A few weeks ago, Seascraper asked How is the Globe fighting the web. Today’s low blow is a good example. This piece is filled with innuendo, lies-by-omission, and flagrantly obvious bias. That’s ignoring the pandering. I guess that Craig Newmark (founder of Craigslist) is right up there next to Larry Flynt in the pantheon of porno sleazebags. Right?
Wrong. The Globe ran personals for years. The Phoenix runs content as racy as anything in Craigslist.
This piece is nothing more than a kick in the groin. Like a piece of badly done pornography, it demeans the writer (Megan Woolhouse), it demeans the Globe, and it demeans every reader.
The sooner the Globe dies, the sooner we’ll see what emerges next. I’d much rather focus on inventing ways to sustain reasonable incomes for the few good journalists that are left on Morrisey Boulevard than to jump through hoops attempting to revive this flat-lined corpse.
hrs-kevin says
Isn’t that exactly what you are doing yourself?
<
p>
david says
the “erotic” section of Craigslist does seem to have become a bona fide law enforcement problem in a way that the Phoenix etc. never did. Why, I’m not sure — but probably it’s because Craigslist listings are free. Craigslist itself has recognized the problem in that it’s starting to require credit cards for certain kinds of listings.
<
p>CL probably shouldn’t have ventured down that road. They could easily have created the same vibrant and successful classifieds without the “erotic” stuff. Like it or not, CL’s role in these horrific crimes is legitimate news.
somervilletom says
I agree that it’s newsworthy, it has all the necessary elements — notorious criminal, tawdry sex, local venue, etc.
<
p>I have no problem with the Globe’s banner headline (“Easy prey drew suspect, DA says”), the photo, and the main story.
<
p>I wouldn’t even have a problem with the Craigslist piece if it had been written as news, with some attempt at objectivity. As presented, it was far more suited for the Herald, the NYPost, or for that matter the National Enquirer.
<
p>The CL “story” is the way that CL — and its peers — have decimated hard-copy revenue. That’s what we’ve discussed at length here. By showing the CL revenue graph, especially in the context of the lead, this piece seriously and I suspect intentionally distorts the truth about CL revenues. CL is not earning $81.3M from the sex trade. Sorry, I don’t believe it. If the piece is going to show that graph, shouldn’t it, for example, offer a simultaneous graph of online advertising revenue? What does the myspace revenue curve look like for the same period? How do these numbers compare with Google’s ad revenue?
<
p>The role of CL as a “bona fide law enforcement problem” is, like the similar claims about the internet itself, dubious at best. Ninety-eight percent of today’s heroin users drank milk as children. Does that mean that milk is a “gateway” substance?
<
p>This piece cited two sources — Peter Zollman and Trench Reynolds. Mr. Zollman makes his living selling analysis services to the print industry (among others). Is the Globe a client? Do we know? I don’t know the answer, and I’d like to. Mr. Zollman’s comments would have far more credibility if the absence of a relationship were spelled out — and far less in the presence of one.
<
p>Here’s what he said about CL in 2006:
<
p>Hmmm. No mention of the sex trade there. The CL revenues were well up the handle of the hockey-stick in 2006, although even that is hard to determine because the bars don’t line up with their labels (presumably the right-most bar is 2008, not 2009.
<
p>How about Mr. Reynolds? I invite you to browse his site and let me know what you think about his objectivity as a source. It strikes me as a pretty good example of pandering (to folks who love wallowing in violence), but what do I know.
<
p>This piece is a carefully calculated hit-piece against CL. Whatever it is, it is not objective journalism.
<
p>I stand by my assessment.
ryepower12 says
I highly doubt there’s a significantly larger proportion of craigslist personal ads that end up resulting in crimes than alt newspaper personals, but even if there were, the Globe does nothing to distinguish personal ads from other classifieds.
<
p>It may sound fun to create moral panic over “the erotic stuff,” but the reality is that almost all of those erotic happenings end safely. The one person who kept harping on CL on my dkos cross-post of my version of this story kept referencing that 3 people have died from meeting someone they met on cl over the past year. Considering there’s billions upon billions of CL hits a month and who knows how many millions of personal ads, that’s honestly not too bad for a country where 40,000+ people are murdered every year. Honestly, I bet you’d have about the same chance of getting violently attacked going to the bathroom at a random rest stop than you would responding to a CL ad. At the very least, I can assure you more than 3 people have been killed across the country using public bathrooms this past year.
liveandletlive says
attitude toward murder and even proclaim that “the reality is that almost all of those erotic happenings end safely.” Yet casino gambling outrages you. Don’t get it AT ALL!
ryepower12 says
Really? Few in this community are more concerned about strictly regulating concealed weapons than I am. I’m that way precisely because my cousin was shot to death by a handgun. But, yeah, use one of my posts and paint broad brush strokes with it. Real effective. /snark off
<
p>At the very top of Blue Mass Group it says “Reality-Based Community.” 3 murders out of more than 40,000 in this country every year, when millions upon millions of people use craigslist, doesn’t seem like a resounding, must-ban-personal-ads-now, sort of scenario. That’s right up there with taking one attempted shoe-bomber, who was caught by the security forces, and now requiring everyone to take off their shoes and sandals before they get on a plane.
<
p>Following along the reality-based meme, I don’t think “getting it on” is a significant problem in this country. Indeed, I sometimes think that if we weren’t so damn puritanical this country would be a better place. It is not at all hypocritical that I don’t care if people have sex, but do want to prevent one form of commercialized gambling in Massachusetts (slots), because it has tremendously negative effects on the local economy and doubles the addiction rates. Last time I checked, two people getting it on didn’t make any local store run out of business.
<
p>Lastly, the reality-based truth is I didn’t say that this wasn’t a problem at all. What I did suggest, through my diary and posts, is that a) Craigslist is unlikely to be more inherently dangerous than any other classified or personals service, b) while not negating the fact that there could be problems and needed-solutions among the entire industry, it’s not exactly the crisis the Globe painted it out to be and c) we shouldn’t let the fear-based culture of the media drive our society. It’s not reality, it’s a moral panic meant to sell papers and (in this case) taint one of print media’s biggest competitors. Last week it was the killer pirates and this week it’s the killers of Craigslist. In truth, life just isn’t that dangerous. Acts of violence do happen randomly throughout, but perhaps you may want to focus your energy on where people are really getting killed. 70 people are murdered every year in Boston who weren’t using Craigslist. Where’s the outrage there? Where’s the clarion call to get rid of the biggest source of all those murders — concealed weapons? Perhaps being so “relaxed” isn’t a bad thing, if it means I’ve thought clearly about the subject.
liveandletlive says
I was simply noting that you are minimize the dangers of prostitution and advertising for sex, whether it be paid or free, but you are shocked with the idea that casino gambling is being proposed for Massachusetts because you say it has far too many dangerous repercussions.
<
p>To me, it doesn’t make sense that you aren’t equally concerned with the dangers of advertising for sex or companionship. As far as there being anything wrong with “getting it on”, well I never said that either, but advertising for it, hmmmm, a tad bit on the yucky side if you ask me. However, I am not planning on launching a battle to ban it either.
ryepower12 says
You said I had a “relaxed attitude” about murder. I was clearing the record: I don’t have a “relaxed attitude,” I’m just living in the reality-based world. Moreover, you didn’t suggest there was a problem with violence due to prostitution in this world, you took clear aim at Craigslist in particular. You could have said there was need for some reform in the entire classified industry, including Craigslist, but that’s not the argument you made. It’s disingenius to now go back and try to change that argument — glad you’re doing it, but that’s just not where you were at a few hours ago, at least in terms of what you wrote and inferred in your writing.
<
p>You can try to switch topics and turn this around on me, but you’ll fail there too. Sex =! slots. Far from it. I’m not against gambling, I’m against one form of gambling in particular — slot machines. They double the rate of addiction, creating a situation in which 5% of this state would be what the feds euphemistically call “problem gamblers” — addicts. That means roughly 1 in 4 families would be directly effected by a problem gambler… a situation that can ruin an entire family.
<
p>Meanwhile, at no point have I said that there wasn’t a problem with prostitution or anonymous sex. In fact, in various responses where I’ve posted about the topic, I’ve gone out of my way to address one of the real issues which puts people who deal in the black market at risk (including those who are prostitutes): if something happens to them, they’re often too afraid to go to the police.
<
p>However, I have not and will not suggest that Craigslist is to blame for any of this, at least anymore so than newspaper and other classified and personal sections. Craigslist is relatively safe, used with even a small degree of intelligence – as is any classified ad. There may very well be an industry-wide problem of some order, but that wasn’t what the Globe and the media suggested in its overblown moral panic crusade against one of the newspaper industry’s greatest rivals: Craigslist. You can try to change the subject all you want, but to do so only shows a willful ignorance to one of the larger problems facing this country: we live in a society that is often driven by fear fueled by the media, greatly inflating the risks of safe activities, because they can be framed as sexy stories to sell copies and ads.
liveandletlive says
<
p>I didn’t even mention Craigslist! Would you show me where I am taking clear aim at Craigslist?
<
p>And where did I do this?…
<
p>
<
p>I really could care less about Craigslist. I don’t even visit that site.
<
p>But I am done with this argument, I’m not going to even try to defend myself against things I didn’t say.
<
p>I will now end my discussion on the dangers of advertising for sex.
<
p>
somervilletom says
I wonder if Ryan may have misread David’s comment, which certain does target Craigslist, as being from liveandletlive. I don’t see liveandletlive referencing Craigslist.
<
p>We seem to have drifted from the topic — I said that the Globe piece was a cheapshot at Craigslist. I see that as a separate issue from the concern liveandletlive raises about the risks of advertising for sex (and it’s certainly different from the gambling question).
<
p>Even if we stipulate that advertising for sex is dangerous, the article as published is still a cheapshot, for the reasons I tried to articulate upthread.
<
p>I suggest that the motivation for the tenor and placement of this piece has far more to do with the devastating impact Craigslist (and its many online counterparts) is having on the ad revenues of the Boston Globe, and far less to do with the dangers of sex trade.
ryepower12 says
I responded to a comment that David left, and L&LL responded to that comment. Twas a mix-up. Apologies to L&LL on that point.
ryepower12 says
http://vps28478.inmotionhosting.com/~bluema24/s…
<
p>Tom was right.