One of the more interesting stories in this “news cycle” has been the absolute disinterest on the part of reporters and politicians alike in adult service ads featured in journalistic media, no matter how numerous or graphic they may be when compared to craigslist.
Consider the following ads, a small sampling of the tens of thousands of “escort ads” currently featured in classifieds operated by Village Voice Media, publisher of dozens of newspapers throughout the US (WARNING – GRAPHIC DEPICTIONS OF HUMAN SEXUALITY):
- i am a nasty freaky girl who love sucking cock (chicago)
- an irish blowjob and a cum showering rainbow (new york city)
- cum lay your hotdog on my bun for memorial day (dallas)
UPDATE – Oddly, each of these ads have been pulled! Highlights included multiple close-up photos of a woman performing fellatio, and price lists for services including “GFE, BBBJ, CIM, “swallow,” DATY, “digits”, 69, “facials,” “anal,” and a “cum showering rainbow.” Not too hard to find similar examples among the thousands of remaining ads.
BTW, each of these were among the “featured” ads for their respective cities, for which Village Voice charges extra, such that they presumably fell well within their standards for this category.
It’s worth noting that ANY ONE OF THESE AD TITLES ALONE contains more explicit content than you will likely find in all craigslist adult service ads combined.
Why are such ads featured by a well-established company that operates a chain of newspapers nationwide of no interest to the same politicians that have engaged in a witch hunt against craigslist? Could it have anything to do with their need for positive stories and campaign endorsements from those very same newspapers?
And why are such ads of no interest to newspaper reporters? Is it possible that writing stories critical of craigslist’s (relatively tame) “adult service” section is more career-friendly than attacking their own employer (or journalistic media brethren) for operating a (far more graphic) “adult service” section of their own?