The NYTimes’ David Carr jumps into the fray over backpage.com site, the online website owned by the parent of the Dallas Observer, which is accused of promoting child sex trafficking. On the whole, Carr — who once edited an alternative weekly — is sympathetic to VV’s financial quandary. Their once-thriving advertising vehicles have hit on tough times, and sex ads keep the presses rolling.
Jim Larkin and Michael Lacey, the two principal owners, not only deny there is a problem, they claim to revel in being under attack. In a bid for some higher moral ground, they claim their right to publish those ads is a free-speech issue. They define their policy as “libertarian” and cite their publication of cigarette and gun ads. To my mind, they have a point. True, cigarettes and guns are legal, and prostitution is not in 49 states. But sometimes the law is an ass, as Dickens said.
The problem is, nobody seems much bothered by adults selling sexual services. What people are up in arms about is evidence that traffickers have used backpage.com to sell the services of boys and girls. Larkin and Lacey say they’ve tried to put in safeguards.
Let’s review. Argument #1: There is no problem. Argument #2: If there is a problem, it is protected free speech. Argument #3: We are tying to mitigate the problem.
Craigslist went through those exact same arguments during its three-year fight to keep its $44 million in adult advertising. It no longer publishes sex ads. Larkin and Lacey are made of decidedly sterner stuff. But the more the issue is raised — and their opponents don’t seem like they’re going away — the more other advertisers become wary of the association. Larkin and Lacey are in a box. The sex ads are supposed to support their weeklies. The sex ads are damaging their weeklies. The more damage they do, the more their revenues are needed.
It sounds more like an addiction to easy money than a business strategy. And as with most addictions, I don’t think this is a spiral that goes up.
9 comments
“It [Craigslist] no longer publishes sex ads”
This statement is patently and demonstratively false.
I thought Carr handled that story nicely, and you raise some interesting points too, Wick. But to answer the question of your headline, of whether the sex-ad quandary will kill us, the answer is easy: no.
When Craigslist was still in the game, we had significantly fewer adult-advertising dollars than we do now, and we were hanging in there. Struggling? Sure. We’re a newspaper. But hanging in — and growing fast on the digital side.
I don’t suspect this to happen, if Lacey and Larkin for some reason decided to get out of adult-advertising game — which has been a staple of alt-weeklies since their inception — we’d survive just fine, especially if the recession recedes, the digital ad market keeps growing and Wilonsky keeps requiring less than 17 minutes of sleep per night.
Joe Tone
Editor
Dallas Observer
Third graph, first sentence is missing the word “but.” Sorry. I need an editor.
Joe Tone, editor
I can see by the cavalier use of the phrase “spiral that goes up” that you have no experience in the sex industry and, perhaps, when the grownups talk, you should leave the room. A “spiral that goes up” is that most desirable of …oh, wait, I’m sorry. I was talking about the Cowboys throwing the football efficiently. The connecting phrase was either “backfield in motion” or “personal foul,” although an uncle of mine once had a pet chicken named Rooster ****burn that he called his “personal fowl.” But I ramble….
I would explain what that censored word was but I think the resulting construction is even funnier than the 4-letter common barnyard word I subbed for “Cog.”
The Rev. Katharine Rhodes Henderson, the president of Auburn Theological Seminary, said …
“On Backpage.com, you can buy a toaster, a car or a girl for sex… Even if one minor is sold for sex, it is one too many.”
It’s too bad that this approach isn’t taken with the Catholic Church. Some verse about specks, eyes, and logs would be appropriate here. Or rocks and glass houses.
Brad enough of the Catholic bashing it is sickening!
Brad,
Auburn Theological Seminary isn’t a Catholic seminary. It is a Presbyterian Seminary. But I like your logic. The Catholic Church had a scandal involving sex, therefore it’s perfectly ok to have ads traffic-ing children for sex on the back page of the local alt-weekly.
See, this is what you get when you mix Diprivan, irrational hatred and willful ignorance.
Master, to state that the Catholic Church “had a scandal involving sex” is underselling that a little, don’t you think?
I realize that Rev. Henderson is not a Catholic, and in no way do I support ads trafficking children for sex on the back page of the local alt-weekly. I seriously doubt that VVM supports them either. My logic has to do with her, and her coalition’s, priorities.
For someone who believes that one minor is one too many, I believe that Reverend Henderson would better serve minors by working to reform religious institutions from within, or working to ensure that those people who do molest parishioners, and the ones that harbor those offenders, are prosecuted by the law.
You may take my previous comment as Catholic bashing, and I can see why you would think that. But in all honesty, it’s bashing against any religious authority and their continual desire to control the actions of others while not controlling their own. Priests, pastors, ministers, and others in positions of authority throughout the church should be working to ensure that their house is in order. Where are the full page ads in the NYT condemning the religious authorities who have abused and molested children over the last 50 years? Where are the full page ads codemning the religious authorities who have covered up this abuse; or even worse, reassigned the abusers to unsuspecting communities?
So, in the grand scheme of things, I think Rev. Henderson can achieve safety for more children by focusing her efforts at what I believe is a bigger problem in this country.