HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Reeva Steenkamp From the ...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Sat Feb 16, 2013, 01:15 AM

Reeva Steenkamp From the Guardian

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/feb/15/reeva-steenkamp-body-on-front-page


Reeva Steenkamp's corpse was in the morgue, her body was on the Sun's front page

The Oscar Pistorius case has been called a tragedy for South Africa, for sport, for disability rights but what about the victim and her family? To parts of the media, she is just hot.

On Friday,, the Daily Mail and Daily Star were good enough to publish a spread of Reeva Steenkamp's lingerie shots, as befits a family newspaper. If you're asking what sort of family demands the sexy-ing up of stories about murdered women, I'm drawing a blank. (The provisional wing of the Manson family?) Doubtless they'll claim they used these pictures because modelling was one of Steenkamp's jobs and the next time they illustrate a story about a murdered hairdresser with pictures of her cutting hair, or a murdered student in the college library, we can treat that justification with something other than a tired: "Bull. Shit." In this age, many female victims' social media imprint would yield an image of them at their place of work, and you should totally, totally expect news outlets to use it if the choice comes down to that or a beach snap of them scantily clad.

As for the Sun, this is a paper that still asterisks the word t*t, even when it appears on the same page as a picture of the genuine body part, as though its readers beholding that central "i" in print might cause some catastrophic debasement of a culture it works so tirelessly to elevate. Meanwhile, Friday's Sun front page actually had a very strong news line if true on the Pistorius story, but it almost literally paled into insignificance next to that most provocative of bikini shots.

Those with the stomach to turn the page might have noted that the paper didn't bother with a Page 3 on Friday, maybe because that particular itch had been scratched by the murder victim. All of which puts one in mind of Murdoch's musing over what to do with Page 3. "Perhaps halfway house with glamorous fashionistas," he tweeted last week. What Rupert is after, this made clear, is a better class of tit not those cheap tits, attached to downmarket scrubbers so guilelessly keen to show you them, but the sort of chic tit you get on the catwalk where it looks like the tit's owner can take or leave you looking at it, or the sort of tit you see if some celebrity has failed to establish exactly what flashbulbs might do to a material that appeared opaque when she left the house.

Yet surely this week's approach presents an elegant solution to Rupert's dilemma. If only a hot woman could get murdered every day, then the Sun wouldn't need Page 3, because they could dredge up some semi-covered tits in the highfalutin' cause of illustrating a news story about her corpse. Perhaps the number crunchers can work up an action plan I imagine they'd call this killing two birds with one stone.


It amazes me that for such a horrible crime, that the focus seems to be on everything but the fact that a woman is dead. Western culture is sickening.

12 replies, 1863 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 12 replies Author Time Post
Reply Reeva Steenkamp From the Guardian (Original post)
smirkymonkey Feb 2013 OP
smirkymonkey Feb 2013 #1
MotherPetrie Feb 2013 #2
smirkymonkey Feb 2013 #3
littlemissmartypants Feb 2013 #4
smirkymonkey Feb 2013 #5
smirkymonkey Feb 2013 #6
muriel_volestrangler Feb 2013 #7
smirkymonkey Feb 2013 #9
smirkymonkey Feb 2013 #8
smirkymonkey Feb 2013 #10
dkf Feb 2013 #11
smirkymonkey Feb 2013 #12

Response to smirkymonkey (Original post)

Sat Feb 16, 2013, 01:31 AM

1. K&R

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to smirkymonkey (Original post)

Sat Feb 16, 2013, 01:32 AM

2. K&R and ICAM

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MotherPetrie (Reply #2)

Sat Feb 16, 2013, 02:04 AM

3. Nobody seems to care about the poor woman who was shot.

The whole focus seems to be on the Olympic hero and his accomplishments. It's sickening.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to smirkymonkey (Original post)

Sat Feb 16, 2013, 02:12 AM

4. Haven't they heard about the

War On Women?

Love, Peace and Shelter. lmsp

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to littlemissmartypants (Reply #4)

Sat Feb 16, 2013, 04:25 AM

5. Apparently not.

It's very sad.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to smirkymonkey (Original post)

Sat Feb 16, 2013, 05:03 AM

6. K&R for the morning group.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to smirkymonkey (Original post)

Sat Feb 16, 2013, 06:22 AM

7. And they also point out other British tabloids, and the New York taboids, did this

though only The Sun seems to have generated the backlash.

But after having read about the scandal in the UK, what I was not expecting to see as I walked to work in New York was the same offence repeated in New York's daily newspapers and, apparently, not a word of anger about it. There was the New York Post with the huge headline "Blade Slays Blonde", reducing the dead Steenkamp to a woman identified only by the colour of her hair. Under the headline, the inevitable picture of her in a bikini.

Of course, the Post is, like the Sun, owned by Rupert Murdoch's New Corp. But then, there was the Daily News. The picture the News used was even worse. In that newspaper, which traditionally in New York considers itself a cut above the more rough-and-tumble Post, Steenkamp is shown in a pink bikini with the top partly unzipped. In her hand, she clutches an ice cream cone; drips of the white, melting confection are leaking onto her hand. Not exactly subtle.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/feb/15/new-york-tabloids-sun-reeva-steenkamp

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to muriel_volestrangler (Reply #7)

Sat Feb 16, 2013, 10:38 AM

9. I think what is so angering about it is that they treat her like she was

simply a non-human being. Just an object as which to look at. She was a person with a life and a family and should be respected as such.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to smirkymonkey (Original post)

Sat Feb 16, 2013, 07:55 AM

8. Of course. A typical Mudoch rag.

Denigrating a dead woman for ratings. It's sickening.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to smirkymonkey (Original post)

Sat Feb 16, 2013, 01:38 PM

10. You know, what really pisses me off is that there those more outrage at a

poster saying that the guy who had "fake legs" than that the fact that a woman had been murdered by her boyfriend. There is a seriously misplaced sense of outrage at DU these days.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to smirkymonkey (Reply #10)

Sat Feb 16, 2013, 01:45 PM

11. Is there any evidence that it was a domestic case yet?

 

If he fired the bullets into the bathroom I would think its pretty much case closed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dkf (Reply #11)

Sat Feb 16, 2013, 05:07 PM

12. Not definite evidence, but he has been charged with murder.

There had been numerous DV calls to the home previously. The guy was a loose cannon.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread