Tuesday, January 17, 2006

Pictures of Prostitutes, the Golden Globes and Odd Newsagents

Sky NewsBBC.co.ukThe GuardianITNThe TimesThe TimesThe MirrorInteresting to see various news sites' use of stock photos to illustrate the government's about-face on legalised red light districts. Prostitutes' legs are a big favourite amongst e-Fleet Street picture editors. Bonus points for the Times for their almost arty photo of a handwritten sign saying 'model'. Question marks awarded to the Mirror (last photo) for what appears to be a picture of a woman getting into her car. Whore!

The story is either reported as a 'Crackdown on Kerb-Crawlers' or 'Mini Brothels Made Legal', depending on whether you're a glass half-full sort of person or not.

What the hell, exactly, is a Golden Globe? Why are we being told about them? Are they like a pre-season friendly match before the Oscars? The equivalent of an ITV awards ceremony where Emmerdale actually wins awards? Gah.
While thinking about newspaper headlines, there's a shop near where I work that has a local paper headline board outside the shop. It's carefully put outside every day, but the headline hasn't changed in months. I must go in and ask them whether there's any personal reason the shopkeeper wants everyone to see the headline 'Love Rat Strangles Girlfriend With Flex' at the expense of all newer news. Is it the extraneous detail in the headline he so loves? I'm surprised he hasn't added his own punctuation - 'Love Rat Strangles Girlfriend (With Flex!)'. Weirdo. That's the last time I buy a Kit Kat Chunky in there, I'm telling you.

1 comment:

  1. A school teacher with a secret18 January 2006 at 14:53

    Maybe they use pictures of the legs because they can't use pictures of their faces. (Journos with a working knowledge of whatever the picture equivalent of libel is, let me know).
    And even if most of them WERE prostitutes, the picture editors would probably have to pixelate their faces anyway, since they're probably mostly minors...
    Also, isn't it just a legitimate excuse for broadsheet editors to show a gratuitous bit of ladyflesh without being accused of gutter journalism?