What will everyone be discussing at the World Economic Forum in Davos - apart from Bono's new superdark sunglasses and the luxurious hospitality accompanying debates about third world poverty? At a recent event I attended, the speakers concluded that ageing populations will dominate the agenda.
Context has been thrown away for many people online and in its place is a new and dangerously ignorant reality. By the time art collector Dasha Zhukova issued her grovelling apology on Tuesday afternoon for having been photographed sitting on a Bjarne Melgaard chair in the form of a black woman, millions of people around the world had already got a completely wrong opinion of her.
Bobi was a political pawn, used by the media to condemn the RSPCA. In this case, the two charities in question were both doing the right thing in relation to the remit of their policies. The media hysteria, public bias and negative publicity meant that the death of Bobi would have haunted the RSPCA in 2014.
During the Christmas period, the number of sexually suggestive perfume advertisements doubles in number. Such famous examples are Jean Paul Gaultier whose naked vixen wakes up alone after a night with a sailor suggests that sex with an unknown companion is perfectly acceptable. At least over 75% of perfume adverts give that same message to young people.
Why do I feel more cheerful this January, no longer counting the days until February 1 rolls by? Could it be something to do with ditching dry January and looking forward to a glass of something chilled and white on most evenings - what a difference that makes.
Recently the No More Page 3 team noticed that @rustyrockets had been responding to our supporters, saying he was behind us and expressing how he wanted a T-shirt. Did this surprise me? No. If anything I'm surprised it took him as long as it did!
Why does every conversation about Lena or her work have to be derailed by gleeful squabbling about her nakedness, even now, three seasons later? Can't we just talk about the show without this intense, exhausting scrutiny of Lena's body?
New Year, new resolutions? You don't need to feel punished to brighten your outlook and put spring in your step this January. Forget strict eating plans and complicated exercise regimens, at Vogue Paris we've been celebrating the New Year with a rejuvenating and thoroughly luxurious line-up of products and health tips.
I was interested to see this week that, just days after we learned of President François Hollande's troubled private life, the European Court of Human Rights set out some useful guidelines about where it thinks the line should be drawn when it comes to the private lives of public figures.
I have an uneasy feeling - like the time I decided to back the wrong friend over who stole the other's Sherbet Straws in school - but I vehemently disagree with Jezebel's offer to pay Vogue $10,000 to see Lena Dunham's unretouched photos from its cover shoot.
When it comes to female self-esteem and body image, Vogue is unequivocally part of the problem and not part of the solution. It is the gold standard in an industry that wilfully damages self-esteem to cultivate a dependent market. By being their cover girl, Lena is not just lending them her credibility but also a tacit approval of their methods and behaviour.
This is simply the work of a surly photographer imposing into another celebrity's private life; the photograph was taken on a backstreet while Jennifer was shopping with a friend, she didn't spark up live on stage or television. Celebrity or otherwise, how Jennifer deals with her post-cancer recovery is her business. And hers alone.
Apparently 60% of men would consider being a stay at home dad. I find that men who were raised by strong career women have more respect for equality than those who weren't. I have friends who have shared six months each of maternity/paternity leave and friends who will argue that it should be a mother's responsibility. In a progressive society, nothing beats equality.
The allegation by the Independent that there is a "war" on female foetuses by certain communities in this country is both unsubstantiated and extremely insulting to the people who belong to those communities. Nonetheless, the suggestion that any woman feels under pressure to bring a child of a certain sex into the world, and feels that she has failed if she delivers a girl, is intensely depressing and distressing... We may well find the notion of sex-selective abortion extremely disturbing, where it exists. But further curtailing women's already highly regulated reproductive choices will never be the answer to gender inequality.
I'm no opponent of fantasy, or of shock value. I also don't believe McKerrow or his company set out to deceive or mislead anyone. I do, however, know first-hand the disconnect between us media folk, who are comfortable living our lives as a dance of smoke and mirrors, and ordinary people, who assume that when they say things they will usually be taken as meant. The problem here isn't any kind of sinister right-wing agenda (as critics of Benefits Street allege). Rather, the media's fluid reality has clashed against the more unyielding reality known to most people, with uncomfortable results.
As a child I was always told not to have double standards, as it wasn't only impolite, it was plain stupid. But that's exactly what's happening with how with the tone of debate that some in the media are pushing, downright idiotic and based on mere scaremongering.