![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
waitingmanJust came home tonight & fired up the 'web, as one does, to see who we declared war on in the time it takes to shut down, turn off at work & commute to the 'Manor.
My home page is the Sydney Morning Herald website & their lead story this hour or so carried this image:
The accompanying story was about a record-breaking gathering of bikini-clad girls on Bondi Beach, forming the name of a popular women's magazine. But as you can see, the name of the magazine is incomplete in their photo...
Smelling a bit of media rivalry/jealousy (the SMH is owned by Fairfax Media)), I went to news.com.au & sure enough, their lead story was accompanied by this photo... & a gallery of close-up shots (this is a Murdoch site, after all):
As you can see, the magazine's accepted abbreviation is shown in full.
So my questions are: Why run the story if you're not going to provide all the facts? Given that the whole story was to do with an ad for a rival media empire, why not just ignore it? Is the SMH site just pandering to statistics that show more men use the 'net than women ~ so may as well give 'em something to look at before they (f)log on to the Ralph/FHM sites?
And a further question: Am I really interested in such a debate, or is it just an excuse to post pictures of girls in bikinis?
In other news, I survived a day at work surrounded by lots of tradesmen & renovators, without getting a single scratch!!
I'll drink to that!!!
Oh... & I'll drink to this news too!!!!!!!!
Cheersh...
My home page is the Sydney Morning Herald website & their lead story this hour or so carried this image:
The accompanying story was about a record-breaking gathering of bikini-clad girls on Bondi Beach, forming the name of a popular women's magazine. But as you can see, the name of the magazine is incomplete in their photo...
Smelling a bit of media rivalry/jealousy (the SMH is owned by Fairfax Media)), I went to news.com.au & sure enough, their lead story was accompanied by this photo... & a gallery of close-up shots (this is a Murdoch site, after all):
As you can see, the magazine's accepted abbreviation is shown in full.
So my questions are: Why run the story if you're not going to provide all the facts? Given that the whole story was to do with an ad for a rival media empire, why not just ignore it? Is the SMH site just pandering to statistics that show more men use the 'net than women ~ so may as well give 'em something to look at before they (f)log on to the Ralph/FHM sites?
And a further question: Am I really interested in such a debate, or is it just an excuse to post pictures of girls in bikinis?
In other news, I survived a day at work surrounded by lots of tradesmen & renovators, without getting a single scratch!!
I'll drink to that!!!
Oh... & I'll drink to this news too!!!!!!!!
Cheersh...
