newspaper for my cat to piss on (she is old and her aim in the litter tray is poor)

If they really cared about women and breast cancer they'd arrange for some nice, tasteful post mastectomy photographs to promote post surgery body image confidence, but they won't do that because blokes don't want to ogle and wank over stuff like that

It's the last flailing gasps of a dying groper.

Don't worry. Page 3's days are numbered. I give it another 6 months. A year at a push.

Page 3 is virtually history.

I don't think they'll axe Page 3. Would anyone here start buying the Sun if they axed it? They're trying to hold on to the readers they have already, far more so than trying to attrach new ones.

sadly there is so much free porn on the internet that the demise of page 3 and lads' mags will make no difference

Getting rid of Page 3 wouldn't change anything anyway. It's a symptom, rather than a cause.