I must question Mike Darcey's disingenuous and flawed defence of The Sun's publication of Page 3 topless models.
The News UK chief executive revealed that focus groups of readers showed that they are happy with Page 3.
I've no doubt they are. But I wonder if reader support for an editorial line is sufficient justification in itself for publication.
For example, Sun focus groups would probably back the return of capital punishment, urge wholesale repatriation of immigrants and be happy about homosexuals being called poofs and lezzies.
Rightly, The Sun would never adopt such editorial policies nor stoop to publishing such views nowadays. Why? Because the paper refuses to pander to such prejudices (as it once did) despite knowing that much of its audience espouses them.
The paper's owner, Rupert Murdoch, and its current editor, David Dinsmore, would doubtless argue that the death penalty is wrong in principle and practice, that immigration is good for society and that homosexuals are deserving of dignified and equal treatment.
It is fair to say that, despite the reactionary views of Sun readers, they hold to those views by taking care what they publish in regard to those three topics.
And they would stick to that whatever was said within a focus group. Why then are women treated differently?
