Olly Mann on Page 3

What Olly Mann claims about Page 3 in this podcast (starting 00:21:25) is pretty much what most informed people suspect, and the contempt for the 'girls' adds to the air of authenticity:

"I've asked my source at News International [with regard to the 'News in Briefs' editorials on Page 3 in The Sun]... and my source says the deputy editor who's in charge of Page 3 decides the topic and then one of the subs writes it. The girls have nothing whatsoever to do with it, because apart from the one with a degree*, they're as daft they look." - Olly Mann (Source: Answer Me This podcast, Ep 168, February 24, 2011 - relevant audio starting 00:21:25)

The editorial staff at The Sun have gone through long periods of pretending that editorials on Page 3 are a harmless joke, but they cannot do this without dismissing their own politics as a joke.

If there must be editorial content on Page 3, then it should be clearly labelled as opinion (not news) and it should always be the heartfelt, unprompted opinion of the model in question.

Anything less is a lie to readers that exploits these women in the worst possible way.

If Page 3 is their platform, where is their voice?

(*Psst! 'The one with a degree' is Sam Cooke, and her editorials raise similar questions. A 'models are dumb' argument on Page 3 is a needless detour ending in a shallow cul-de-sac.)

Hollie, 22 and topless, gives 'her view' on human rights

The Sun have for the past year or more been going through an extended period of nonsensical self-mockery on Page 3, having the topless ladies quote poets, philosophers and what have you as if the whole matter of Page 3 propaganda has been some harmless joke.

Sorry, but no. Here's what appeared on Monday.



If we take The Sun at their word when they say that Page 3 is about empowerment, then unless we are to accept that this tabloid's long-standing hostility against the Human Rights Act has been a harmless joke, we must conclude that this is the topless model's own opinion, and she has chosen to use her appearance on Page 3 to express it sincerely. So let's have her appear on Newsnight to defend it.

I bet she can't. I bet, at best, she'll walk in briefed by editors but unable to think on her feet, because these aren't her thoughts.

If the women on Page 3 are to appear beside an editorial that's written in their name, then it should be written by them and based on their own opinion. Anything less is crass exploitation, even if they don't show their tits in the process.

The (grown up) family newspaper

Back in May, Apple wouldn't let The Sun appear on an iPhone app because it reckoned the paper's Page 3 was obscene.

The Sun responded by claiming, as it always does, that it is a family paper and page 3 is just fun. Which is a little odd as not many families I know enjoy ogling young ladies' breasts together.

But now, with the arrival of the Sun's iPad app, there has been some sort of a climb down.

The Sun is allowed on to Steve Jobs newest platform and get by his 'no porn' policy by having customers confirm they are 17 years of age or over.

(As an aside, I find Apple's choice of 17 as a restricted content age a little odd as the law for this kind of thing is 18 years.)

If The Sun is admitting that its paper is for adults, shouldn't it be moved up a shelf or two at the newsagents and if it's got content that itself is admitting is age restricted, it might be fun, but is it really for the family?

You gotta fight.... for your right... for booooobies. Allegedly.

Today's Page 3 is quite something (and we can probably expect further examples to rival this and Monday's absurdity as we get closer to election day)

This is such a startling array of shameless deception and doublethink it's hard to know where to begin, but let's start with what should be obvious to anyone reading this with both hands:

- These two MPs would not need to call for a coalition against Page 3 if one already existed, and the Sun clearly implies that it does on Page 3.

- Even if we're to accept the fallacy that the opinions of these two MPs are now the policy of their respective parties, the Sun is turning a blind eye to Tory MP Nadine Dorries, for example, and her recent calls for a more modesty in print. (For the record: Nadine's abortion nonsense has formal backing that goes right to the top; her typically shouty outburst about women's bits does not.)

- Of course, the Sun have confirmed that the Tories won't be backing this policy that doesn't really exist, but you'll note there's no response from the other parties... it's almost as if the Sun didn't bother to ask (or didn't bother to report the answer). Let me guess; they called Cameron's head of communications, Andy Coulson, former editor Sun Sunday sister title News of the World, who shockingly confirmed to the paper blatantly siding with his party that they with would not be backing a ban on the jiggling jewel in their crown. (This assumes, of course, that Coulson didn't engineer this little masterpiece in the first place.)

- Human Rights Act? Would this be the same Human Rights Act that the Sun has vowed to scrap? [1, 2]

- If these models want to guarantee that they are free to speak their mind without hindrance on Page 3, they will probably want to start with their editor. Assuming, of course, that this is their opinion and not another example of young women being exploited as mouthpieces for Rupert Murdoch. They may not have these concerns at all, though they'd be right to.

- As for this 'plan' being "barely credible", well, I have to agree with them there. It's barely even a plan.

This tabloid is plumbing the depths in their panic. It will be worth seeing how much they're willing to bank on Page 3 in coming days (while simultaneously maintaining that it's a 'harmless little joke').

Page 3 :: Girls + Words from Tim Ireland on Vimeo.

PS - Dick Mandrake rocks. That is all.

Porn at 16? We used to support it, now we don't...

First off, apologies for the relative lack of posts here. It's not because there's been a dearth of material, as the paper's coverage of the election can be crudely categorised as falling into two camps, firstly smearing Labour and the Liberal Democrats while indulging in some truly stomach-churning sycophancy towards David Cameron, but more because the election itself is detaining me more than I thought it would.

Here though is the latest attack on the Liberal Democrats, which is not just only slightly less ancient than the Daily Mail's splash last Thursday, but also somewhat hypocritical:

FURIOUS mums have slammed Liberal Democrat plans to let 16-year-olds watch and star in PORN films.

The controversial policy has faced blistering criticism in the chatrooms of Mumsnet, a popular website for mothers.

Under the Lib Dems, the legal age for viewing or appearing in adult movies will be cut from 18 to 16.

But the policy - overwhelmingly passed at the party's conference in 2004 - has now been savaged on the internet by women who claim it is "essentially legalisation of child porn".

We'll ignore the "FURIOUS MUMS" part and just focus on the policy itself, which is perfectly true, if not really mentioned or discussed since 2004. The BBC's news report from the time puts across the party's justification, which is more than adequate in pointing out the disconnect between the age of consent and the age at which you can watch other people engaging in sex:

Mr Foster made the case for allowing 16-year-olds to view pornography during a censorship and freedom of expression debate.

While he had worried the proposals would encourage pornography into schools, "the reality is sexually explicit material is already readily available to 16 and 17-year-olds on the internet", he said.

"Our current policy on censorship and freedom of expression is not only out-of-date, it's inconsistent and it's confusing," Mr Foster said.

"We still do not allow 16-year-olds to watch sex, despite the fact they can currently have sex, lawfully marry and indeed, a woman may choose to have a baby at 16.

"This certainly seems out of date given that as Liberal Democrats, we would extend to 16-year-olds full political and social rights ...

"The proposals are intellectually sound - 16 and 17-year-olds in this country are living in a twilight zone between childhood and adulthood, having lost their children's rights, yet only gaining adult rights in a piecemeal fashion, some at 16, some at 17, some at 18.

"This motion merely proposes consistency on the suitable age for obtaining adult rights in line with the well-established Liberal Democrat policy on 16 as the common age of majority.

There is no mention of allowing 16-year-olds to "star" in pornography incidentally, but then that's where the Sun's hypocrisy enters into it. After all, if we're going back 6 years here, why don't we go back slightly further and remember the fact that the Sun, along with the likes of the Star and Sport, were more than happy not so long ago to err, allow 16-year-old girls to pose topless on their third pages, as Samantha Fox, Maria Whittaker and Debee Ashby to name but three did? Why shouldn't "intelligent, vibrant young women who appear ... out of choice and because they enjoy the job", as former Sun editor Rebekah Brooks (nee Wade) described page 3 models, be allowed to do the same today? Or has the Sun changed its mind in these paedophile-plagued times? The law itself certainly has been, as the 2003 Sexual Offences Act regardless of permission now outlaws 16-year-old topless models, and you somehow doubt that it would be a Liberal Democrat priority should they enter into government with either a Commons majority or as part of a coalition to change it.

Still, another Liberal Democrat policy unearthed and exposed as mad, and if the quote floating around from the paper's political editor Tom Newton-Dunn is accurate, hopefully another step towards ensuring that his job is well and truly done.

Sam Cooke and your chance to discuss politics with a Page 3 girl

The lovely Sam Cooke is a bit of a clever clogs, as her MySpace page explains:

"I left school and went to college to study Physics, chemistry, Biology, Psychology. I was going to do BioChemistry at uni but realised I didn't want to end up doing a job in that field (im even yawning as Im writing this, ha). So I packed up my lab coat and moved to london to do an access course to do a degree in architecture."

She is at present a glamour model and DJ, but The Sun is shining, there's hay to be made, and as Sam points out;

"I can always go back to uni when my time in the modeling world is over"

Well, exactly.

But in the meantime, Sam not only has the opportunity to use Page 3 as a platform for money-making, she is also in a unique position to ask some serious questions about the editorial content on Page 3 and maybe even take a stand against the exploitation of women in that feature.

In short, we'd like to ensure that all Page 3 girls are permitted to speak their mind on Page 3 without undue interference from media owners and/or editorial staff, and we think that Sam is well-placed to help us as we work towards this goal.

Let's take for example Keeley Hazell and the witless lifting of Wikipedia text. Why is this kind of thing necessary when there is a Page 3 girl on hand who is educated in the field of physics (i.e. someone who might actually have had something original/thoughtful/witty to say on the activation of the Large Hadron Collider)?

There's also the potentially-delicate matter of how much independence Sam has enjoyed on Page 3 in comparison to other models, which leads us to these further examples:

It would be interesting to know about Sam's background knowledge and intent with regards to the first two items in the following sample of Page 3 editorials published in her name; especially as the first declares the Conservative origins of the editorial stance, while the second does not (more). Does Sam support the Conservatives as a party? Is she a member? Did she actually read the policy outlined in the first item or investigate the statistics referenced in the second?



Delightfully, all of these questions and more can be put to Sam Cooke quite easily (and most politely), as she's obviously keen on online interaction and can be found here on Twitter.

Of course, depending on how reasonable The Sun are willing to be (stop laughing at the back, please), if Sam did express an opinion and/or take a stand on this issue, she might be taking a position that puts her future modelling income at risk. Judging by how nasty her masters at The Sun can get with people they don't care for (or simply need to compromise for purely political reasons), she may even be putting her reputation at risk.

We will be keeping that in mind when asking about any of this, and we urge our readers to be equally sensitive and polite about it should they decide to pose a question or two themselves.

Cheers all.

Page 3: have a proper gander

Hello, readers. Sorry I've been away for so long, only I've been distracted by repeated attacks on my good name by a series of right-wing bastards, including the current managing editor of The Sun Graham Dudman, who falsely accused me of branding someone a paedophile and has since refused to withdraw the accusation or apologise.

(These attacks all relate to the Glen Jenvey story and subsequent fallout, with most of the trouble originating from a man by the name of Dominic Wightman. I have not yet published the letter from The Sun to the PCC in which Dudman made this false accusation, but only because of constraints on my time due to these ongoing attacks. Hang in there.)

The good news is that I've been quietly beavering away in the background and today I'm finally ready to share the fruits of my labours. Details and background can be found here, but this video is designed to speak for itself, so enjoy:

[MINI-UPDATE: Video now re-hosted at Vimeo. Google/YouTube refuse to remove false claims I'm a paedo from their servers but won't allow a glimpse of boob. Wankers.]

Page 3 :: Girls + Words from Tim Ireland on Vimeo.

Once you're done with lifting your jaw from the floor, please consider printing out a copy of our special A4-sized insert and leaving it inside a copy of The Sun.

I for one think it's about time The Sun stopped shamelessly exploiting these women, and allowed them to speak their own mind for a change.

I hope you agree.

Cheers all.

NOTE - Even if we reach a million people with this message, The Sun will reach more people on a single day (with a single pair of tits) so please share a link to the video with as many people as possible.

Ignoring other parts of the paper

Would it be a bit rich for the columnist of a newspaper that has had a topless girl on it's third page for nih-on thirty years, many of them only just 18 and even 16 before the law was changed in 2003, to be wailing about early sexualisation of children? Apparently not.

Nadia Knows...

“Why are girls having sex so young?” Jane Moore demands in today’s print edition of the Sun. Her article is inspired by the number of 14-year-old girls having abortions – which has increased from 135 to 166 over two years. (On a side note, that’s an increase of 31 girls and may have something to do with rising population.)

However the statistics are interpreted, no one would argue that 14-year-olds having abortions isn’t worrying. But the way Moore discusses the issue shows a disregard for the context in which she writes:

“A spokesman for the Department of Health said extra funds had been invested in contraceptive services… It’s not the bloody point.

The issue here is self esteem… the early sexualisation of young girls.”

This of course is the paper where 18-year-old Rosie from Middlesex can happily strip off on Page 3. I’m not familiar with Rosie’s work, but one might guess this high-profile shoot isn’t her first. But she’s 18 now. So that’s OK.

Going off half cocked

The MOD banning page 3? What are they thinking?

Probably the same as News International, which owns the Sun, according to the Guardian's Media Monkey:

...maybe the Current Bun should be launching a similar campaign much closer to home. Sun hacks have in the past been unable to access the site at its HQ in Wapping as it is rejected by News International's strict internet firewall.

They've only banned page 3!

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Keeley's careless climate change calculations

Let's begin with some comments from the Sun's discussion boards yesterday:

"They're clearly all dole scrounging students with nothing better to do but doing drugs and trying to be 'groovy'..."

"These people like to call themselves anachists...I call them bleeding pests..they are usually middle class guilt ridden unwashed pretend reds."

"NONE OF THEM WERE LATE FOR WORK THEN? QUITE A FEW LOOK AS THOUGH THEY ARE ALLERGIC TO SOAP AND WATER..."

Now you, like others, may have previously thought that the people protesting at Stansted were filthy work-shy hippies, or perhaps middle class posers, but today it turns out that they're actually idle rich:

THOUSANDS of ordinary families faced airport hell yesterday — as well-heeled youngsters blockaded Stansted’s runway in a demo over climate change. The protesters — whose Plane Stupid campaign counts sons and daughters of peers among activists — chained themselves together to halt flights... Adam May, 24, from Clapham, South London, whose flight to meet his girlfriend in Berlin was scuppered, raged: “It makes no sense. They should be banged up.”

In a clear attempt to paint the Stansted protestors in as negative a light as possible and set readers against them, the Sun's editor (who does very nicely for herself on overseas holidays, thank you very much) flexes her working class cred and brings us some completely irrelevant information about the alleged upper-class status of maybe 5 of the 57 protestors... plus a report from a war zone where "gun police" stand between us and chaos some bloke at the airport who, apparently, speaks for everybody.

Stepping quickly through yet another diversion into the discussion pages...

"The demonstrators don't seem to have realised that keeping planes up there waiting to land, or diverting them, simply burns more and more fuel... "

... we arrive safely at a very similar opinion to the one above, only this time on Page 3:

"I have some sympathy for the protestors, but causing so many planes to divert puts MORE carbon dioxide into the atmosphere."

1. Fifty scheduled services (to places much further away than the nearest airport) were cancelled yesterday, so unless Keeley has some clever sums to back it up, this assertion stands on very, very shaky ground.

2. A clearly stated aim of the protestors was the immediate prevention of "the release of thousands of tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere," but the act was also meant to highlight our cheap flight culture and its contribution to carbon emissions. One has to admire the brutal efficiency of Keeley undermining that legacy by the very act of discounting it.

That is, of course, to assume that this is actually Keeley Hazell's opinion we're talking about here. How these opinions manage to arrive on Page 3 and remain unfailingly in line with those of the editor is one of life's great mysteries, and several possibilities are open to us:

- Keeley arrived at this earnestly-held opinion all by herself and offered it unprompted when invited by Rebekah Wade to express an opinion on Page 3.

- Keeley offered a deliberate and disguised attempt to undermine the work of protestors when invited by Rebekah Wade to express an opinion on Page 3.

- Keeley read the comment about diversions and the related fuel consumption (posted to the Sun discussion boards by 'Cannydc' at 07:42 yesterday), found herself agreeing with it, and offered it as her own when invited by Rebekah Wade to express an opinion on Page 3.

- In a shock development likely to make the Andrew Gilligan saga look like a schoolyard folly, Keeley turns out to be 'Cannydc', a male civil servant from Norwich City.

- Keeley has allowed herself to be coerced into a minor role in a mild character assassination.

-

(Psst! There have been similar mysteries popping up like pert nipples recently, with a range of Page 3 lovelies expressing their opinion about specific measures to do with the economy. We are at present allowing these to quietly accumulate.)

Related news items:
BBC - Stansted protest cancels flights
Guardian - Stansted protest: Passengers vent frustration as officials pass blame

A very special occasion

I understand that some people won't be welcoming the news of Barak Obamas' election as good news but likening it to terrorist activity is going a bit far.

AP:

Readers of Britain's popular Sun tabloid got a surprise Wednesday: When they opened their paper, they found a photo of Barack Obama instead of the traditional topless "Page 3 girl."
[...]
"It's not done very often," said spokeswoman Lorna Carmichael. "It has to be a very special occasion. We only do it after very dramatic news, like the 9/11 attacks or the London transport bombings, things like that."

Page 3: Keeley Hazell comments on the Large Hadron Collider

In the latest issue of the Sun, we are told that Keeley (21, from Bromley) "can't wait for boffins to turn on the Large Hadron Collider today," and we are assured that she said the following (no doubt unprompted, while an assistant was busy powdering her nose and tweaking her nipples);

"It's so exciting. The machine's main purpose is to explore the validity and limitations of the current theoretical picture of particle physics."

Perhaps this is someone's idea of a harmless little joke, but for that joke to be funny, one would need to live in a reality where Keeley is but a simple girl who does not bother her head with such things.

If this were the case, surely it would undermine Keeley's previously-stated positions on subjects as serious and as complex as immigration statistics and their impact on social order...



... the budget and its political implications...



... and the impact of recent scientific breakthroughs on the abortion rate:



Or it could simply be the case of Rebekah Wade putting words into the mouths of women she claims to empower, which would be an entirely different kettle of fish and bicycles.

If they were truly empowered, it would be the Page 3 girl's opinion that appears on Page 3, and not the editor's, and that does not appear to be the case most days.

But let's say for argument's sake that it went down like this:

1. INT. OFFICE. DAY. A FEISTY RED-HAIRED BEAUTY [WADE] PICKS UP A PHONE AND DIALS. SPLIT SCREEN AS A BUXOM BLONDE [KEELEY] ANSWERS THE PHONE.

KEELEY: Hello?

WADE: Hello, dahling. We're running photos from your most recent shoot as tomorrow's Page 3, and I wanted to know if you had anything you would like to say for 'News in Briefs'.

KEELEY: Oh, I'd like to comment on the Large Hadron Collider, please. I can't wait for the boffins to turn it on. It's so exciting.

WADE: Good choice. We'll happily feature that. They say it will create a black hole and destroy all life as we know it. What's your take on that?

KEELEY: Well, the machine's main purpose is to explore the validity and limitations of the current theoretical picture of particle physics, an*....

[WADE CUTS HER SHORT]

WADE: Perfect! We'll run it! Toodles!

[AFX: PHONE CLICKS TO A DEAD LINE]
[CUT TO BLACK ON WADE]
[FADE TO BLACK ON KEELEY]

Damn and blast it, did you see what I did there?

I only went and closed the scene without an unexpected dramatic twist!

Tch.

OK, here it is now:

(We apologise for any disruption to the above image. There appears to be something fundamentally wrong with the universe today.)

Page 3: are these her words about Our Boys?

Sam (22, from Manchester) is reportedly delighted that our armed forces are to be honoured with The Sun Military Awards and says:

"We should all remember the sacrifices they make for us every day."

Some efficient wordage from Sam there; her statement could be taken to apply to sacrifices that are made every day and/or that we must remember those sacrifices every day (be they daily or otherwise).

Assuming, of course, that these words came directly from Sam.

Now, I want to make clear here that we are not saying that having a pretty face and a nice set of tits means that you have no brain. I am instead saying that it seems rather fortuitous that the girl selected as today's Page 3 model has decided to express a positive view on one of the matters that editor Rebekah Wade has uppermost in her mind today:

"We are proudly launching The Sun Military Awards — to be known as The Millies — in honour of our brave boys and girls. Charles spoke of his own concerns as a parent after seeing Prince Harry go to war. And he called on the nation to show gratitude for the courage shown and sacrifices made on its behalf."

"Our annual awards ceremony — the first exclusively for the Armed Forces — will highlight the awe-inspiring bravery of these amazing men and women... It is vital to our troops fighting abroad that the public back home are rooting for them. Our annual Millies will, we hope, send them that message loud and clear."

I'll leave to one side how pleased Prince Charles must with the support shown on Page 3 and that this campaign is certainly about 'Our Boys' and not 'Our Circulation' and , because I wish to return to my central point:

Gosh, isn't Rebekah wade *lucky* that the girl scheduled to appear on Page 3 today was so on board with the idea, so comfortable about speaking about it, and so damn eloquent in her delivery?

One can only wonder what happens when the girl scheduled to appear on any given day holds an opinion contrary to the editorial line on the lead story (assuming that this has ever happened, because I've never seen it).

Does she get to choose another story to comment on (in the hope that her opinion on that is more in keeping with the editorial line), or does she lose her chance to appear that day?

In other words, how much say do the Page 3 girls have in what they say on Page 3?

I think readers deserve to know.

EDITOR: Tim Ireland (Beat: Page 3)

Who am I?

My name is Tim Ireland. I live in Guildford and have been blogging since late 2001 at bloggerheads.com

-

What will I be writing about?

My main assignment is Page 3, with general input on the subject of politics and tactics.

I'm sorry if your main assignment doesn't end up being quite so cushy, but I was first in line, so there.

-

Why am I doing this?

This has been on the cards for a very long time, but what finally prompted action was the ad-lib blurted by Team Murdoch after David Davis threw the script out the window. Their true colours were shown not only as they boldly planned to introduce a political candidate funded by a foreign media owner, but also as they ran in fear from the backlash (claiming deliberate irony of all things) *and* had the temerity to brand Davis a 'quitter' as they withdrew from the field of play nursing their boo-boos.

I believe that media owners have too much influence in this country (and others) and that their antics have been a disruptive and negative influence in our democracy for far too long. Murdoch is the worst and most shameless offender at present, and his main weapon is the Sun newspaper. This weapon relies on the ongoing deception of millions of readers, and I think reporting the worst of these will allow us to at least dull the blade.

It is my position that many Sun readers, like most of us human beings, have considerable faults and weaknesses, but I believe that they should be grouped with other victims in this equation and treated as such, no matter how readily they victimise others, or appear* to victimise others.

(*HINT: Not every letter in the Sun is from an actual reader.)

I would expect anyone invited to tale part in this project to both appreciate and consider this position, not least because dismissing all of the Sun's readers as xenophobic nitwits is sure to alienate many of those we are trying to reach. I want to make Sun readers aware that they are being deceived, cheated or manipulated by the tabloid they trust (or dismiss as 'a bit of a larf'), and this can only be made more difficult if they feel they are being treated as the enemy. They need to understand that our pointing out that Rebekah Wade treats them like sheep does not mean that we regard them to be sheep.

Finally, I'm positioned on the left, but I'm not aligned with any political party and I think it would be a mistake to think or claim that any of the techniques used by the Sun are exclusive to the right end of the political spectrum. That said, there are many techniques that are typical of some of the more vocal outlets of News International (such as FOX News), and I see no harm in pointing these out.

-

Why have I chosen Page 3 as my main assignment?

1. I've already tracked this abuse of readers' trust for over four years. Key round-up reports can be found here and here, and many individual reports can be found here.

2. I regard Page 3 to be a useful example of betrayed trust that I think we can use to reach readers of this tabloid and alert bystanders. Many times I've shown people Page 3 and watched them stifle a yawn... until I've pointed out the editorial. I love watching their faces when they realise what's been going on all these years, and my favourite eyebrow-raising example appears below:



A woman paraded like a side of meat was introduced by Murdoch in 1969 (going topless for the first time in 1970), and it has since been defended as a great (if rather recent) British tradition. And yet Sun readers have so far managed to avoid being outraged by the repurposing of this great British tradition as an editorial/propaganda device.

No matter how empowering (or not) you may think it is for a woman to appear on Page 3, you cannot argue that it is in any way empowering to have the opinion of a newspaper owner or editor shovelled into your mouth and passed off as your own to an unwitting readership.

Imagine how the average tabloid reader might feel if they discovered that their favourite celebrity or sports personality didn't actually want to save the whales/rainforests/children, but was instead *told* to say such things by their management in order to pursue management's agenda and/or boost ticket sales. I would imagine if they trusted that celebrity or sports personality in any way that they would be quite displeased, and this is what has been happening to Page 3 girls for years under editor Rebekah Wade.

Of course, this is just the tip of the iceberg, but I'll be contributing here and there on other matters (mostly on my own site or under comments here, given the 'beat' rules). For example, despite having a readership somewhere in the millions, Rebekah Wade still feels compelled to play number-shuffling games that aren't all that different from those played by certain wannabe media-moguls in the blogosphere.

-

Editorial Recruitment, Identity and Introductions

OK, something like the above is what you should expect to see from all editors who choose to join this project, and expectations/conditions that go hand in hand with inclusion are outlined in full below.

Editors will be introduced on an invite-only basis, with the decision to invite a new editor being made by the current group of editors. Members of the initial group will be invited by me personally. Each new editor is expected to write an introductory post including the details outlined below. A link to that post will appear in the sidebar along with their name/nickname, a link to their main site (if they have one), and a link to the profile link that will accompany any of the comments they make on this website (to avoid any identity confusion and/or the fraudulent shenanigans that usually follow any attempted outing of a fraud or team of frauds).

1. Who are you?

I'm reckless enough to operate under my own name, but I do not expect all writers to take this same measure. In fact, I expect that we as a team will rely greatly on our anonymous and semi-anonymous contributors should News International decide to start playing the man and not the ball. (I fully expect this to happen at some stage, BTW... which is why I'm building a Hydra that can move on to any location with or without the help of any team members that may be subjected to attack... including myself. The idea is to make it clear to Wade and other senior News International bods that it will be a very bad idea to attempt to bully any of us into silence, lest they get Usmanoved *and* have to deal with a renewed version of their original target.)

Fair warning: Tabloid types rarely play fair, so if you are in any way anonymous, they will use that to discredit you (and those around you), and often this will work to some degree even if they do this anonymously. If you blog under your real name, it is more than likely that they will use any details they can summon up about your past or private life to discredit or intimidate you (and here's a recent example of the latter).

Those invited to take part in this collaborative blog are free to make a decision about identity for themselves. The only condition laid down for all contributors is that they use one online identity and one online identity alone. If you already blog under your real name, you cannot join this project under an assumed name. If multiple identities have been used by you in the past for whatever reason, it is important that this practice stop from the moment you join this team.

(There is only one single exception to this rule: At some stage of the project, we will be engaging in some sport with our readers, the good people of the Sun and their readers by going 'undercover' within their little world. We will be telegraphing/announcing this move to avoid the usual faux-outrage and charges of sock-puppeting that originate from sock-puppeting tosspots, but it will be up to the Sun and our readers to spot us in action.)

2. What will you be writing about?

Most users are expected to provide general input on the subject of media, tactics and politics (usually under comments), but for the most part each contributor will have one subject or aspect to cover and they will cover this *only* when a good story or clear opportunity presents itself.

This structure is designed to keep our writers fighting-fit, and our readers engaged with a variety of quality coverage using clear examples of duplicity, hypocrisy and outright deception.

A primary reason for this should be obvious if you have ever watched anyone seek to avoid accountability by claiming that they are the victim of a petty vendetta.

So, each writer gets a specific section or aspect of the newspaper to cover. That's their beat, they are expected to stick to it and they are only expected to submit a post of their own when they have a juicy story from their beat.

3. Why are you doing this?

The only condition for this is that you are honest with yourself and the readers of this weblog, so tell it like it is. In some cases, a link or links to appropriate pages on your website will tell most of the story, but if you have significant political leanings or affiliations that influence your motive(s), it might pay to go to the trouble of declaring them here.

4. Why have you chosen your specific beat and/or what skills and expertise can you bring to it?

Not all editors will have the luxury of choosing their beat, but often there will be very good reasons why it was chosen for them. What is expected here is a paragraph or two explaining why you may know what you're talking about.

-

Editorial Policy

Additional to any guidance/policy outlined above:

a) All editors may operate independently, and write in their own style at their own pace. You are only expected to write what you want (on your beat) when you want. You are most certainly not expected to blog every day.

b) Editors are expected to stick to their beat and hand story tips, research and discoveries that are off their beat to the appropriate editor(s). Some collaboration/overlap may be required from time to time, but please stick to your beat wherever possible.

c) If there's a whopper of a story at the top of the front page, please think twice before posting and 'pushing' that story from the top spot, especially on its first day out.

d) Initially, each editor will be assigned a Label (i.e. a 'tag' or category) for their beat. Please do not create Labels additonal to those already in use without first discussing this with other editors.

e) This first incarnation has been launched in an account under my name. There was no way around this, and until the situation changes (i.e. with a new incarnation that follows this one), I get the final say on what may or may not be considered a fair comment/risk, especially when it comes to libel.

f) For this reason, I'll be moderating comments exclusively to begin with, but expect to share this task with other editors in the near future.

g) If you have any doubts about any of the above, you are expected to run it by the group. A mailing list will be set up for this purpose and for general chat and housekeeping.

-

Mission Statement

In this incarnation of the ongoing 'Sun watch' project, we are attempting to reach readers of the Sun newspaper and show them not just that they are being deceived, but how they are being deceived.

Readers of the Sun as a whole are not to be treated as the enemy here, and editors are expected to keep the above in mind when writing any story for this website or submitting any comment to this website.

Similarly, editors are expected to be sensitive to this policy on their own websites from this point on, no matter what might have been said in the past.

If this changes on this site or any other that follows it, a new mission statement must be published that makes it clear what those changes are and why they have been made.

-

And so it begins

Invitations will be issued over the next week.

Subtle changes may be made to this first post and/or proposed policy as negotiations take place with those invited to be editors.

Cheers all.

Tim Ireland