So when Channel 9 reporter Mark Becker called the paper a few weeks ago for comment on why it had refused to pull certain ads despite repeated requests from the police -- what requests? -- internal gaskets around here finally blew. The station, Becker said, was doing a story scheduled to air Tuesday of this week.
So Loafing dispatched reporters to determine what the heck these people were talking about. As it turns out, the police had not attempted to contact the paper's classifieds department nor its upper management, but had instead complained about the ads to CL reporter Sam Boykin, who they say told them all about the paper's First Amendment rights while in the process of investigating Channel 9's reporting on a similar story about the ads CL publishes in the back of the paper. Boykin had contacted the officers. Police Sergeant Eddie Levins said that the police thought Boykin had the authority to pull the ads.
In the newspaper business, reporters don't make decisions about ad content, nor do the reporters' editors. That is done by the publisher of the paper and ad reps who handle the sale and production of the ads. As with most papers, there is a line of division between the ad department and the editorial department to prevent bias or the appearance of it.
After two weeks of trying, including two appointments with the paper that Levins missed, it was learned that two ads run by Loafing could be fronts for prostitution. Police say they used the phone number listed in an ad for Supreme Referrals, which last ran in the paper's December 26 issue, to set up a December sting operation that led to the arrest of Charissma Teria Moore, 23, and Dina Teria Howze, 27, on prostitution-related charges. Though Supreme Referrals also has a website, Levins said officers used the ad that ran in CL to set up the sting.
Officers made three more arrests on December 18 after calling a number for Fuchsias, another company that advertises in the back of the paper. Officers arrested Kimberly Michelle Dick, 28, Kendra Alexis Torres, 34, and Brian Edward McGowan, 37, after calling the number in the Fuchsias ad. Levins said Torres answered the phone and sent Dick to a hotel room at the Hampton Inn at Phillips Place to meet what she thought was a customer. McGowan rented the room.
Levins said CL should remove the ads. "This isn't about the First Amendment," he said. "It's about doing the right thing."
Creative Loafing publisher Carolyn Butler was on vacation and was unavailable for comment at deadline, but editor John Grooms said, "We agree 100 percent that it's the right thing to do to pull any ad that turns out to be a front for prostitution. We certainly don't want that in our paper and we want to make sure our ads are legitimate. But it's hard for us to know that the police are having a problem with an ad unless they call and tell us. We have a freelance astrologer at the Loaf, but as of yet we don't have any mind readers."
This is not the first time WSOC has used what appears to be a direct line to the police department to ambush CL about problems or supposed problems created by the sexually oriented ads.
Last December, WSOC Channel 9 reporter Kim Brattain did a story about a 13-year-old girl who had supposedly placed ads in CL as a front for a prostitution service. Brattain's story claimed that the girl's ad contained her mobile phone number, and prospective clients would call the number to schedule "dates." Once the details had been worked out, the girl would then take a city bus to meet the johns, usually at the downtown transit station.
Brattain called both CL publisher Carolyn Butler and editor John Grooms for comment on the day the story was to air. It was the first time either Grooms or Butler had heard of the situation, and they both declined to comment. Both wondered why they were hearing about the incident for the first time from Brattain, and not a police officer. It later turned out that Brattain had some facts mixed up. The girl had not placed an ad, but was responding to dating service ads in the paper's display section. Levins later said the paper had not been contacted because it was a juvenile case.*