Who cares, it sold paper, and it is a business. If a subset bought it only for that or because it add a little something to the purchase, more power to them.

I care. A lot of people here, especially women care.

Newspapers aren't just product like any other. They are a large part of what forms/informs opinion and creates the cultural zeitgeist. I don't have a problem with seeing tits. I do have a problem with newspapers having a page dedicated to topless shots. And the language used to describe women is often despicable.

These are the newspapers that get left about for anybody to read. I remember reading them when I was a kid. They'd be in cafes for people to read having their breakfast, or there'd be a copy left on the bus. And y'know, I remember how it made me feel as an adolescent girl, seeing these bizarrely contrived topless shots of big titted girls in a newspaper as a bit of light relief after the main headlines. Full-on ass-fucking pornography is less objectifying than Page 3.

That sort of short term narrow-focused thinking is the cause of about half of all the problems in the world today. Really.

"Who cares, it sold paper, and it is a business" equally justifies the phone hacking, which aside from the outrage, has destroyed the paper.

This tendency to focus on wining the short-term transactions at the expense of the long-term health of the process and standards is at the root of the financial crisis and the utter decay of political process in so many countries - especially the USA. You don't need me to remind you how often it has been said the "politics is broken". This is what broke it.

Now, about those titties...

Nice sum-up, Zen.

yeah. I liked that post a lot.

What's interesting now, is how the hacking side is starting to expand out to the entire tabloid press, but the corruption and close relationship between newspapers, police and government, is remaining a Murdoch/NI issue.

There's a lot of noise coming from some sectors now saying that it's not just Murdoch it's all of them, so we should stop focussing on t he Murdochs. But they're attempting to conflate two distinct issues: one of illegal journalistic practices (all apparently guilty) and one of corruption at the heart of government and law enforcement (so far only News International implicated).

Interesting to see where this goes. The PM is under pressure to explain what was discussed at private social gatherings attended by him and others in his cabinet during the time that decisions were being made about the BSkyB deal.

In a corruption case, does the payer or the payee bare the burden of guilt? In my very limited knowledge based on a political corruption trial here recently, the person in the position of power receiving the bribe is the guilty party. The person attempting to or proceeding with it is still guilty but less so.

Hmmm...if the world were black and white that'd be a simple one wouldn't it.

The rest of us who read them don't care.... sorry.:cool:

Of course you don't, otherwise you wouldn't be reading tabloids in the first place.

We don't really have mainstream tabloids here in Oz. I feel very left out of this discussion. lol

A most interesting question because it probably varies even by country. And unknown if such laws are considered by the ICC.

Since when does merc speak for "the rest of us,"

Be afraid.

Be very afraid.

The world that encompasses Merc's 'the rest of us' is really very limited. As is his sphere of reality.

I just pick it up as a side note on other websites.... I know what it is. If some British Tart wants to show her tits on a major website newspaper I have no problem with that. I could give a shit what the moral police of this forum opines about it....

No different than what your "very limited reality" is... it is just not important to me. Sorry.:p:

That's exactly what Dana was talking about, not tits.