ed&id=2622">Angie Schultz at February 8, 2003 09:33 AM

Back when you had to walk eight miles through the snow to post a link - uphill both ways.

Posted by: Sean Kirby at February 8, 2003 10:46 AM

No sex ads? ::clunk:: Well, forget you! ;P

Posted by: Andrea Harris at February 8, 2003 09:10 PM

Very cool, an article in the Economist. MY problem is how will I find a call girl with some intellectual heft. Let's face it, the LA Weekly is very week in this regard.

Posted by: Bob at February 8, 2003 10:38 PM

You know, it was pretty cool to open The Economist last night and see one of the ex-Czecho expat crowd making good!

Congrats -- and good luck! Sounds like a lot of fun.

Posted by: Chandler at February 10, 2003 11:29 AM

Thanks, everyone!

The sex ads decision was strategic, not moral -- we want to be able to deliver to places like fancy hotels, and in general to be picked up by people who wouldn't normally pick up your standard alt weekly. So the paper looks nicer, the masthead is classier, etc. It already sorta works -- the advertisers in the prototype were *not* your run-of-the-mill Village Voice type. That said, it's still filled with cheap jokes, funny writing, gossip, and etc., and I don't think (though I truly do not know) that we'd turn down the booze & smokes.

Posted by: Matt Welch at February 10, 2003 03:54 PM

> I don't think (though I truly do not know) that we'd turn down the booze & smokes.

Of course, you're referring to adverts. Surely you're not suggesting that there's some chance that you'd turn down free booze....

Posted by: Andy Freeman at February 10, 2003 04:11 PM
Post a comment

Remember personal info?

= true; } else { document.comments_form.bakecookie[1].checked = true; } //--> /body> ments_form.bakecookie[1].checked = true; } //--> = true; } else { document.comments_form.bakecookie[1].checked = true; } //--> /body>