Leveson and the left: confusion and anger

What next for journalists after the Leveson report? This was the question being debated last Thursday evening by SohoSkeptics when they hosted a discussion on the Leveson report into media ethics. The panel featured distinguished left wing writers and journalists. It was hosted by Helen Lewis, deputy editor of the New Statesman magazine, and also included the Observer’s Nick Cohen and the Guardian’s Suzanne Moore on the anti-Leveson side. The pro-Leveson side was made up of Dr Natalie Fenton, Professor of Media and Communications at Goldsmith’s University and Dr Evan Harris, former Liberal Democrat MP for Oxford and prominent member of the Hacked Off campaign.

My own view on the Leveson report, one which is popular among the left leaning people I know, is that Leveson should be used as a stick to beat the right wing newspapers with - especially those owned by Murdoch. At the same time we must protect Private Eye’s freedom to expose the dirty secrets of prominent members of the government. What I found most interesting about Thursday night’s debate was the reaction of the audience to the arguments being made and what that told me about the left’s reaction to Leveson in general.

A left wing panel usually means a left wing audience, especially at a meeting of a skeptics group. At one point a member of the panel asked if there were any Conservatives in the audience and one solitary man raised his voice from the gallery.

As I listened to the debate and the audience’s reaction it became apparent that this group of lefties had different ideas to mine. The first indication of this came from the big cheer that Moore received despite making thoughtless comments about transgender people in a recent Guardian article. Complaints were made about this on Twitter and she refused to apologise. The situation exploded when Julie Burchill at the Observer wrote a defence of Moore which contained language widely dubbed as hate speech. With this controversy on my mind and this being a left wing audience I had expected booing and heckling when Moore appeared, so cheers and applause came as something of a surprise.

Clearly this audience’s supported what Moore later described as ‘complete freedom of expression’, which she painted as the enemy of Leveson. Personally I want to emphasise the responsibilities associated with the right to freedom of speech. Namely not writing hate speech.

Some have sought to frame the debate around the Leveson inquiry into one of free speech against totalitarian press restriction and that was definitely on the audience’s mind. At one point I overheard one member of a group sitting behind me say 'it is a debate between freedom and not freedom', and although ineloquent this summed up the concerns of many present.

During the intermission I listened to what people around me were saying and aside from the general support for press freedom I also detected a distinct anti-regulation, support for small business sentiment. There was a distinct feeling that Leveson would make life more difficult for smaller news organisations and start-ups, perhaps playing into the hands of the established news providers and Murdoch.

I had started very much in favour of press regulation, mainly as a means to diminish the power of the right-wing press. By the end I felt very differently after hearing the passionate arguments from the panel, especially from Cohen.

I did not find myself completely agreeing with the anti-Leveson side. I felt that Cohen was naive in suggesting that print media would vanish completely. It is likely that the large newspapers will become major brands in the online news market. Any flaws in the ethics or practices of print journalists will be carried over as the newspapers move increasingly online and online news start-ups will look to the large players to see what standard of ethics is acceptable.

I also felt that Moore was wrong to defend unrestricted freedom of expression, especially when she comes from a position of cisgendered privilege. I agree that press freedom is important but she has a responsibility as a figure with a national platform. She made good points about the lack of working class journalists but it is wrong to use her social class as an excuse to defend attacks on other disadvantaged groups. It was also wrong of her to imply that she was the victim of those opposed to free speech. This is the same defence used by Peter Hitchens and Frankie Boyle when they say something hateful. They use freedom of speech to attack the idea of political correctness but political correctness is part of the mechanism which protects the weak from the strong in society. Moore has responsibilities which comes from having a position of privilege and having a position of importance at a national newspaper. It is wrong for straight, white, able-bodied men to use free speech as an excuse for unexamined privilege and it is wrong for Moore to use it as well.

I left the Soho Skeptics meeting feeling that my knowledge had expanded but that I had more questions than answers. This reflected what I heard from the audience and what the left feels in general. There was outrage at what the right leaning tabloids had done, about the lives they had ruined, the laws they had broken and the shame they had brought on journalists. There was no consensus on how to progress. State regulation and statuary underpinning appeared to be an unpopular course of action but it was naïve to assume that if nothing was done the problems would resolve themselves. Clearly the culture of tabloid papers needs to be addressed, as self-regulation by newspapers has not worked. However, no method was clear to achieve this without threatening the essential freedoms on which good journalism relies.

I left unable to reach any important conclusions, I only had more questions. Where do we go from here? How do we change the tide in our favour? For now the main comforting fact about the Leveson debate and the audience’s reaction was that at least we are all asking the right questions.

They are winning

This is a new year and we all need to work harder. The economy is faltering and, although employment is expected to grow this year, millions will still be left jobless. Inflation may have fallen back, but there has been little growth in wages and many are still trapped in poverty. Essential government services and health care are still being chipped away at by the Tory party and their coalition partners. Now is not the time to be complacent. Now is the time for action.

All of the above is true but another more painful truth dawned on me recently. This is that the right is winning. They sit in government, they dominate our press and business community, their views form the basis of our political dialogue. In short, they are winning.

Many people believe that benefits are too high and that the unemployed are undeserving of help. Many feel that the NHS is wasteful and needs the incentives of private business to become efficient. It is often said that the government is too large and needs to be reined in, and that public sector spending is bad for the economy and should be cut. The subtle language of this is that the debt should be brought down regardless of whose backs the government’s cheque books are balanced on.

A lot of people who do not consider themselves to be political, or who consider themselves to have centrist opinions, actually use right wing rhetoric. This can be seen plainly in the debate of Britain’s continual membership of the EU. The right has walked into the dominant position in this debate because the left have let them.

The prevalence of right wing opinions does not simply extend to the economy. Many people believe that immigration is bad and is destroying our way of life, that political correctness is oppressive to our culture, that women deserve to be raped because of how they dress or behave, that the disabled are nothing but scroungers, and that the legalization of gay marriage would somehow undermine the millions of straight marriages across the country.

A lot of the dominance of right wing opinions comes from spinelessness of our left wing leadership. In the words of journalist Laurie Penny, “the Labour party still cannot find its ideology with both hands”. The TUC seems unable to find a means by which to oppose the government’s austerity program beyond politely marching from A to B, which will be completely ignored. Other left wing leaders stay silent in the face of right wing rhetoric from fear of being labelled as either Socialists or unrealistic dreamers.

I am not afraid of either of these labels. In fact, I wear them with pride. I do not think it is unreasonable to dream that we can be better off and live in a more equal society – and if the word for this is Socialist, then pass me the red flag. Now is not the time to be silently left leaning. Now is the time to be loud, angry and visible. Now is the time to tell the right that they cannot write off whole sections of society and that they cannot spread brutish ignorance and prejudice because it suits their political agenda.

There is hope. People are still willing to march and take demonstrations to knew heights. UK Uncut have performed high profile demonstrations that have hit tax-dodging businesses where it really hurts, in their wallets. Ordinary people have turned out huge numbers to oppose EDL marches across the country and successfully drowned out the racist street movement. People still scream in the streets and on the internet about how unjust a society we are becoming – have a read of this passionate argument for protecting the dignity of the disabled. The Everyday Sexism project publicly catalogues the abuse women face on a daily basis so that it cannot be ignored.

The right have always been good at dividing us, but together, with our heads held high and hope in our hearts, we are stronger than they are. The belief that we are all deserving, that we should all be equal and entitled to a decent standard of living, will win out over the idea of coldly tipping of the scales of society in the favour of the rich and privileged.

This is why I am redoubling my efforts this year and retasking my blog to focus more specifically on the left as a movement and what we can do to become stronger, better organized and more visible. I shall celebrate our successes and lament in our failures, but always remain watchful of the needs of a movement as diverse as ours.

We have to be better. We have to start winning. I am become very frightened of what we are becoming as a society – less sympathetic, less tolerant, less equal. The right might intend to drag us into a dark world where your birth determines your lot in life. Where being a rich, white, straight man is glorious and those people look down on others who are unlucky enough to be anything else. A world where money is the only thing that matters and society is bent to serve those who have wealth.

They are winning and we are slowly falling into darkness. But together we can change all of this, and it starts today.

The plight of the people of Western Sahara

Head over to a map of the world. Look for Egypt, that’s easy to find. Then look to your left. Assuming your map fits the usual specification, you will reach the western edge of North Africa. On the other side of the Mediterranean from Spain you will find Morocco. South of Morocco and north of Mauritania, there is an independent country of Western Sahara. This country is hardly known in global affairs, but it is not an independent country.

Western Sahara is the world's most sparsely populated country, being mostly dessert. It has a population of five hundred thousand people. Originally a colony of Spain, who withdrew from the country in 1975, the state of Western Sahara has been in dispute ever since. After Spain left, a war was fought between Western Sahara’s two neighbours, Mauritania and Morocco, which ended in 1979 when Morocco annexed most of Western Sahara. An independence movement, the Polisario Front, started a guerrilla war, seeking to establish an independent country known as the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic or SADR. This ended with a UN monitored cease-fire in 1991. Since then Western Sahara has been divided between the Polisario Front controlled SADR, which occupies around a quarter of the territory, and Morocco.

Morocco controls the majority of the country, including the population centres and natural resources. Both Morocco and the SADR are seeking international recognition for their claim to Western Sahara. Both have lined up support from across the world, but the territory remains disputed. Western Sahara is the largest and most populated territory on the United Nation’s list of Non-Self-GoverningTerritories and it exists in a legal grey area between being a disputed territory and a non-decolonized country or an occupied nation.

The location of Western Sahara in North Africa. Map from Wikipedia

Attempts to organise a referendum to decide Western Sahara’s future have been indefinitely stalled. The legal (and military) disputes that surround Western Sahara are varied and complex, with a host of countries and meta-national organisations (the Arab League, the African Union, etc) endorsing the different claims to the country. I suggest anyone with an interest in disputed territories and military occupations should look into the case of Western Sahara, as it is frequently overshadowed by events in Palestine.

So why is there less public outcry against what has happened in Western Sahara? Why do Palestine and Tibet get all the attention? It is difficult to say. All of the above and other situations around the world are clearly important places were citizens live without an ability to determine their own future. A lot of attention is drawn to the Middle East and China, partly because we in the west are complicit in the violations which take place in these countries through the trade agreements we have with their oppressors. This is especially true with Israel, as the UK and the US selling arms to the Israeli Defence Forces which are used against the Palestinians.

Also these other conflict areas are relatively well-populated. There is an estimated nine million Palestinians in the world, where as there are less than half a million Western Saharans. In the case of Palestine, many millions of people were displaced by Israeli occupation and have become refugees. Some of these have moved to the west where they have set up pressure groups highlighting the problems of those left behind in the occupied territory. In the case of Tibet, there is the Dalai Lama, an internationally-recognised figure, campaigning for freedom from occupation. However, more recently even the Dalai Lama has campaigned more for recognition of Tibet within China rather than independence. There are relatively fewer Western Saharans and less of them in western countries drawing attention to events in North Africa. When Africa is in the news more recently it has been in relation to uprisings connected to the Arab Spring, which did not spill over into an uprising in Western Sahara against Morocco.

Other disputed territories around the world attract more attention than Western Sahara, but it is important to remember that we in the west are just as complicit in the repression there. Morocco is enjoying a tourist boom currently, and the money we spend there funds the military which keeps Western Sahara under Moroccan control. Western Sahara may not be the world’s most high profile trouble spot, but is the largest disputed territory in the world and has the largest disputed population. Next time you are looking at a map do not take it for granted that a border is a sign of an independent country.

Do you know who Xi Jinping is?

I have been asking people this question and a lot of people do not know the answer. We will return to that shortly.

The world watched with rapped attention a fortnight ago as Barrack Obama won a historical second term in the White House. The global news schedules were drowning in coverage of the campaign and the Election Day itself. I personally stayed up until 5:30 in the morning to see the results. It was an event of global significance, a race the outcome of which would affect the lives of billions if not everyone on the planet. However while this was going on, the leadership of another country was also being decided, an event that could perhaps be equally as important.

The Chinese Communist party (the world’s largest political organisation, with more members than there are people in the United Kingdom) recently changed the membership of its politburo standing committee, the countries highest decision making body. Once every 10 years at the Chinese Communist party conference, China’s leadership steps down and new leaders are appointed. These leaders come from the 25 member politburo and its higher body, the seven person standing committee. The General Secretary of the Communist Party of China as well as other leadership figures are chosen from the standing committee. All of this is conducted in secret, with the conference ending with the new leadership being shown to the party.

The makeup of the standing committee and China’s new leadership are decisions with the same global signification as the race for the White House. China is the world’s second largest economy and it is predicted that during the new leadership’s term of office China will become the world’s largest economy. China also holds the majority of the world's debt as well as being a key export market for the growth starved west and a major financial centre. They have the world’s largest army, an expanding space program and now aircraft carriers and stealth fighters. In less than a decade the members of standing committee may become the most powerful people in the world. My question concerning all this is, why has there been a lot less media coverage of the events leading up the anointment of the new Chinese leadership?

There has been coverage, with articles on BBC website and in other new sources but I have not seen one piece on the Chinese Communist party conference grace the front page of a British national newspaper or appear as the top story on a news broadcast, as the American election did. The change of power in China is just as important as the change of power in America, perhaps more important as the new leader has a much greater ability to effect change in his country than Barrack Obama does in America. This is where I answer the above question, Xi Jinping is the new General Sectary of the Chinese Communist Party and is very likely to be the next president of China. So why is there less coverage of the method by which he came to power? Why are we not globally weighing up the pros and cones of perspective Chinese leaders, examining Xi Jinping's qualities as a leader and considering what his vision of China might look like?

The main reason is that people in the west simply are not interested, which is not only a shame but a dangerous way of thinking. We prefer to focus on our own politics, believing them to be most important events in the world, whilst dismissing events elsewhere as less than important. It is foolish to ignore the changes that are happening in China. By all accounts Xi Jinping’s forthcoming appointment to the presidency is a victory for China’s more conservative factions. He has close ties to the military and is the son of a past powerful figure and party elder. He is certainly not a reformer, but he does have a more global prospective than previous leaders. We should be concerned about our future and the power that China will hold over it, and we should be more concerned about the people directing this power and the means by which they are appointed.

Another reason why western media is not as interested in the change in Chinese leadership is that the key events happen in secret. The standing committee and a shadowy group of party elders decide in secret on the next generation of leaders and who will be appointed to the most senior positions. This process does not lend itself to the extensive coverage, which news sources use to attract large amounts of views and readers. The results are also a forgone conclusion. It had been known for a while that Xi Jinping would be the next General Secretary and that Li Keqiang would be his deputy. It is almost certain they will be given the most senior positions in the Chinese government, the presidency and premiership. Xi Jinping, Li Keqiang and others had been elevated to positions of power by outgoing president Hu Jintao, a man who favored loyalty above all else.

Chinese leadership elections are not as exciting as their American counter part, they lack scandal, uncertain results and a dramatic conclusions. News vendors may not be that interested but that does not mean the events are not globally significant. We may not be that cornered about the changes in Chinese leadership but as a nation we should be.

Xi Jinping will lead China for ten years during which China and the whole world will face serious challenges in terms of the economy and the environment China also faces many internal challenges, in rooting out corruption  finding its place among the other global powers, maintaining its growth rate and balancing political freedoms with the Communist state. Xi Jinping is not a man much is known about in the west but his character may come to define the next decade of global events.

In the west we need to stop thinking of ourselves as the main stage or the only stage as we increasingly become a side show. We need to pay more attention to events in China and Chinese politics as our economic recovery will depend upon it. Xi Jinping and the other new members of standing committee step into the spot light as Obama secures himself a second term in power but Xi Jinping will be leading China long after Obama has left the White House. Us in the west should pay as much attention to events in China as we do to America as they profoundly effect our world. Xi Jinping should be a name that is on everyone's in the west's minds.

The American Election: A Victory for Perspective

Having perspective about how people live in other countries is not something Americans are typically given credit for. In fact, they are known throughout the world for looking inwards, caring much more about domestic issues than international ones. This is true for most countries in the world, but American politics affects the entire world. The American economy drives the western world, their foreign policy defines who are our allies and who are our adversaries. It seems unfair that a decision of global importance, such who should lead America, can be decided by trivialities of domestic politics. In 2000 a few voters in Florida decided the trajectory of global politics. Had they voted a differently, the war in Iraq could have been averted.

If every person who was affected by the outcome of the American Presidential election was able to vote in it, the outcome could be very different. This is true of a number of countries. In China, even the country’s own citizens cannot decide their leadership and the decision is made in secret by a few people. Both leaderships have an enormous effect on the entire human race; the American decision is much more democratic, but both are made without considering the effect the outcome has on those outside the country.

As with most general elections, the recent US Presidential contest has been mainly fought over the incumbent’s economic record. Other issues were prevalent – foreign policy, social issues – but, as with most general elections, it comes down to the matter of which side the voters trust to handle the economy. After the credit crunch and the global recession, which began under George W. Bush, the American economy has stalled. Recovery has been slow and growth is lacklustre. Even after Obama was elected President in 2008, prosperity has not returned to America.

In the years since the credit crunch, America has not fared the best or the worst among OECD countries. When Obama took office in 2009, GDP was shrinking at 3.5% per annum. By the time of the election, growth had risen to 1.7% (all statistics are from Google’s public data). During the same period, unemployment has remained roughly constant at 7.8% (despite peaking at 10% in October 2009). Compare this to the UK, where growth is currently at 0.65% and unemployment at 7.9%. The same story of barely positive growth is true across most western economies. America is actually faring better than most but the prosperity of the late 1990s and early 2000s has not returned.

The question posed to American voters was whether they would be better off with Mitt Romney and the Republicans in charge. A growth rate of 1.7% leaves room for improvement, but it is certainly better than we are experiencing in the UK and better than a recession.

On Tuesday, American voters opted to stay with Obama and voted in favour of current economic policy. It was felt that the stimulus introduced by Obama in February 2009 had been effective, and that the bailouts of Chrysler and General Motors had prevented mass unemployment, which could have driven the country back into a recession. This vote in favour of the current administration’s economic policy is a reflection that Americans are aware that they are financially better off with Obama and better off than comparable countries.

Left learning social-democratic parties are generally out of power across Europe. Centre-right governments dominate and the fiscal agenda is austerity. In the UK, severe cuts to government spending have been enforced since the Conservative-Lib Dem coalition came to power in 2010. These cuts have killed off the green shoots of recovery and briefly pushed the UK economy back into recession. Looking at the British economy’s recent performance it is hardly a ringing endorsement of austerity and privatization. Americans recognise they are better off with Obama’s stimulus and steps to prevent mass unemployment than they would be with European-style austerity.

Usually Americans do not have a good deal of perspective, especially about how fortunate they are compared to other countries. However, in the case of the recent elections, it is clear that although Obama’s record on the economy is not stunning, Americans consider that they are better off with him than with the alternative. If anything, this week’s election result is a victory for perspective.

Why you should not lend Ayn Rand your car

Recently I had to face the prospect of moving a large amount of house hold waste to the dump without access to a car or van of any sort. I do not have a driving licence so renting one was out of the question. The solution to this problem was evident; find an obliging friend who would happily drive my broken old furniture to the dump. This was easily done but a second problem quickly emerged, how best to pay my friend for his time and the use of his car. A simple cash payment between friends seemed crass, more akin to a business relationship than an honest friendship, so I was left with a dilemma.

What I actually wanted to acquire from my friend was use of his vehicle and his skills as a driver. Obtaining these for myself had been options in the past, but I deemed the cost of learning to drive and purchasing a car too high and thus declined. This afforded me more money to indulge in my other interests such as buying minimalistic furniture, however the keen investor is usually proved right and thus when some large items of furniture were broken beyond repair I needed to find some means of economic exchange to secure the removal of a broken wardrobe from my living room.

If hard currency was out of the question, what could I offer in exchange for my friend’s Sunday afternoon and his driving skills? Eventually I settled on the idea of a goods exchange. I would use some of my current wealth to purchase goods, which could be given to my friend in exchange for the use of his car and driving skills, which he had invested past wealth in. Both of us being fans of real ale I bought a selection from a local microbrewery for him to enjoy after he had driven home. I made it clear that I was not offering an incentive to violate drink-driving laws.

After our exchange of goods and labour was completed, the whole process made me think. How could I be sure my friend had received a fair price for his labour and the investment he had made in the car? The wardrobe was quite a problem for me and I might have valued the use of the car more highly than the payment I offered. In a competitive market place, where there are no restrictions of friendship then the use the car might have fetched a far higher price in terms of bottles of ale.

The whole situation reminded me of Ayn Rand’s novel Atlas Shrugged in which Midas Mulligan insists his friend charges him for the use of his car rather than simply borrowing it for free. Rand being a believer in the virtues of selfishness saw it as socialism to lend goods for free.

Perhaps this is an extreme interpretation of what she thought but the economics behind her ideas were simple. Someone invests time and money in learning to drive and buying a car. Those who choose otherwise should have to sacrifice some form of economic gain in order to get the benefit of what they have not invested time and money into.

I think Rand is missing a truth to this situation, which played out through my own experiences this weekend. On some level I was offering goods I purchased in exchange for the use of skills and equipment but there was another transaction taking place. My friend was sacrificing his Sunday afternoon to help me out of a situation, a choice which carried with it an opportunity cost. As part of this exchange he was building up good favour with myself which is in turn an investment which will yield fruit later, perhaps in the form of me fixing his computer or helping him clean up after a party. This relationship is not quantified by a direct exchange of goods and labour, but it is still taking place.

In short there is a human exchange taking place as well as an economic one. This human exchange can lead to an economic benefit in the future and the good relationships human exchanges foster can form the basis of strong long term economic alliances of the variety that really benefit communities and the wider economy. Not short term valuation aiming to get the maximum value for minimum input.

In Rand’s world we are all selfish machines, doing what is best for ourselves in the hope that this will somehow make human society richer as a whole. As the economic crash of the 2000s shows unbridled selfishness ultimately makes us all poorer. Human trust is an important commodity and good relations make as much sense economically as they do socially. I am very pleased that my friend gave up his Sunday afternoon to help me and I feel that it brought us closer together in a spirit of co-operation, a closeness that can help us overcome economic hardships.

Rand’s bleak view of humanity misses our real strengths; our willingness to sacrifice for each other that helps us collectively overcome great hurdles. What this all boils down to is that in the future, if I owned a car and Ayn Rand asked to borrow it, the price would not simply be economic and I doubt she could afford it.

Page 3 reveals the ingrained sexism in our society

"It's a newspaper's duty to print the news and raise hell," or so said Wilbur F. Storey of the goals of the Chicago Times in 1861. Most British newspapers do not fit this romantic fantasy of plucky reporters digging up facts, uncovering corruption and exposing the wrong doings of those in power. Newspapers are a product as much as anything else and one that exists in a very competitive market place. Beyond this they are part of our public psyche and form a key part of how we view the world. Most of us still get our news from newspapers, it may be in the form of articles published online, or downloaded onto smart phones but still newspapers are powerful players in the news market. They decide what is news or not news but deeper than that they decide what is normal or not normal.

When headlines denouncing 'Booze Britain' and the dangers of binge drinking were splashed across front pages, they reinforced the idea that most people drink excessively on a regular basis. Through the foggy lens of journalism we look at ourselves as a nation and we find out how we behave and what our hopes and fears are - mainly our fears. When newspapers are outraged at politician’s expenses or light penalties for sex offenders, so are we as a nation. As such it follows that when newspapers are casually sexist, we become a bit more casually sexist as a nation.

Sexism is rife in newspapers - especially tabloids. Women are constantly assaulted for being ugly, fat, having too much power, crying wolf in rape accusations, not breast feeding their children enough, having bad taste in clothes, for speaking out of line, for breast feeding their children too much, causing cancer and making house prices fall.

However, one aspect of all the misogynistic rubbish printed in tabloid papers stands out above the rest: The Sun's Page 3. Since 1969 The Sun (Britain's most popular and least trusted newspapers) has printed a picture of a glamour model on its third page. Initially clothed and later topless, these photographs show a misogynistic image of women as young, good looking, sexually available and silent.

Recently an online petition on the website change.org, No More Page 3, has sought the removal of Page 3 from the Sun. At the time of posting this campaign has picked up 46 thousand signatures, as well as press coverage in The Guardian, The New Statesman and on News Night. Social media is buzzing with the very real possibility that this No More Page 3 could be a success. The campaign is well managed, has picked up support from several public figures, including MPs and is targeting The Sun's advertisers such as Lego, Tesco and Sainsbury’s in an attempt to put added pressure on the tabloid. This campaign has attracted criticism from those who go out of their way to defend casual sexism. Unsurprising as this is, I wanted to take a moment to address a few of the misconceptions shaping the arguments in favour of Page 3.

The first strand of criticism mainly comes from a position of middle-class broadsheet superiority. Some argue that Page 3 does not really matter, as the Sun is not a newspaper but a news comic. It is difficult to argue that the Sun is not taken seriously as a newspaper. Certainly it's the main source of news for the ### million people who pay to read it daily. Its power to affect the opinions and actions of the general public was evidenced in the infamous 1992 election day front page, which allowed John Major to narrowly secure a majority. The Sun is clearly a newspaper and what it prints – both news and otherwise – clearly has an effect on its readership.

The problems caused by Page 3 go beyond those who read the Sun, as any newspaper so widely read sets a standard. Page 3 is often the largest picture of a woman in the newspaper. Those other images of women in The Sun are used to shame women for their failings in either being ugly, overweight or having an opinion differ from The Sun's right wing agenda. Page 3 sets a standard of how women are treated, i.e. either ogled or mocked.

The campaign simply seeks the abolition of Page 3 and invites people to support for it for their own personal reasons. People of many different ideological backgrounds have signed the petition. My own objection to Page 3 does not come from any perceived negative psychological damage caused by looking at naked women. Nor does it stem from a puritan desire to cover up women’s flesh. It comes from a desire to liberate women from the casual sexism in our society that Page 3 epitomises. I feel my goals are very much in line with petition’s creator who has demonstrated a desire to bring society to a place where casual sexism of the Page 3 variety is no longer acceptable.

Reading a daily paper is a very normal, very British thing to do and putting casual sexism in a daily paper clocks the misogyny in normality. It reinforces the idea that a sexist attitude to women is the normal way of behaving. It also fixes in the general psyche the view that women exist only to appear sexually desirable to men and when they do not fit into this neat bracket they are worthless. This the normality of of female objectification and the views it support hold back women across the world from gender equality. The campaign wishes to end the normality of female objectification in part through abolishing Page 3 and the way it normalises sexist attitudes.

Another argument used in favour of Page 3 is that it is a harmless hangover from a bygone area, much like Benny Hill or Naughty Nuns postcards. In some ways this is true. Page 3 is from the past, it would not be started today; it would be considered crass and sexist - which it is. The fact that Page 3 would not be started today indicates that it does not reflect the values of our modern society. It is worthy of note that the Daily Mirror used to have Page 3 photographs but stopped the practice in the 1980s because it was seen as demeaning to women.

Some wish to protect Page 3 because they naively yearn for a mostly fictional past age that was free from political correctness. An age where sexism was rife, traditional gender roles were strongly enforced, and any deviation was met with social exclusion. Although most people who look back to the past with fondness will acknowledge that it was sexist, they argue that sexism has been abolished from our modern society. To them, Page 3 is a harmless relic of the past to be preserved so that we do not lose all contact with tradition.

This argument holds little weight as sexism has clearly not been abolished from our society. In place of Benny Hill, Family Guy is making weekly rape jokes. Women have made social and economic progress since the 1970s but the playing field is still not level. Women are poorly represented among heads of state or chief executives of large companies. Where women have risen they have had to endure the ridicule and low esteem in which they are held. This is mainly a result of the institutionalised sexism that Page 3 normalises.

Page 3 reveals how deeply ingrained sexism is in our society. The fact that some wish to defend it is sexist in itself. It shows there is still work to be done in rooting it out misogyny. So long as Page 3 continues the objectification of women will be normal and natural. This in turn maintains the uneven playing field on which women compete for jobs and political power. In the past individual's racist behaviour went unchallenged because broader racist attitudes in society appeared normal. As the idea of racism being the normal state was challenged it allowed individual's be challenged for their racist behaviour. The same is true for sexist. The standard bearers for sexism need to be brought down before sexism can be challenged on an individual level. In the battle for gender equality Page 3 is Tank, ploughing its way across the field, shielding sexism from oncoming fire with the armour of normality.

Page 3 is complexly unacceptable in today's modern news market place and I cannot imagine the writing of Woodward and Bernstein next to the image of a topless woman. Tabloid newspapers use their power to create a culture that publicly shames women. The above example of the public outcry against binge drinking is a perfect example of this as the criticism falls more heavily on women who drink excessively than men. This sexist tabloid culture cannot be stopped until Page 3 and other examples of ingrained sexism are abolished. When the Chicago Times were doing their duty in printing the news and raising hell, I doubt they thought the quality of their work would be increased by daily images of topless women.