#HerNameWasReevaSteenkamp

When I wake, one of the first things I do is browse Twitter. So it was, yesterday, that I discovered the awful news about Oscar Pistorius and Reeva Steenkamp. Whatever the explanation - and Twitter was abuzz with speculation about him mistaking her for a burgler, with the odd dark hints about temper problems - the story was tragic.

With Pistorius' status as an international sportsman, an ambassador for Paralympians and as a role model for millions, he was, inevitably, going to be the focus. Ultimately, though, a young woman is dead and she should not be forgotten beneath our own grief at an idol brought low.

As the day went on focus seemed to switch from the suggestion of some sort of mistaken identity to official police reports of previous incidents at his home. People delved into his Twitter history to find reports of his prowess with guns and hints of temper problems. And Reeva Steenkamp became almost footnote - Oscar Pistorius' girlfriend, 29 (or 30, depending on what report you read).

A lot of what I've outlined so far is entirely to be expected: Pistorius was the one in the public eye and his arrest for murder is therefore a significant news story in it's own right. Indeed, sad to say, but it's the only reason that the tragic killing of Reeva Steenkamp is news at all in this country. But in the reporting of the story some of the press has lost sight of the fact that she was a person in her own right, with an identity that went beyond being Pistorius' girlfriend.

And now The Sun and The Star have published their front pages online... and, well, I'll let this brief Storify take up the story from here; it's a snapshot selection of some tweets which have used the hashtag #HerNameWasReevaSteenkamp:

Needless to say, both The Sun and The Star front pages have appalled me - I cannot for the life of me see how the objectification of a woman whose life has been so tragically ended can be justified. It's crass, it's insensitive, it's inhumane and it's beyond the pale. It's as if Leveson never happened. Andrew

Not Safe For Work : Page 3

Question: Why did I feel the need to advertise that this post was Not Safe For Work when every day, up and down the country, millions of men and woman read The Sun at their places of employment and every one of them will see a comparable image?

Every single one of those readers will see page three. Every weekday, a different topless woman will be smiling out at the reader. Every one of them will be reduced to a first name, an age and a location. Kayleigh, 23, Rotherham. Jo, 19, Maidenhead. Helen, 21, Weston-super-Mare.

Page 3 is a misogynistic hangover from an era that has past. It objectifies and marginalises woman in casual, offhand fashion. Through the "News In Briefs" feature (which is genius) it seeks to suggest that this is all tongue in cheek, a bit of fun, harmless. In reality it is inappropriate in the context of a mass-market, family newspaper.

I've no idea whether the image above - taken from The Sun's website on a page last updated in May this year - appeared in the print copy of the paper or not. For the purposes of this post, it matters little. The headline above the picture was "Honeys 4 nothing, Page 3 for free." It's so achingly clever, you almost overlook the underlying implications and assumptions.

It used to be considered acceptable for workmen to wolf-whistle and shout at woman who passed building sites. Then it became frowned upon before it became totally unacceptable. Page 3 is stuck in the era of builders leaning over scaffolding and suggesting that "you don't get many of those to the pound"...

I believe that even The Sun tacitly accepts that Page 3 isn't that appropriate, or appreciated, beyond it's traditional market. If you read the paper on a Saturday, the page 3 girl normally acquires some lingerie (and often is a "celebrity"). Does this suggest that there could be scope to grow or develop their weekday market without page three? Who knows? Perhaps any change will come down to a commercial decision, rather than as the result of a moral or philosophical judgement.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not a prude. I'm not generally in favour of banning things and I wouldn't support a ban on page 3. I do think, though, that The Sun should consider dropping it voluntarily, just as The Mirror did around 20 years ago. If men or woman want to look at naked women, there are plenty of other places where they can find such pictures - places where the news won't get in the way.

For more on this, see the ever-excellent Caron's post on the subject - and consider signing the petition to take the bare boobs out of The Sun. In the words of their current advertising campaign: Get Involved.

Andrew