If you’re an editor, you’ll commiserate; you understand the dilemma - you’ve probably had similar problems in your own newspaper.

Somehow, I doubt it.

Why? Vassell is editor and publisher of Word, an alternative publication aimed at young, black readers in Toronto. And the story that’s causing him sleepless nights is one you’ve probably never imagined, let alone considered printing in your paper: an investigation into the world of black lesbian sado masochists.

You can bet your life that he’ll run the story - he understands his readers; some will complain, but most won’t. He expects a reaction from his community; in fact, his brand of in-your-face journalism demands it.

But then he dons his publisher’s hat, and he’s not so confident. He has a real problem: how can he convince ad buyers - even in Toronto, the self-proclaimed capital of north American multi-culturalism - that they should market their wares to his readers, who are young black citizens earning relatively high disposable incomes? His problem may be compared to that of Rupert Murdoch, who, when he tried to persuade one of New York’s leading department stores to advertise in the New York Post, was rejected supposedly because, “Your readers are our shoplifters.”

Multiply that reaction tenfold and you’ll understand the problems of attracting advertisers into this niche market.

But Vassell is not unique. Most publishers and editors who work in the alternative press run into similar roadblocks when they try to attract mainstream advertisers.

I’m surprised they’re not more successful - their audiences are the very consumers that television advertisers pursue relentlessly - young unmarried, unburdened citizens with cash to spare. TV delivers those audiences with a vengeance (that’s why baby boomers think prime-time sit-coms are so dumb), while daily newspapers deliver a different market. Middle-aged. Middle class. Middle America.

Sitting slap-bang in the middle of these two extremes of mainstream consumerism is a feisty and energetic pack of alternative publications, most of them weekly tabloids, published mainly in urban markets. they are aimed at young consumers between the ages of 18 and 35, especially those who reject the mass media, believing TV is inane and newspapers are irrelevant.

This market is a natural target for publishers like Ron Williams, owner of alternative weeklies in Michigan, Ohio and Florida (and, for whom, it should be stated, I am a consultant). Williams, Vassell, and dozens more pony-tailed publishers across the continent, have different visions, dreams and missions than their big brother corporate media moguls. These corporate publishers often seem to have forgotten their newspapers’ own roots in controversial, competitive and adversarial journalism in those days long since gone when newspapers represented readers, not advertisers; when the individual was more important than the faceless corporation that employed him or her; and when the intrigues and excesses of government were challenged as a matter of principled enlightenment. Before editors became comfortable, middle class and co-opted, as critics so often point out.

The softening of the mainstream media left a gap that has been exploited by the alternatives - the best of which are philosophically connected, although not actually related, to the hippy underground press of the ’60s. The result, 20-odd years later, is one of the few areas of consistent growth in the print market. And it’s getting larger by the year. The Association of Alternate Newsweeklies, umbrella organization for these publications, claims that the 104 newspapers and magazines in its organization have almost 14 million readers a week and that market is growing by leaps and bounds. And almost all of these customers are young, educated and under the age of 35 - readers the mainstream press would dearly love to have.

So, how do the alternatives attract - and retain - these readers. A single word will suffice - attitude! Most of these publications know their market intimately and instinctively. They ought to, for the editors, writers - and publishers - are pretty much the same people, politically, socially and economically, as their readers.

Another reason for their high energy is the competitiveness of their markets, a situation that contrasts sharply with the mainstream media that rarely has competitors (and those that do are usually comfortably ensconced in mutually profitable joint operating agreements).

Take Columbus, Ohio, as an example. In a metro area of 1.4 million inhabitants, the daily Columbus Dispatch has been without mainstream competition for years. Fat, rich and comfortable, it is a one-eyed watchdog that is often accused of representing almost everyone but its readers.

Travel a few miles downtown, though, and you’ll find real energy, generated by a vicious battle for circulation between three - yes THREE - weekly tabloids fighting for the 18 to 35-year-old market.

Columbus is unique in having so many competitors in such a small urban area but competing publications are battling for supremacy in dozens more markets across the nation.

And, don’t assume that because the bulk of the ads in these publications is for booze and clubs and nightlife that these newspapers are lightweight in their content.

• In Columbus, the Guardian has tirelessly campaigned against a municipal trash-burner that critics say has been responsible for the death of several workers and residents; while columnist Irv Oslin recently stood as a write-in candidate for mayor.

• That newspaper’s Florida stablemate, Orlando Weekly, is probably the only local publication prepared to expose the darker side of the Disney dream factory that draws millions of visitors every year. And, like the other alternatives, it’s also a watchdog on the activities of its big neighbor, in its case The Orlando Sentinel, telling readers of major pollution apparently caused by the newspaper.

• And, in Detroit, MetroTimes takes great pride in being the first newspaper in the country to expose the activities of the Michigan Militia, a story that gained national attention, first, when it was picked up by The New York Times; and, later, with the Oklahoma City bombing. MetroTimes also took credit for exposing the CIA’s involvement with motor city automakers, and ran a number of stories about pollution in the Great Lakes, earning accolades as one of the Institute for Alternative Journalism’s Top Ten Media Heroes of 1993; along with the Utne Reader’s Award for Investigative Reporting in 1994.

These newspapers, of course, are not the only alternatives that pursue enterprising journalism. Many others across the continent are performing similar tasks.

How do they beat their mainstream rivals to the big news so often? Because news is their business. It’s their mission. Good journalism comes before big profits. And their journalists have an edge on their mainstream compatriots: Most of them didn’t spend years in J-schools or at university - they speak the same language their readers speak; they drink in the same bars; they live in the same areas. Perhaps Ron Williams, Phillip Vassell and others have some lessons for the mainstream press as it ponders a cloudy future. Perhaps there are some truths that got lost in that frenetic quest for the Holy Grail of business - an ever-expanding bottom-line.

First published in RaggedRight