Save journalism, legalize prostitution

At the Dallas Morning News Opinion blog, editorial writer Tod Robberson takes a slap at the Dallas Observer for contracting with a national aggregator criticized for accepting ads from prostitutes and escort services, noting that "Washington State last week enacted a law that would expose companies like Backpage.com to criminal prosecution if such ads involve underage prostitutes." He continued:

Few of us here at The Dallas Morning News like to admit that, occasionally, we read the Dallas Observer. But we do. And lots of folks around here are trying to figure out how the Observer seems to do so well financially while we're in a constant state of struggle. I will speculate a little bit here. I suspect readers do not necessarily flock to the Observer for their quality journalism. And even if they do, that's not what is keeping the Observer in business. Heck, it's a free newspaper. What keeps the Observer in business is advertising, and that weekly tabloid is thick with it. Online, it's hard to visit their site without being overwhelmed by all the colorful, flashing ads.

Not just any ads. If you look at the numbers posted by the Observer, you'll find some telling statistics of what's bringing in the dough. Let's see, there are 26 ads for restaurants, two for fashion/accessories, one for home furnishings/home improvement. No, I don't think those are what's paying the bills. A bit farther down the page is a category called adult entertainment, which has 13,773 ads. Hmmm, there might be a clue there.

He then quotes some racy, suggestive captions, joking that he didn't click on them for fear of alerting Belo Corp. human resources staff, but concludes that:

The journalism world is misguided in pointing to the Village Voice and other publications of that ilk as models of success in a market desperately struggling to stay afloat. We are looking at all options (well, almost all options) to maintain a positive revenue stream and attract readers. No one knows what the formula for survival ultimately will be. But if it means stooping to the level of health & wellness ads, I would opt for closing our doors first. These days, it's getting harder and harder to define what journalism is. But I know what it isn't, and Backpage.com nails the "isn't" part on the head.

Grits responded thusly in the comments:

Really? You'd rather see daily journalism die than pay for it by selling advertising for services that a not-insignificant portion of your readership would patronize (or at least read voyeuristically, as they do your crime coverage)? No wonder conservatives think the MSM disdains the public: You do. I don't know if it's true, as was said on GCB, that Dallas is the world's strip club capital, but it's gotta be up there: This is your readership. Own it.

And btw, if you'll look around the newsroom at the Dallas News' depopulating ranks over the last few years, "quality journalism" isn't doing much to keep y'all in business, either. Should newspapers knowingly profit from exploitation of minors? No, and you certainly haven't demonstrated here - by a longshot - that the Dallas Observer has done so. But if y'all want to keep printing with ink on dead trees, perhaps you shouldn't be so quick to criticize a model that's clearly catering to a substantial, monied audience and employing quite a few excellent journalists at weeklies around the country.

Porn sells. Add a porn section behind the paywall and y'all could afford international bureaus and a small army of beat and investigative reporters that would rival the NYTimes and Washington Post. But no, you don't want to do that because you're too pure to give your audience what they want. IMO journalistic snootiness isn't just a political problem for conservatives, it's killing your business model.

I wrote that a bit as a provocation, though I do think the Morning News would make a lot more money - and make their photographer corps a lot happier - if they paid for daily journalism with a behind-the-paywall porn (or, if you like, "adult entertainment") section. The exchange with Robberson, though, got me thinking. I've often felt there's a strong argument that legalizing prostitution would do more to protect underage girls from exploitation - by regulating the workplace - than does an outright ban, which clearly has not stopped a thriving, underground trade. (When brothels on Hotel Street were tolerated in Honolulu before and during World War II, local government and later military commanders were able to closely regulate the industry for abuses; see a good account [pdf] from the Hawaiian Journal of History.) Might it also be the case that legalizing prostitution could save journalism with a lucrative new ad source on par with auto dealerships or real estate? Taking a long-term perspective, it's not the "oldest profession" for nothing.

When markets are large enough they trump laws. Whenever there is significant demand, supply will arise to fill it in a black market. A legal market, though, can be regulated. State lotteries and legalized lottos did more to wipe out numbers running by the mafia on the east coast than the FBI ever did, just as ending Prohibition effectively quashed violence related to alcohol production and distribution, and reduced deaths from bad product. We hear terrible stories in the media and certainly at the Legislature, which has passed potent sex trafficking enhancements, about coercive sex trafficking that's often compared to slavery. Would legalizing and regulating adult, consensual prostitution similarly drive out the criminal element the way a legal lottery defeated the mafia? Perhaps. If so, it would be a greater boon to exploited young girls than another criminal-penalty enhancement.

In any event, Grits would rather see newspapers make money from "adult entertainment" than treating news reporting as entertainment, which is another common route some outlets have taken to draw in more readership (though to its credit, mostly not the Morning News). I don't consider voyeurism about gory, personal crime details any more commendable than sexual voyeurism, but newspapers have profited from printing salacious crime details for years. To save the industry, newspaper editors need to get off their high horse, or else fall off, probably into the unemployment line, albeit with their self-righteousness and dignity intact.

Choosing gifts for the amnesiac, and other tall but true tales

A few Sunday morning odds and ends:

Debating the legality of D.I.V.E.R.T.
The 14th Court of Appeals said a Harris County judge was within his realm of discretion to refuse to use DA Pat Lykos' much-heralded D.I.V.E.R.T. program on DWI cases because it amounts to deferred adjudication, which is illegal for DWI under current Texas law. Does that mean the program itself will be overturned as illegal in and of itself on appeal? Not necessarily. Mark Bennett thinks Murray Newman overstates the legal import of the case and that David Jennings' take is too politicized, but between their various posts you can get a good sense of the issue. This is a strange one. As far as this non-lawyer can tell, D.I.V.E.R.T. may be technically illegal, but if the prosecutor offers it and it benefits the defendant, nobody is in a position to challenge its legality on appeal. Hundreds or even thousands of DWI defendants have been processed through the program. What happens to those contracts, wonders Bennett, if a DA is elected who thinks they were illegal? ¿Quien sabe?

Decked Out: Austin PD halls decked with expensive, distracting in-car computer system

When purchasing a new in-car video system, did City of Austin "officials fall for a system too expensive to buy and too impractical to use"? A former garage employee alleges in the Austin Chronicle that Austin PD essentially rigged a bid to favor a preferred vendor for expensive, in-car police equipment when a cheaper in-house solution was available. The purported whistleblower says APD created detailed specifications they knew only a single, preferred vendor could meet, but really they just needed extra battery power for vehicle video systems which could be done in-house, he says, on a much cheaper basis. Jordan Smith, as usual, provides an excellent, detailed account. Incidentally, having recently mentioned the issue of distracted driving at Austin PD as a large source of civil liability for the city, I was interested to see Jana Birchum's photo (at left) of the inside of an APD cruiser decked out with the new rig. Who wouldn't be distracted with all that gadgetry in their face? Moreover, what's good for the goose is good for the gander. If cops get to do this, how can you then criminalize texting while driving? There's a friggin laptop pointing at the driver with a QWERTYUIOP keyboard, no less!

Pressing prostitute for patronage procures prosecution for San Antonio police
In San Antonio, "A police officer accused of accosting an 18-year-old woman for sex after she was targeted for a drug arrest four years ago pleaded no contest Wednesday to one count of official oppression and will lose his Texas peace officer's license." The sentence of one-year deferred adjudication probation, though, means the conviction may eventually be expunged from his record - a courtesy unlikely to be extended to the 18-year old he coerced for her various offenses. Reading the account from the SA Express-News, it sounds like the underlying facts amount to using a drug-warrant as a pretext and coercion tool to solicit the the services of a prostitute on behalf of a fellow officer, who fondled the woman but was then rebuffed when he could not pay. The two cops then stood lookout on behalf of a third, unidentified "friend" who paid for oral sex. Another former SA police officer - the one who would've liked a freebie but couldn't afford it - is awaiting charges related to the same incident. You can only lean on folks so hard, I suppose, even prostitutes with outstanding drug warrants. I've often wondered how common this is. The incident reminds Grits of a study out of Chicago, discussed here, which found that 3% of all tricks performed by sex-workers operating independently (without a pimp) were freebies given to police for protection. Via Injustice Everywhere.

Abuse alleged at South Texas detention center
Bob Libal at Texas Prison Bidness lets us know about a recent media report I hadn't seen:

Last month, PBS's Frontline aired a damning exposé of the immigration detention system that focused on MTC's Willacy County Processing Center.

The show, which you can watch online in its entirity, reported a pattern of sexual and physical abuse by guards at the MTC facility.  Frontline correspondent, Maria Hinojosa, highlights stories of terrifying and repetitive abuse and harassment of immigrant detainees at the facility.

See a transcript of the show. Relatedly, from Slate/Alternet: "How private prisons game the system."

Newspaper sides with Harris DA on crack-residue policy
The Houston Chronicle editorial board sides with District Attorney Pat Lykos in the debate with police unions and their proxies over prosecuting felonies based on residue-level drug amounts when officers arrest someone with a crack pipe. See Grits' earlier discussion.

Please keep pretending the naked emperor is clothed
Border Patrol officers are fired if they voice critical opinions about the drug war.

Holiday gifts for the amnesiac
If anybody out there is looking for Christmas gifts for Judge Ken Anderson or former Williamson County Sheriff's Sgt. Don Wood, after their amnesiac performances in recent depositions, I'd humbly suggest books on mnemonics. A mind, they say, is a terrible thing to waste. Please suggest other possible memory-related gifts or mnemonic tips for the Michael Morton prosecution team in the comments.