‘BURN THE WITCH’: AN OVER-DUE DEFENCE OF AMBER HEARD IN A MANIACALLY MISOGYNISTIC MEDIA

1
by Sunetra Senior

Content warning: abuse, domestic violence, sexism

It is difficult not to be polarised on any given topic in the explosively divisive climate we are living through. However, emerging from the sensationalism is an irrefutable objective truth in the high-profile trial, where megastar Johnny Depp is suing his ex-wife, up-and-coming actress Amber Heard, for $50 million over editorial defamation: a clear example of inherent misogyny of the media. Heard penned her self-professed subjective piece in The Washington Post, supportively discussing a ‘Transformative Moment for Women’ during the height of the #MeToo campaign. The article, which was read out during the trial as part of Heard’s opening statement, was intelligently and boldly written, focussing on the actress’ harrowing experience of speaking out as female victim of domestic violence and the progressive change within the industry that she wishes to see. Further to this, there was no mention of Johnny Depp specifically or any of the personal accounts, currently being spewed out in public, due to his bringing her to court.

It is worth remembering that Depp lost his prior lawsuit against The Sun for referring to him as ‘abusive’, and in which the British judge found him guilty on 12 counts of the alleged domestic violence. To use the defendant’s own words in court then, he has ironically made democratic activism solely “about him.” 

Continue Reading

DON’T PANIC

by Zoe Harding

First up, before we get into the piece, my condolences to the friends and family of those who were killed in Westminster and St Petersburg, and I wish a speedy recovery to the injured. If you personally know anyone hurt or killed in the incident, you might want to leave this article for a few days.

With that in mind, everyone else: what the fuck?Continue Reading

WHAT IS CENSORSHIP? BOOKHIVEGATE, FOR FUCK’S SAKE

by  Zoe Harding

Content warning: Strong language, sexual assault, Nazi imagery, hazardous levels of idiocy. The following is the author’s opinion.

So this is happening. Now, like most people, I’m obviously not in favour of censorship. Or state-sanctioned drone strikes firing missiles entirely filled with out-of-date shrimp, for that matter. I believe everyone has the right to say whatever the hell they like, and everyone else has the right to punch them in the face if that speech advocates fucking genocide. Hello again, assorted term-searching wank sandwiches.

But sometimes, sometimes, I find myself out back filling a hollowed-out Hellfire with 2014’s prawns, because sometimes the story is a respected author picking a fight with a bookshop she’s apparently never been to because they don’t stock books by some random orange fascist cunt in a different country, and that, somehow, is ‘censorship.’Continue Reading

POST-TRUTH POLITICS AND THE WAR ON INTELLECT

4

by Robyn Banks

Does it follow that I reject all authority? Far from me such a thought. In the matter of boots, I refer to the authority of the bootmaker; concerning houses, canals, or railroads, I consult that of the architect or engineer.”- Mikhail Bakunin

There’s a new buzzword in the air. We are now living, it is claimed, in a post-factual or post-truth society, where facts no longer matter to the general public. At face value it seems like a bizarre claim. But while politicians and the media have always lied to the public, if you consider the audacity of the lies of the last decade in contrast to the sheer number of tools available to us to find out the truth, you begin to see the point.Continue Reading

NO MORE PAGE 3: BOYCOTTING THE DAILY STAR

by Asia Patel

On 24th October 2013, a motion was passed at a UEA Union Council meeting which identified the issues with The Sun and decided to boycott the newspaper from Union outlets. On 12th February 2015, I brought forward a motion which amended the original one to include The Daily Star as part of the boycott. It passed, but not without its fair share of controversy and debate.

Through the passing of the original motion, the Union had acknowledged the serious problems with The Sun, but the policy had been written in a restricting way which meant that other media also displaying similarly questionable content could not be included as part of the boycott. This is why amendments were made to the motion – to make them more inclusive and ensure that policies are not being selectively applied. Continue Reading

NO MORE BREASTS – A “HUGE STEP FOR CHALLENGING MEDIA SEXISM”?

1

by Robyn Sands

Topless page 3 models have been a seminal feature of the Sun newspaper since 1970, less than a year after it was bought by Rupert Murdoch. You would have had to have been living under a rock to miss the media furore surrounding page 3 last week as the Times, the Sun’s sister paper, reported that the paper would be pulling the feature, before the Sun revealed it had all been a spectacularly banterous effort to make women with dissenting opinions look stupid.

Continue Reading