CW: Frequent mentions of The Sun
As the old saying goes, even a broken clock is right twice a day, and in this case, The Sun has taken a brave and admirable stand against Boris Johnson
This issue, published on January 25th, 2022, reports on the now infamous Downing Street house parties that took place over June as well as Christmas of 2020, while the majority of the country was locked inside, unable to see family. The parties were widely frowned upon by every end of the political spectrum, as shown by the most far-right newspaper in the UK, The Sun
Of course, it does have the classic "Sunisms" such as the attractive woman on the cover and the celebrity gossip in the plug at the top, but it still opposes Boris in a way, while still being the classic Sun we all... I wouldn't say love but either way
In terms of the copy, it makes a joke out of Johnson, playing on the phrase "You can't have your cake and eat it too" by using it to reference Johnson's birthday, the reasoning of the party that took place. It comes across like its teasing Johnson for such a mistake, rather than genuine criticism of his actions. The cover also references the number of people attending the party multiple times. Once in the red lettering above the main heading, and a second time in the description on the side. this could be to really emphasise and rub in how bad it was, especially with a number as large as 30 people
The image used is also interesting to note, as it makes Johnson look almost embarrassed, like he's just been pointed at and laughed at (something the Sun does very well). In a way, it also comes like its bantering him, fitting with the lovable oaf persona Johnson created for himself. The Sun is treating Boris like their mate at the pub who just got found out for cheating on his wife rather than as the leader of a country who broke the very rules he put in place more than once.
Since it is The Sun we're talking about, we can't really expect any sort of hard hitting criticism of Johnson, and being a tabloid paper, there isn't going to be any substantial copy on the cover. However, the very fact that the paper even opposed Johnson at all, albeit in a very minor way, rather than valiantly defending him like his knight in bright red and white and blue armour, is evidence enough of how much Johnson was in the wrong. Even his most strong supporters kicked him to the kerb in shame.
Comments