The Golden Rule #6 - To Catch A Predator
Musings on the Ethics of Contemporary Journalism
I abhor online predators like any ordinary parent, teacher, police officer, or citizen. They represent a fissure in our society that undermines the foundation of our communities. That foundation rests on trust, and predators poison that trust. However, apprehending them is best left to law enforcement officials and not journalists. When the two entities conspire together, as they have in MSNBC Dateline’s To Catch a Predator, lapses in journalism ethics are inevitable.
Online predation is so repugnant and emotional it elicits visceral reactions from law-abiding citizens, including police and journalists, who are human too. They have emotions that are sometimes hard to check. Having respect or summoning sympathy for someone who sexually preys on adolescents is beyond difficult. However, that’s not what is worrying many journalists because most can empathize with Chris Hansen, the show’s host, as he withholds his emotions while snagging predators.
However, what they cannot understand are Hansen’s methods, and many are asking for more ethical common sense. The profession and public deserve that as much as the suspects, their victims, and their families. Journalism is also founded on trust, and when that trust is undermined due to questionable newsgathering tactics, one must ask if the ends justify the means. Most citizens and journalists want these predators behind bars; the question is how to place them there, not whether they belong there.
After sifting through the unpleasant emotions associated with To Catch a Predator and focusing on the journalism itself, one cannot help but reflect on this quote from Friedrich Nietzsche: “He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster”. As Brian Montopoli of CBS News writes, “I don’t think we can abandon questions of journalistic conduct just because our first instinct is that the ends justify the means.” In journalism, the means rarely justify the ends.
The first general problem with To Catch a Predator is that it erases its watchdog role. By working in tandem with law enforcement officials, the show collaborates with the state, and by default, abandons its independence as a caretaker of the Fourth Estate. This dubious teamwork creates a conflict of interest that most conscientious journalists would shirk. One question, among many, that must be raised is this: How will Dateline handle future stories involving law enforcement officials from towns where the show conducted its stings? The answer should be a model for how they deal with law enforcement agencies.
Montopoli and others believe the show engages in entrapment because the decoys, who are not adolescents but members of a controversial organization known as Perverted Justice, often invite men to the sting center for sex. Dateline also engages in checkbook journalism by paying Perverted Justice for its assistance. Montopoli accuses Dateline of punishing the predators by humiliating them before they’ve been charged with crimes. Hansen appears to revel in playing the gotcha game, and as a quasi-interrogator turned detective, he blurs the line between objective reporter and law enforcement official. Both Hansen and the show’s producers are functioning as judge and jury, but that’s not their domain.
Trouble recently emerged for Dateline and Hansen when a Texas district attorney refused to prosecute any of the 25 men apprehended during a sting in Murphy, Texas because of the show’s tactics. According to the Austin-American Statesman, the trouble exploded when a local prosecutor showed up to play with a decoy and later committed suicide when the police approached his home. Douglas McCollam has detailed the events leading to this tragedy in the Columbia Journalism Review and the nightmare it caused the community.
Amazingly, these ethical and legal fiascos are only the tip of an iceberg that has been melting for months. Pierre Tristam of the Daytona Beach News-Journal argues that the show fundamentally is a ratings monster for MSNBC, which means it’s not going anywhere. In fact, The New York Post reports that NBC will continue airing additional editions. But why are these stings even televised, if not to tap into the reality television craze and sensationalistic nature of the show’s content? Stings like these occur frequently throughout the nation; why are the “sexy stings” the only ones televised? I can’t remember witnessing moonshine, cockfighting, or poaching stings.
Perhaps most disturbing is Tristam’s argument that the show is based on distortions of facts: he writes, “The most glaring thing about Dateline’s Predator series isn’t the overkill, the ethically compromised nature of the show’s relationship with police and Perverted-Justice, or even the tawdriness of Chris Hansen…It’s the fact that the whole premise of the series is based on a lie: That there’s ‘an epidemic of sexual predators in our country,’ and that based on ‘a recent study,’ according to NBC, ‘one in five children online is approached by a sexual predator, a predator who may try to set up a face-to-face meeting.’” Tristam reports that Dateline, the Center for Missing and Exploited Children, and other related agencies are basing their reports on a study from the federal Office of Juvenile Justice, which “found that 19 percent of Internet users age 10-17 ‘received an unwanted sexual solicitation in the past year,’ but three-quarters of those were from fellow-children or juveniles. Just 3 percent of youth Internet users ‘received an aggressive solicitation involving offline contact,’ and ‘none of the solicitations led to an actual sexual contact or sexual assault.’”
Of course, that the show’s producer has charged it with unethical behavior is equally compelling. The Smoking Gun reports that producer Marsha Bartel is accusing NBC in a breach of contract lawsuit of firing her after she complained “that the show violated ‘numerous journalistic ethical standards’ and many of the network’s own ‘policies and guidelines.’” In her attempt to obtain $1 million in damages, she added that NBC was “more interested in sensationalizing and dramatizing the Predator series for profit than news reporting.” Ouch! Of course, NBC stands by its hit show because of its transparency and the public service it provides.
Even more creepily, the show engages in the exact kind of pornographic voyeurism predators apparently love. The comments made during online chats, which the show broadcasts without reservation (most educated people know what those *!#* mean), pander to viewers’ lurid curiosity. One wonders how many predators are getting off on the show itself (and how many are learning to beat the system). Something surreal and post-modern flows while watching online predators engage in online sex chats.
Yes, online predators exist. Yes, they are revolting. Yes, I want them behind bars. And yes, many viewers enjoy this show. But why exactly do they enjoy it? That question has not been adequately answered. And a growing chorus of dissenters has been buzzing for months now. I applaud Chris Hansen and his colleagues for attempting to stop online predators. What law-abiding citizen doesn’t want this problem to end? However, I am disappointed that Hansen himself had to become a journalistic “predator” in the process. He should know better, and his colleagues expect more. Ratings and sensationalism should never trump ethics. The irony here, of course, is that Hansen is now claiming, after the debacle in Murphy, Texas, that he doesn’t “want to get involved in the DA’s business or the police business.” It’s a bit late for that Chris.
Chris Justice is the Director of Expository Writing at The University of Baltimore.
Comments
I agree with your view on MSNBC’s To Catch A Predator. This show and its regular viewers, remind me of the performances of the Roman Coliseum - vulgar and inhumane. I know what this show is about - the ratings and profit.
To think viewers do not realize that family members, friends, and strangers are viewing something that should not be on t.v. Families and friends, potentially, are ostracized and torn apart. The recent lawsuit hopefully will cancel this show. I agree that online predators and sexual predators in general need to receive therapy and pay the consequences, but not be for entertainment purposes.
MSNBC presenting this show as journalism, only devalues their integrity and believability.
Comment by David Rosen from Miami — July 24, 2007 @ 8:07 pm
Yes, NBC is in a tough spot. They have a show which people love to watch and in which perverts are confronted and then arrested on camera.
If NBC were to air this as a “normal” reality show, then they’d be called “perverts” themselves. If they air it in news magazine format, as they do now, they are grilled on their journalistic ethics. If they do not air it at all, they are foregoing what I imagine must be millions of dollars in ratings value (mostly advertising) and they are resisting the demand of their own viewers.
If you can figure an easy way for them to package this material, I’m sure NBC is all ears because millions of people, including myself, want to watch this stuff. To that extent, it is the gigantic audience for this show that is “to blame” for its existence. Likewise with COPS’ 20-year run. For more on why we like these shows, look up “schadenfreude.”
By the way, I agree with you - where are all the other “sting shows”? Hansen and Brian Ross at ABC both took on the Nigerian 419 scams and Hansen’s To Catch a Predator went after credit card fraud once, but other sting programs would be way popular and why there aren’t more is a mystery.
Comment by Drew from Brooklyn — July 25, 2007 @ 3:02 pm
Chris Hanson/Dateline does their job. It is unfortunate that the sister of the D.A that committed suicide refuses to acknowledge that her sibling was a predator and probably for a while. People don’t acquire a sexual desire for kids overnight, male or female. Just like any other person who commits a crime there is always collateral damage…family, friends that will be affected. A drunk driver that decides to drink then drive and kill a pedestrian will hurt their family. However, the driver has made a choice. Instead of choosing the right thing, the person chooses wrong. The person who decides to kill does just that as well as a rapist and so on.
Let’s take this into perspective, if a man decides to have an affair and the girlfriend /wife catches him in the act, does not say to the man “Well, I know that you wouldn’t have done that under normal circumstances or if you weren’t solicited.” The man obviously is aware of his actions. A lot of deception is going on to set up rendezvous, buy gifts, pretend he doesn’t know who keeps calling and so on. Neither are they sympathetic if the man says I did it because of problems at home, or I was lonely, needed physical contact etc. Most times the affair goes undetected. In any event, people get hurt, are embarrassed and feel betrayed, sometimes feel as though it is their fault. That somehow they should have known or recognized the signs. Children that get molested/raped often feel it is their fault and very seldom tell adults because of the guilt, ridicule or chastisement they might receive by adults. Woman are often subjected to this as well.
What about the victims? How can you give back innocence or a life? What about the victims family? These pedophiles, some of them with children the same age, have these sexual tendencies already and are fully aware of them and have chosen to communicate, respond, and often go to meet these children. The D.A who was caught was not only soliciting a child, which by the way was a boy but he fully knew the law and probably prosecuted a few pedophiles during his career. If he was not interested in children then he would be in chat rooms where adults are and if IM’d by someone underage, the person would immediately say “you’re too young” report it, chastise, etc and move on. Dateline, as well as law enforcement in general do stings for every other crime (drugs, bail jumpers, warrants, prostitution), why not child predators? Some people are upset because of the types of individuals that are being apprehended. Many viewers are probably expecting sleazy, dirty, unemployed men but instead are finding that some have prominent positions in society. If these individuals were the less desirable people in society, there would be no complaints. The people who are complaining should not be hypocrites and realize that the laws are there for the rich, poor, famous, obscure, male, and female. No one should be above the law. If someone tried to hurt a child of mine or of someone I knew, it does not matter what lifestyle the person was from. The predator still must be punished. The D.A killed himself because he got caught, could not weasel out of it, and basically knew his career and credibility was over/damaged.
Furthermore, if for example I don’t like tomatoes, no amount of coaxing will make me eat it. However, if I have a predisposition for it, then I might be tempted to break my decision and eat some tomatoes. Those who are reading this just think about it, if a child tried to solicit you, would you do it out of weakness or because it is something you desire to do? You don’t just wake up one day and decide to do that. And you don’t “slip” into it either. If a man meets what he believes to be a woman and then finds out is actually a transvestite, he does not continue to talk, meet or sleep with the transvestite unless that is his desire/intention to do so.
The other thing citizens should also think about is the possibility that these pedophiles might elevate to abducting children, molesting, raping and killing children. Before Dateline came along, many kids were being raped and killed by people they met on the Internet. The same reason we have sexual offenders register so that communities can identify predators in their neighborhood, the same way Chris Hanson, and Perverted Justice are revealing the predators that are hiding under the cloak of prominence and status in their communities. Seemingly law-abiding fathers, husbands, boyfriends, doctors, lawyers, clergy, pillars of the community, while all the time underneath, they are nothing more than wolves in sheep clothing.
Kids who use explicit language have many ways to learn it- television shows, music videos, models, movie stars, books, magazines etc. that portray woman in general as sex objects and that use their sexuality to attract love & attention. A child that has a need for attention might be easy bait. Some girls may even believe it is expected of them to act that way. Most can imitate the language but rarely have the maturity to understand the repercussions. Many girls look older than they are but that is not what child predators look for, especially the kind that asks their bra size. Those predators prefer prepubescent girls. Adults should seek other Adults and not children regardless if they are propositioned. Please viewers do your research. And remember it happens to boys too.
Entrapment is defined as the police inducing an otherwise unwilling person to commit a crime. However, the predator contacts a person online (whether solicited or not), discovers that the person is under the legal age but continues to talk because that is the intention of the predator. To top it off many predators send explicit photos and travel many hours to meet with the child, often bringing gifts and other illegal things. Looks have nothing to do with it. There is someone for everyone. There are plenty of overweight, unattractive men and women that are not pedophiles. The individuals that exhibited limited mental capacities may need help but many knew that it was wrong.
Some people think that the DA did not do anything wrong and that perhaps NBC was judge, jury & executioner. However, the moment he started talking to an underage person in a sexual manner, he committed a crime. If I go online and solicit someone to kill my husband, I have committed a crime even if I don’t follow through and meet the gun for hire. It is called a conspiracy to commit an unlawful act. Dateline did not create the situation, it was already there. They just exposed it and made viewers that were oblivious to it, snap out of it and become aware (whether they want to or not). There are predators everywhere and some slip under the radar, just like D.A. Conradt. There are predators that actively travel to other countries (Thailand, it came on TV) to legally engage in sex or sexual acts with children (some 5 years old) because they know it is illegal here.
I think that Dateline are fully aware of the risks involved and I am sure they have a contingency plan in place but I often wonder how many of these predators that were caught are not actually serial killers etc? I think of how many serial killers were caught by simple things like parking tickets, traffic violations and I can only wonder.
Comment by Mother of five from NY — July 28, 2007 @ 10:32 pm
Makes for great entertainment…The article above states clearly that it does not condone the behavior of sexual predators and is repulsed by their sickness. I am as well. But the point of the article is about the journalistic integrity of the show going out of its way to humiliate and finger point - on camera, for ratings.
I do not think it was in good taste to mention : ” The D.A killed himself because he got caught, could not weasel out of it, and basically knew his career and credibility was over/damaged.”
What if this was your brother, father, grandfather? I guess you would say if it was my brother, he deserves to die.
Despite what you think, it is disgusting to have MSNBC’s host act like he’s above the law. A journalist reports and does not capture criminals for the sake of entertainment. I have committed to not watching this program because it is just another cheap vehicle to gather people who want to see filth.
Comment by David from Miami — July 28, 2007 @ 11:36 pm
I do not think that anyone deserves to die. If any relative of mine committed a crime, then as I tell my children, you should accept the punishment. When someone does good he/she should be rewarded accordingly and likewise the opposite. Two questions…instead of what if it was my brother etc…what if it was your child he was going to meet? What if the DA was not caught? Would he have continued his charade…continued to meet little boys online and offline? I think so. I wonder how many people knew about it and turned their head. How many had the DA met already?
Insofar as humiliation, the news does it all the time to anyone noteworthy (Presidents, athletes, etc). The show “Cops” pursued many individuals and subjected them to far worse. The difference is viewers recognize that those individuals on Cops deserved their outcome because they are what society labels as criminals and committed an obvious crime, and so they are comfortable with it. However, when it is a person of good standing (or seemingly good standing) then it’s called humiliation. Goodness knows I don’t want to mention the “white bronco chase”.
The journalistic aspect of NBC/Dateline/Hanson could be defined as sensational television but not a reality show like “Survivor”. I don’t think it started out to attract ratings (although that is the objective of every television show), it just so happened that it interested the viewers and subsequently lead to higher ratings.
Just like “Americas Most Wanted” the police work with the show/host as well. It’s top rated and people enjoy watching it, why… because they want to catch the criminals. Criminals that have been identified as such and wear “long trench coats”… not the doctor or the nice clergyman that they shake hands with on Sunday morning. Those are the types of individuals I would be most afraid of because they blend in and go unnoticed. People are more likely to trust the nice, educated, clean-shaven, well-dressed individual and avoid the person who looks suspect. I would like to know who my neighbors/acquaintances are before I leave them in the care of that person. “Catch A Predator” has awaken the reality of many and infiltrated their comfort zones by revealing skeletons in the closet and their deepest, darkest secrets.
Comment by Mother of five — July 29, 2007 @ 5:08 pm
Mother of five. I truly do sympathize with wanting to protect your kids. Any normal parent would. I would caution you, however, against thinking that because of NBC and their show that they are being made any safer.
RAINN.org (a victim’s advocacy organization) posted a report done by the U.S. Department of Justice on victims of child rape under the age of 12. The DOJ found that 96%, Yes, that is right 96% of child rape victims under 12 were victimized either by family members, relatives, or someone they knew well and trusted. The predator under every rock and stranger danger being the greatest thing to fears is FALSE. You just aren’t being told about it.
Kids are in more danger of being molested inside their own homes than by a stranger.
Hopefully this allows links. You can cut and paste it into your browser window and it will take you to the report referenced.
http://www.rainn.org/docs/statistics/child_rape_victims92.pdf?PHPSESSID=c92ab2f220f17f033a405db503f9410e
Comment by Bear from Midwest — August 6, 2007 @ 10:56 pm
To Catch a Predator is not making every child safer. However, it <i>is</i> making safer children who use internet chat rooms and all the children who trusted the arrested men.
Comment by Drew from Brooklyn — August 8, 2007 @ 12:18 pm
How so Drew? Can you please elaborate? Can you show this statistically?
Comment by Bear from Midwest — August 8, 2007 @ 3:05 pm
— PopMatters sponsor —
I wouldn’t know how to get specific numbers on this effect; I’m simply using deduction.
If a man is in a jail cell, he is not in chat rooms hitting on children. Ergo, there is one less predator online and the children he could have encountered are that much safer. Granted, a lot of these guys <i>aren’t</i> in jail, but some are and others are confronting their behavior in counseling, so the total predatory online activity of these men has been decreased by some factor, however small.
As for the children who are close to these 75 or so convicted men and trust them, I have no evidence, but I’m just going to go ahead and assume that at least one or two of them was molesting a daughter/nephew/student/etc. and another three or four were considering it. This is pure conjecture and again I have no evidence, but if any of these men were already molesting or were going to violate a child that trusted them and if the arrests arranged by NBC stemmed that activity, then those children are safer. I’m going to assume that at least a few imminent tragic events that were avoided thanks to these arrests.
You’ve not expressed your ake on the show itself and correct me if I’m wrong, but I think we are in agreement that millions of viewers are probably getting the wrong impression about the true nature of the sexual predator problem. To a large extent, though, I think it is the responsibility of the viewer to learn how to intelligently interpret the programming they watch. Maybe you think the show needs a disclaimer so no one’s confused:
“Hi, I’m Chris Hanson. We’ve gotten a lot of feedback regarding our To Catch a Predator series and feel we need to clarify something. Our show is not an overview of sexual predation across the United States. Our show is about a very specific type of sexual predator: the online predator. You’ve seen on our show arrest after arrest of men who’ve come from hundreds of miles away to meet underage children for a sexual encounter and this may create the impression that this is the primary modus operandi of sexual predators who target children. On the contrary, according to a 1992 Department of Justice study, 96% of child rape victims under 12 said the offender was not a stranger at all, but a family member, friend or acquaintance.
Now you may ask, ‘But Chris, your show doesn’t feature the use of decoys pretending to be under 12; what are the stats for 12-17 year olds?’ and the answer to your question is 85%, so just forget what I said about 96%.
But you may then say, ‘Hey Chris, that study’s from when?’
‘94, but the data’s from ‘92.
‘So wait, hasn’t legal code been changed since then to deter some of this activity?’
Yes.
‘And haven’t we seen scandal after scandal exposed, including around a million incidents involving the Catholic Church and don’t you think children are being educated more about predatory behavior?’
Probably.
‘And, hey didn’t use of the internet get popular in like ‘98, way after that study?’
Damn, that’s a good point. There was no such thing as an online predator when that study was done.
‘Thanks, yeah, I mean, c’mon, it’s been 15 years; how useful do you think that study is today?’
Now that you mention it, marginally useful at best, but if you’re asking all these questions, you’re not the type of viewer that needed this disclaimer, the point of which was to say that our show is not about <i>all</i> sexual predators. It’s just about the ones that use the internet. So, just like when COPS is over, you don’t turn off the television saying to yourself, ‘Hey, I guess every criminal lives in a trailer home, has an expired gun permit, beats their wife and is a middleman in the local meth distribution chain,’ we’d like you to draw equally sensible conclusions when watching our show. Don’t assume every predator is a stranger on the internet. Keep an eye on your spouse and your brother-in-law, too. Hanson out.”
I don’t know, maybe it’s NBC’s responsibility to deliver content <i>and</i> tell us how to interpret it.
Comment by Drew from Brooklyn — August 8, 2007 @ 10:20 pm
Drew, you make some interesting points. I guess my biggest problem is that “Perverted Justice” (that has a shady reputation) and NBC are collaborating in what should be, in my opinion, a law enforcement exercise. There is danger of corruption of the chain of evidence, and recently all 21 of the “catches” in Texas were dismissed by the prosecutor because of the proper protocols not being followed. This resulted in a city manager being fired and also the suicide of a prosecuting attorney. If law enforcement by itself were involved HEY! NO PROBLEM! When you get someone like NBC and Chris Hansen involved (ratings=money) then IMO it corrupts the process.
I am also interested why in this day of hysteria over stranger danger that no one seems to be too worried about where the greater danger lies to our kids. The US Department of Justice published a report and 1994 and another I believe in 2000 that shows over 80% of child victims are molested/raped by family members, relatives, and/or people close to them that they trust. The 1992 report puts this at 96%.
I have the link for the ‘92 report, but can’t find the link for the later one. Will have to keep looking.
http://www.rainn.org/docs/statistics/child_rape_victims92.pdf?PHPSESSID=c92ab2f220f17f033a405db503f9410e
Anyway, with this number of kids being sexually abused (MOST OF THEM) inside their homes, why aren’t we hearing anything about it? You gotta wonder…............I DO.
Regards,
Bear
Comment by Bear from Midwest — August 8, 2007 @ 11:08 pm
Again, as I mentioned in my original post, no one who complains about the show wants to take a position and offer a real alternative. You say law enforcement agencies should do this without involving Dateline and no one is preventing them from doing that.
You make it sound like Hansen and Dateline are involving themselves in a police matter, but remember that the first episode or two in fact did not involve police at all and the men were simply allowed to leave. This all began as an investigation into the mindset of this specific type of predator, but naturally, viewers asked why the men were not being arrested so law enforcement was brought in. But the arrests are an afterthought, a logical next step, but totally secondary to the interviews.
You seem to be saying that the press should not have the right to conduct this type of investigation at all or, if they do, law enforcement should not be directly involved. Would you be okay with it if Chris Hansen conducted his surprise interviews with pedophiles without alerting the police at all? Or should Dateline deliver all the video evidence and chat logs to the local police the following day?
As far as throwing out cases where protocol was not followed and the termination of a city manager who doesn’t know or doesn’t follow protocol and a likely pedophile committing suicide - none of that is the worst news I’ve ever heard.
I wouldn’t call the fixation on “stranger danger” a hysteria, but part of the reason it is reported on more is because it is often immediately detected. When a friend or family member is the offender, there is no missing child, no grieving parents, no possible homicide - the whole story is a secret and usually remains that way for years. Those cases can only be reported on after the fact and even then it takes a victim who can overcome their shame, but when it’s a complete stranger, the coverage is often live because it can be. Police and volunteers combing fields, eye witness sketches, the personal history of the suspect, grainy department store footage of an abduction - you get the idea.
The family member molester story is always an adult talking about something that happened 20 years ago. Stories like that will never carry the urgency of stories about someone who is a victim right now - a victim with a face and a name.
Comment by Drew from Brooklyn — August 9, 2007 @ 2:55 am
Drew, again some very good points. I still have to find myself quite disturbed however, that we are ignoring the vast majority of child sexual abuse.
Until NBC sensationalized this series IMO it may have been ok. I guess my biggest problem is the same as the author of the article above. I find it disturbing that NBC would want to make money exploiting the tawdry underside of American society and I find it equally disturbing that the American public would see it as entertainment.
IMO a victim is a victim. We always have a face and a name. All of us.
It’s been an interesting discussion.
Godspeed
Comment by Bear from Midwest — August 9, 2007 @ 10:13 am
Decent discussion I guess; I don’t know, I’m still frustrated to hear you criticize the show without articulating how you would do it correctly. It’s the most unfair and unhelpful type of criticism because it’s starting to sound like no matter what NBC does, you will complain. If they run their investigation with no law enforcement, people complain. If they conduct their investigation <i>with</i> law enforcement, it smacks of corruption. Conceivably, they can stop their reporting of it altogether which is probably what you want, but that wouldn’t that be under-reporting on some level?
It appears you want them to report it, but with much less frequency, and when they do (do you want the police there or not?), other forms of child predation should get attention proportional to how often they occur.
It’s not the media’s responsibility to calculate the prevalence of every social phenomenon and report everything in balanced proportion. Their job - let’s be honest - is to deliver viewers to advertisers without lying and without breaking the law. It is such a lazy attitude to demand that the media report everything in such a way that no one can misinterpret it. The media is just made up of other people with their own views, so the audience needs to have a much more active approach. What remains on television is the responsibility of the viewers that support it; likewise with what information those viewers trust and how they interpret it.
If Dateline broke the law, their legal punishment should not be in any way mitigated by any perceived good the show has done. If they did not break any laws, my feeling is that the way they presented their investigation is perfectly acceptable and they can do it as often as they like with or without police involvement, but no matter what NBC does with this show (including cancelling it), there will be people complaining without offering an answer.
And I think you know I was not trying to say any victim is more or less important than another. I’m just saying the nature of the stranger predator is what causes its “over-reporting.” The familiar predator does not disrupt the normalcy of life in such a way that the media becomes instantly aware of it. It is typically reported long after the abuse and therefore, the attention it gets is naturally less sensational.
Anyway, I know what you’re saying, but the vague complaining with no solution is so, like, college coffee shop activist. It’s like having half an opinion. Nothing personal, but we’ve gone back and forth here a few times and still you have no suggestions for NBC.
Comment by Drew from Brooklyn — August 9, 2007 @ 2:23 pm
Drew, thank you for your response. I do feel that you missed the point of some of my previous comments.
I agree quite strongly with the author of the blog article above. I am quite disturbed that a so-called “Investigative Reporting Unit” or program would make its bread and butter by exploiting the underbelly of society. This feeds the morbidity of their viewing public, a viewership who is entertained by humiliation.
In my opinion, if Dateline were to remain true to “investigative reporting” it would be just that. An investigation and a report. IMO it should not be ‘entertainment’.
I do feel rather strongly that the accent on stranger danger contributes to a feeling that ” this will stop the problem”. I find no focus on prevention. I find no programs anywhere focusing on prevention of sex abuse in the home. This is the hugest portion of sex abuse in America. More than 90%. It’s being ignored.
This is a very hard subject for me. People like me are ignored so that Chris Hansen and politicians alike can make their money and votes.
My suggestion to NBC? Investigatively report. Don’t exploit, don’t call it investigative reporting when in fact it is entertaining a morbidity.
Comment by Bear from Midwest — August 9, 2007 @ 7:31 pm
What precludes To Catch a Predator from being an investigative report? That it is entertaining? I’m sorry; just because something is entertaining (or garners high ratings) doesn’t mean it suddenly ceases to be an investigative report. Are you saying 60 Minutes is not entertaining? They report on tragedies of all kinds all the time; is that exploitation?
Look, no matter how you present interviews with sexual predators getting caught red-handed, it will be entertaining to me and millions of others. So you must be saying you wish TCAP was never produced at all and if only we could apply your judgment retroactively, 77 fewer men would have been convicted of inappropriate sexual conduct directed at a child.
Clearly, you feel there are very specific (and unentertaining) ways that news (and even shows that call themselves news <i>magazines</i>) should be presented, but the stentorian-voiced newsmen in horn-rimmed glasses have all died. I’m just glad you don’t work for the FCC because the conviction of the guy that brought rope and duct tape alone justifies TCAP’s existence, not to mention all the other men and all the local stings it has and will spark. Censorship of this program is totally unnecessary.
And I completely disagree that there is a widespread belief that this show is going to “stop the problem.” On the contrary, any regular viewer knows the most compelling reason to watch this program is to see, despite the show’s huge popularity, the endless supply of men that show up.
It’s pretty hilarious that the one journalist coming anywhere even remotely near the problem you find so concerning is the journalist that receives your harshest criticism. And trust me, if Dateline can think of a way to confront men who are sexually abusing their own children, they will do it.
The most valid argument against Dateline on this whole page is the author’s question as to how NBC will report on the future conduct of the law enforcement they’ve work “parallel” to during these investigations, but no news organization is in a vacuum. How would CNN report on the airlines their employees fly or the brand of computers that fills their studio?
For all the conmen, car thieves, identity thieves and iPod thieves they’ve busted, I’m glad Dateline has spent the bulk of their time on stings that nab online predators. As long as they do not lie or break the law, they should be allowed to conduct and broadcast these operations as many times as they want no matter how high the ratings go.
Yeah, it’s a real tragedy that this show is successful. Whatever.
Comment by Drew from Brooklyn — August 10, 2007 @ 12:51 am
We obviously aren’t speaking the same English language. Clearly any discussion of this topic presenting any point of view other than your own is a waste of your time and most definitely a waste of mine. Your presuming to understand my mind and my way of thinking is way off, but then for me to assume that you would be open minded enough to even consider another point of view was presumptuous on my part.
Enjoy Jerry Springer, Montel, TCAP, and the rest of the programs that dredge up the dregs of American society for the entertainment of what is becoming the sickest and most morbid society on the planet. The police can CAP without exploitation IMO with the same results.
Godspeed to you.
Comment by Bear from Midwest — August 10, 2007 @ 1:00 pm
— PopMatters sponsor —
Censorship and/or telling the press how to act (see Amendment One) to me is the close-minded position and far more dangerous than any television freak show. I don’t how many Springer- and Montel-type shows are even still on the air; I never liked them, but I never got grumpy about it. I <i>do</i> however enjoy To Catch A Predator and COPS.
I just wondered if there was some specific facet of the show they could fix for you if you just wish it would go away altogether.
Comment by Drew from Brooklyn — August 10, 2007 @ 4:08 pm
Tickets you get for parking where you shouldn’t are asctually a representation of the violation of one of the same constitutional amendments you’re talking about
Comment by Show — December 3, 2007 @ 1:37 pm
Show, what constitutional amendment are you talking about?
Comment by Rihannas — December 14, 2007 @ 12:21 pm
dauhfkdi http://unqcnrwa.com iuxqifua pjvxemrd
Comment by cycgmljl from ifqncnzp, skpklsou — May 16, 2008 @ 11:10 am
That man is the richest whose pleasures are the cheapest.
Comment by phentermine online from USA, Indianapolis — May 18, 2008 @ 12:33 pm
I never met anybody who said when they were a kid, “I wanna grow up and be a critic.”
Comment by losec from USA, Fort Worth — May 18, 2008 @ 12:40 pm