I was compelled to write you regarding your admissions committee’s statement regarding the rejection of the Beverly Hills Weekly.
I read about the rejection of the Beverly Hills Weekly in The Los Angeles Business Journal, June 10, 2002.
Most publications, particularly local weeklies, are supported by advertising. I deal with newspaper editors from all over the country from the Los Angeles Times to The Washington Post. In between, there are the local free weeklies, where readers find out about the goods and services available in the neighborhood. Local weeklies wouldn’t be my first choice for national or even statewide news coverage, the LA Weekly aside. Local weeklies are where the local expert and business owner might write a column about their expertise, whether it be dog grooming or herbal medicine. It makes sense that in a local environment, the locals look to their local expert for advice. Especially in Beverly Hills, where everyone has written a book, been on a talk or radio show.
And it makes sense that the local expert, who has a business, product or service, would advertise to their target market in the local weekly. On many occasions, during a conversation with a newspaper editor where I have pitched a story idea or followed up on a press release, I have been asked by the editors if I or my client is or will be an advertiser. I’m not offended by this. I understand the survival of many of these publications depends on local support.
The comments made by the admissions committee were especially arrogant and unprofessional. That the committee recommended “this paper be taken out back and shot” isn’t funny. It borders on censorship and elitism.