26 June 2013 - 12:28pm | posted by | 3 comments

The Sun’s Page 3 is set to stay, new editor insists, saying ‘stuff at the British Museum is more raunchy’

The Sun’s Page 3 is set to stay, new editor insists, saying ‘stuff at the British Museum is more raunchy’The Sun’s Page 3 is set to stay, new editor insists, saying ‘stuff at

David Dinsmore, who was appointed new editor of The Sun last week, has announced that Page 3 girls will continue in the newspaper.

Dinsmore insisted that the topless pictures are ‘a good way to sell newspapers’, while comparing it to a new Japanese exhibit: "This stuff at the British Museum is far more explicit and raunchy."

He revealed his plans while speaking on the radio station LBC 97.3 and BBC Radio 5 Live today, adding that only people who ‘don’t read The Sun’ want the page canned.

Campaigners No More Page 3 tweeted their thoughts on the news:

Comments

26 Jun 2013 - 13:17
rosiemilton's picture
48
comments

What a comparison! A suitably inflammatory comment from a man in such a role..! One must admire the aesthetics of the statement, even if the spokesperson in question clearly hasn't got a clue about historical applications of beauty..

3
0
26 Jun 2013 - 15:46
kathug's picture
3
comments

Wonder if David Dinsmore has daughters

1
0
26 Jun 2013 - 16:32
scritty's picture
27
comments

I would fight for his right to show topless models on Page 3 - but all the same it seems like an anachronism. Worse, just innapropriate. Would people really stop buying the Sun if it stopped? There is a place for erotica - in fact there are probably too many "times and places" for it now. It's overkill, - I'm not sure a daily newspaper really has any place in that market. As for "historical applications of beauty" what a crock of nonsense. Justifying a cheap thrill isn't something that just happned in the post 1950's era. Michaelangelo's David was supposed to have been one of the most fantasized about artworks ever (by gay men of the day) it got to the point where they had to legislate to stop people from touching it "innapropriatel;y" It was art. Sure - hallowed by time - certainly - allowed because of that to have a different rule set to anything modern? No - definitely not! Even Marge Simpson learned that one.

0
0

Write Your Comment

New to The Drum

You will be sent a verification email. Click on the link in the email to post your comment.

Directory Latest