Porn is defined by www.dictionary.com as "obscene writings, drawings, photographs, or the like, esp. those having little or no artistic merit." It's an important distinction to make, because when one hears the statement "the Houston Chronicle started a porn site" one's mind automatically assumes the worst; that is, a site devoted to secret, middle-of-the-night sessions with pictures and/or videos of a lewd, graphic nature. The reality isn't quite that bad - what the Chronicle has done is start a city guide website intended to draw in different crowd than their print readership demographic. The site, found at www.29-95.com, includes blogs, reviews of bands, books, clubs, bars, restaurants, event listings, and a site page labeled "sex". It’s this last page that is causing a phenomenon commonly known to Texans as a “ruckus”.
The sex page is devoted wholly to a blog that goes by the name of Milf, and even though there aren't any pictures or videos, the column that she writes is indeed porn. (For those of you who aren't aware, the name "milf" is actually an acronym that stands for "Mother I'd Like to <expletive deleted>".) True to her pen name, Milf's column is graphic and explicit, using crude terms for sexual acts and body parts, obscene language, and X-rated descriptions.
The question everyone seems to be asking - is it appropriate for a respected news source to be sponsoring a site with this kind of material?
Perhaps a more relevant question would be: can the Chronicle afford to be the cause of so much community outrage? The shaky future of print newspapers is no secret. It's clear that they have to do something - news offices across the country are closing down, and the big corporate newspapers are taking the largest hit as people rely more and more on the internet. Still, with all of these bankruptcies and layoffs occurring, it would seem that now is a bad time to be sparking moral indignation in the people to which you are trying to sell subscriptions.
Take the case of Procter & Gamble. There was a widespread Christian boycott of the company, sponsored by prominent Christian groups, due to the allegations that P&G actively endorsed gay and lesbian organizations and same-sex marriage. Literally thousands of people stopped buying P&G products until the company allegedly mended their ways. (I say allegedly because P&G denied both allegations; stating that they support a diverse workforce but their activities were blown out of proportion, and also that they did not change their advertising materials in response to the boycott.) P&G obviously survived the boycott - they are happily sponsoring "Swiffers" that make mops and brooms cry - but can the Chronicle afford to take the same risk?
Blue Flavor (the website and design company) and the Hearst Corporation (owners of the Houston Chronicle) believe so. They began the site in order to diversify the Chronicle's audience - they are courting the younger, more "hip" crowd that doesn't read newspapers and scoffs at societal niceties such as polite language. The marketing strategies even go so far as to use the derisive criticisms they receive, such as "ham-fisted orgy of cursing," into in-your-face advertisements for the site.
According to Blue Flavor's blog, the site is growing stronger each week and is developing a following - and they could be right. Their site ranking according to Alexa.com is 294,802, which is reasonable for a site their age and for the demographic they are targeting. Perhaps the hip crowd is un-shocked by the language and explicit nature of the column, or perhaps they simply peruse the other, more socially-acceptable pages on the site. The sex column, after all, is only one page. The site bounce rate is currently reported to be 74%, meaning that nearly three-quarters of the people who make it to the site never go past the home page.
It should also be mentioned that the Chronicle and 29-95 are not overtly linked. (So fears of children stumbling across the "milf" column while searching for a current events article for their social studies class can be put to rest.) On the 29-95 site, the only mention of "Houston Chronicle" that I could find was in the "Terms of Service" and the privacy policy. On chron.com, I could find no mention of 29-95 at all. Is this disassociation enough to keep the sites' target audiences, goals, and aspiratons separate? Will it be an acceptable distance to assuage the moral outrage of those who don't want to link pornographic columns and respectable news sources?
Will it be enough to save the Chronicle? As they say, only time (and Alexa) will tell.