I?ve always admired the Sun?s moral stance and it?s forthright attitude to put the worthy news before sensationalism. It?s always ?news first?, ?selling papers second?.
In todays paper we have another example of the hardhitting journalism that we?ve been accustomed to, with the paper?s managing editor, Graham Dudman, saying
?We thought long and hard about publishing, and took the decision that they?re such incredible pictures of the world?s most brutal dictator? they were a compelling image that any newspaper or broadcaster would publish.?
A US military source apparently handed over the pictures showing Saddam as ?an ageing and humble old man? in the hope of dealing a blow to the resistance in Iraq, and destroying the myth of the all-powerful Saddam Hussein.
The Sun has never been afraid to tell it like it is and you?ve got to respect a paper that has shed light on the areas where other newspapers were to scared to go such as ?Freddie Starr Ate My Hampster?.
I hope you realise that I am being sarcastic in this post. The scary thing is that the Sun has a readership of 3 million, and often appeals to the lowest common denominator. With the reading age of the average British adult being seven, the Sun appeals to these folk with stories of 300 words max, and the omission of any words too sesquipedalian . My paper of choice is The Independant for those of you interested. Sadly there?s no page3 girls in it.