Stick It Where The Sun Don't Shine..

Bitesize Philosophy Lesson Five:

 Everybody has a motive.

Stick it where The Sun don’t shine…

So today’s ever-insightful edition of The Sun has the nation’s favourite bad-boy prince butt-naked, clutching his bollocks under the enticing caption of ‘Pics of naked Harry you’ve already seen on the internet.’

Uh, great exclusive there then guys, plus the story is a few days old. So what is the deal with print VS the internet? And why is everyone getting their knickers in a twist?

The Sun say it’s a matter of public interest to have those images printed, because it highlights issues to do with Harry's security and his royal and military image. That, and of course the bigger debate of freedom of press, a term that’s getting thrown around a lot with the Leveson enquiry, which is looking into media ethics. (Or rather whether anybody has any.)

The Sun’s argument is that though a picture can be freely floating around the internet quite happily, regulations and laws means the same image can’t be printed and this, as they put it, is “ludicrous.” (Big word, well done.)

That to me sounds like our Harry is a bit of a scapegoat here, not the type of goat anyone wants to be especially when you’ve got no clothes on in a Las Vegas hotel.

On The Sun’s website there a nice little video speech where the managing editor opens by stating “The Sun is a responsible paper.” An interesting choice of words for a tabloid whose primary concerns are generally whose on page three, and which footballer’s had a piece of it.

“We’re not against him letting his hair down once in a while.” He says of Harry. Wow, that’s kind of you Mr managing editor, and good to know, because I’m sure Harry would think twice about a vacation if The Sun in its wealth and wisdom were unhappy about him getting a tan.

“This is about our readers getting involved in the discussion about the man who is third in line to throne.” Is it? Is it really? I think there’s alot of things wrong about that sentence, but it does pose the interesting line of discussion about what is public interest. Yes he’s a member of the royal family, but does knowing or not knowing what he did this summer really affect my life as a member of the public? Did we not know he had butt cheeks or something? What is public interest and what is the public enjoying gossip and scandal has become a rather blurry line in this celebrity-obsessed culture, and it’s probably a good idea to remember that this is a boy whose mother died while being chased by a hungry herd of paparazzi looking for their next juicy story. 

The Huffington Post reported how “UK readers were treated to the odd sight of Sun employees posing naked on the front page in place of the real pictures on Thursday. (Editors were criticized for using a 21-year-old female intern in the picture.)”

Bloody hell, and this bald-headed editor is trying to convince us that this responsible paper is fighting a battle that’s to do with press integrity and matters of public interest?? (It also made me realise that actually, maybe I had it easy in my time as a newspaper intern, my clothes as a rule, stayed on...)

Newspapers love throwing around the term ‘it’s in the public interest’ -a loose and lucrative expression that acts as a ‘get out of jail free’ card, or Charlie Sheens ninth life. Wake up- it’s not about your interest, or what best for you, a good and upstanding member of the public. It’s not in the public’s interest- it’s in their interest. They’re a business and they’re in the industry of selling newspapers.

Maybe that’s the difference between print and internet; I can look at Harry’s lovely buttocks for free online, but I’d have to pay 20p to take them home with me from the newsagents. A nice bit of controversy means The Sun gets #hashtagged a few more times, blogs are written, comments are made, hell, here I am talking about the company right now; so the country becomes a walking talking advert for the nations shoddiest tabloid. (A part of, lets not forget, the disgraced Murdoch media empire.)

 Always, always be aware of motive, because in business, everybody has one, and in journalism there’s a fine line.

The internet has changed the world of newspapers and journalism not only because of its immediacy but because of its lack of editing. (And I’m not just talking about the Daily Mail Online’s atrocious typing errors.) Twitter is an un-edited mouthpiece for politicians, celebrities and world leaders, (even Ghandi’s got a twitter account.) There are millions of blogs, social networking sites and online news sites; the internet just doesn’t have a filter in the way a printing office does. The more interesting question to ask is does this make it more or less valuable as a medium for news and truth? Uncensored, un-edited, a wealth of opinions and angles, maybe there’s more opportunity to form your own opinion here rather than in a newspaper; reading a story worded for a certain market.

There are different stigmas and stereotypes attached to different newspapers- a tabloid reader compared to a reader of The Guardian for example, but the notable argument is not who but why: because it’s a market. It’s an industry making money, so different papers are produced in different styles; certain stories are highlighted compared to others, different political angles taken, all to reach these different demographics and produce a profit.

I’m not quite sure what it says about us as a nation if The Sun really is, as they claim, ‘the nation’s favourite newspaper. Yes its easy to read, lots of pictures, not too many words, it’s cheap and has the valuable opinions of topless young ladies in there, but why do we need news to be dumbed down for us? Put it this way, if someone labelled me as a Sun reader, I’d be offended.

 With the internet, more and more people can have it straight from the horse’s mouth, not a day later with a cheesy headline in a bold font. So are we going to grow out of The Sun? Maybe they’re just grasping at straws printing Royal rear-ends?

Of course the best line on the subject came from Good old Boris, who never fails to deliver:

"The real scandal would be if you went all the way to Las Vegas and you didn't misbehave in some trivial way," he told the BBC.

Yes Boris. Yes indeed.