The News of the World used to be famous for a self-righteous prurience that brought respectable people all the filth they longed to read without corrupting their self-image. The Sun's Sunday edition seems a shadow of its former stablemate. I don't mean it has given up on the soft porn: there are still pages of leering lovelies wrapped around the sermons from the archbishop of York. But it doesn't have the self-righteousness the NoW once had.
Instead, the raucous and shameless energy of the tabloid press is now found in the Mail Online, and especially in the strip of thumbnail pictures down the right known as the "sidebar of shame" which specialises in women's breasts and buttocks.
Last week alone, it offered:
"Place your butts! Forget the horses … all eyes are on Carol Vorderman in a sexy figure-hugging dress at Cheltenham", or, for American bum-fanciers "Check It Out! A bikini-clad Nicki Minaj shows off her VERY shapely behind on the set of new video".
But mostly the sidebar had its eyes on higher things: "Selena Gomez displays her toned stomach in ANOTHER barely there outfit on set of Spring Breakers."
Most often it looks higher still: "A right mesh! Rihanna reveals far too much in see-through top as she dines in New York", or "Need a bigger bikini Rita? Rusic, 51, almost falls out of her itsy bitsy two-piece as she hits the Miami beach". This story was apparently so important that it appeared the next day, too: "Peekaboo! Bikini-clad Rita Rusic reveals more than beach-goers bargain for as she readjusts her swimsuit".
Sometimes the angle widens to show us the whole woman: "Where's the rest of it? Amy Childs vajazzles on the catwalk as she launches her skimpy clothing range."
And once or twice there is even a suggestion that these women have minds, even if there's only one thing on them. Who can forget the sidebar's coverage of American politics: "'I'm strictly dickly … I love sex and I love men'. Former presidential candidate's daughter Meghan McCain opens up for Playboy interview."
The sidebar of shame does a lot to explain, I think, why the Mail Online is now one of the two largest newspaper websites in the world, disputing top place with the New York Times. It's not the only reason. The site also writes headlines, and picks stories, that make you want to read on. But since it is clearly a machine for amassing click-throughs, the predominance of these stories tells us a lot about what popular journalism on the internet is going to be like.
At this point, my piece runs into a difficulty. The traditional ending would be itself holier-than-thou, just like the paper I am poking fun at: a sad meditation on how it is that the moral guidance of Stephen Glover or Melanie Phillips rests on these tawdry foundations – but it doesn't. These aren't the foundations of anything. Although the Mail Online claims more than 50 million visitors a month, digital only accounts for 2.5% of the paper's advertising revenue.
As a hardened journalist, the thing I find really shocking about the sidebar of shame is not that it panders to our lower instincts – all newspapers prosper as they flatter their readers' vices – but that this pandering is so very unprofitable. If even the sidebar of shame can't make any money, what hope is there for more high-minded papers?
• Follow Comment is free on Twitter @commentisfree
