Recently, former L.A. mayor Richard Riordan announced his latest venture, the Los Angeles Examiner newspaper. While I appreciate the upcoming introduction of the new paper, I find several details of this venture disturbing.

For one, it appears to be oriented to the Westside, and appears to short-change the rest of L.A. As this article points out: "Its imagined readership seems much like the Los Angeles that twice elected Riordan mayor -- more affluent, better educated, more conservative and, most of all, much whiter than the city as a whole. In fact, Latinos, Asian and African Americans -- unless they play basketball or a musical instrument -- are conspicuously absent from this prototype."

Even more disturbing is the news that this paper will not accept so-called "sex ads."

In an attempt to get to the bottom of this disturbing news, I decided to contact several such "sex advertisers," and get their opinion of this policy.

Armed with a copy of the LA Express (L.A.'s leading "personal ads" newspaper), I began calling ads at random, asking for interviews. Now, as I've pointed out before, I'm not the most talented interviewer around. In fact, despite stressing that, while I wasn't a client I wasn't selling anything either, most of them hung up on me.

A few, however, granted me interviews. "Roxy" was graciously willing to be interviewed. Unfortunately, she's a newcomer to L.A., and she not only had never heard of Richard Riordan, she was undecided on the LA Examiner's policy.

Another respondent, despite being based in Long Beach, was vaguely familiar with Mayor Riordan. She stated "who gives a fuck [what the LA Examiner thinks]?" and "he's an asshole if he's going to do that," referring to the former mayor.

Strong, strong words.

This leads me to think that the LA Examiner will not fully and faithfully reflect L.A.'s rich human mosaic. How do they expect to have a fully functional newspaper when they ignore the voices of all residents?

One advertiser - her voice strained and husky no doubt from excessive cigarette smoking as well as from her demanding occupation - stated that she's "not like the other women who advertise in LA Express." She suggested that "the [LA Examiner] editors should consider each ad on a case-by-case basis."

According to this article: The aimed-for readership, says publisher Jane Kahn, a veteran of New Times, Conde Nast, and Hearst Magazines, is "sophisticated, smart, funny, intelligent, affluent, politically connected people who care about the community and the issues affecting it."

One sexy and dusky-voiced commentator, when asked if that described her customers, simply said "Yes." While I cheer the LA Examiner's decision to print on paper that won't let the ink rub off on your hands, what good will it do if her target audience can't find her?

Some Victorian moralists might even object to me calling these advertisers "women," prefering instead that I call them "strumpets" or some other such name. Personally, I find that disgusting. These advertisers provide a valuable service, and they have their own place in society. Why shouldn't a newspaper that purports to represent Los Angeles include them?

Many of these women previously pursued other careers and had other lives. They have since re-invented themselves, and, no doubt even a few of them have undergone plastic surgery in order to further their careers. What could be more quintessentially Los Angeles?

I, for one, call on the LA Examiner to revise its policy, and include all the voices of Los Angeles.