I'm interested in the perspective of the GA community regarding the
increase in either the news coverage of, or incidence of,
child-related crimes such as has been very visible lately. The
Boston-area priest abuse cases, the two recent Florida
missing/murdered children, the teen from CA, the Michael Jackson
case....  Is there more of this stuff, or is news simply more
accessible?  Are there social/psychological trends in the environment
that are causing an increase in this behaviour over the past 20 years
or so?  In particular, has the media coverage (Internet, news and late
night investigating series/fiction) resulted in an increase interest
in (exposure to) concepts that people might not otherwise contemplate?
 I'm simply curious about people's thoughts.  I don't need/expect a
researched answer, just a few opinions from the community, and should
an official researcher choose to answer the question with a more
in-depth response than personal opinion, I will, of course, tip
him/her.

---

Request for Question Clarification by pafalafa-ga on 18 Apr 2005 17:19 PDT

Have to throw my two or three cents in here.

One of the things I do a lot of as a GA researcher is look through old
newspaper files.  One of the big surprises from this -- especially in
the smaller town papers -- is how many grizzly stories there are in
just about any decade of the 20th century.  Murders, rapes,
kidnappings, gangs, ritual slayings.  You name it.

There isn't much on chld molestation, but I suspect that has more to
do with a hush-hush attitude than with an actual difference in the
rate it occured.

Just an impression on my part, without any real facts to back it up. 
But cruise through some old papers some time if you want to raise the
small hairs on the back of your neck.

paf

---

Clarification of Question by margi-ga on 18 Apr 2005 19:36 PDT

Interesting. I don't really have a "clarification" for you (not really
sure what you are asking).  I currently don't have easy access to old
news other than via Google search. BUT, I am going to try to stay
focused on figuring out what I can do as an individual contributor to
protect the children in my life and that I care about, and perhaps
create some sort of outreach.

It makes sense to me that the increased exposure of these concepts,
and the net effect of having this fringe become more and more
mainstream/semi- acceptable, would increase the incidence of, not just
the coverage of, actual child abuse and violence.  Gory, horrific,
de-humanizing things have been done to humans by humans for as long as
we've been around... but somehow, now, we (as a society--or lack
thereof--) are making it seem exciting instead of the truly repulsing
acts they really are.  The availability of concepts combined with the
sensationalism, I believe, feeds the minds of the sick and makes our
children vulterable to their cruelty. That is what really bothers me
the most.

Thank you, everyone, for your comments/ideas.

I have a friend who works in law enforcement at the federal level -- I
could tell you more, but then my friend would have to kill ya ;-)

My friend believes that the multiplicity of chatrooms and other social
venues on the Internet has caused an increasing number of pedophiles
to view themselves as "normal," since they are able to socialize with
many others who share their interests. The Internet also makes it easy
for pedophiles to swap hints and tips on how to attract victims and
how to avoid arrest. They can also share provocative photos.

All of these things could be done before the advent of the Internet,
but how many pedophiles would be likely to join a club that meets in
person, in the "real" world? NAMBLA aside, I doubt that such clubs
have ever had very large memberships. The 'Net makes it so much
easier.

It would make sense that, due to repeated Internet exposure over time,
a person that wouldn't otherwise be pre-disposed to acting out the
behaviour (that's fictionalized or roll-played via the Internet),
could become desensitized. I've read that for a certain part of the
population, that desensitization escalates into the need for higher
thrills / pushing boundaries, and what was once considered extreme no
longer satisfies the need for the endorphin rush. It can take more and
more to stimulate/satisfy those areas of the brain.  And, the
endorphins become addictive, like a drug that entices the addicted to
seek more and higher highs... I'm horrified that some people can't
draw the line that differentiates fantasy versus
mental/psychological/socialogical compulsion to do harm to innocent
children. A news report tonight said Florida has over 35,000
registered sex offenders, many of which are considered child
predators.  Considering most don't get caught because victims are
scared to report the abuse... the possible numbers of these beasts is
staggering.

I was on a 3D rendering site (for making 3D models for animation, like
Toy Story or The Incredibles, - type animation for movies.) and in a
gallery stumbled upon a few screenshots of an animation an artist did
with adults and children in nude interaction. It made me ill.  I sent
a note to the webmaster suggesting that they audit their user
galleries. Kids can get to these galleries easily via a (no offense)
Google Image search.

I believe in the freedom of speach, but at the same time, am trying to
determine what a caring, responsible and outraged society can do to
protect our precious children.

Several explanations: 

(1) More awareness. There are more reports on domestic violence and
rape as there has been 50 years ago: more people are aware of the
problem and complain. Take the cases of pedophile priests for example.
When it happened to them, the victims felt alone, that they could
trust no-one to whom they can tell their story. When the story broke,
suddenly more victims came forward, feeling that there is an
atmosphere of support for their claims. In other words: there have
been always pedophiles, but this has been shushed by society.

(2) Depictions of violence in the media. Murder is a good story, and
the media has turned, in a way, into a "story-teller" instead of a
reporter. I was lately in the United States (I don't live there). The
news depicted the Michael Jackson trial, Charles and Camilla's then
impending marriage and stories of the same sort (and no, I haven't
watched E! or some "tabloid" network). I haven't seen discussions of
issues that should really concern people, like the budget/spending
(economy is b-o-r-i-n-g, pedophile pop-star is interesting), or the
daily events in Iraq (this is repeating itself, unlike Charles'
wedding, which is a once-in-a-lifetime event. OK, twice in a
lifetime). In other words, the media is here to sell (commercials) and
people will watch if the stories are interesting, not unlike medieval
story-tellers.

(3) The reaction of the public and the politicians. There's sometimes
a hype, frenzy, whatever you'll call it, regarding some issue. For
example, some dozen years ago it has been "Satanic Cults": suddenly
many people came forward, claiming they have been victims of "Satanic
Abuse" and of "Ritual Abuse" and politicians talked about it as if
nothing else (economy, real therats to the society) matters, which
turned out - of course - to be in a much smaller scope in reality than
the public hysteria regarding this pehnomenon. Not only that, this
might have given ideas to some really sick individuals on how to abuse
other people or animals.

The fact is: more people in the world die of hunger, diseases that
could be controlled, or (depending on the part of the world from which
they come) heart problems/environmental pollution/traffic accidents or
being obese, than of murder. Most of those who die of murder, die in
wars, in the Third World; or in violent, poor, areas. More children,
who are already neglected, suffer from child abuse.

All of these answers are correct. The media focuses on the lurid which
draws an audience. But look at the increased depictions of anti-social
behaviors in Hollywood movies and TV shows. The use of explicit sex in
commercials and magazine-billboard ads is increasing. Video games
create a "real time" sense of causing mayhem that induces an adrenalin
rush in teenagers to young adults.

Two recent books by psychologists with experience in treating
psychopathic behavior, "Without Conscience" by Dr. Robert Hare, and
"The Sociopath Next Door" by Dr. Martha Stout, maintain the our
culture values and rewards some elements of anti-social behavior. From
sports to the entertainment industry, the "lone wolf" is commonly
exalted.

College campuses have experienced an upsurge in anti-social behaviors
in recent years. Much of it is group related and alcohol induced. But
an increase in isolated males stalking females is also more common.

I agree with Pinkfreud about her friend's estimation of the influence
of internet venues.  In Germany there has just been a trial for
cannabalism (! right, but no one thought there needed to be a specific
law against it, so the criminal case has to be based on other laws). 
Through internet, two men came into contact and agreed, apparently on
who was going to do what, met in the house of the now accused, i.e.,
the victim went voluntarily.  I'll spare you the details.
Point is, one can find not just "almost anything" on internet, one can
find anything or everything to live out one's fantasies.
And, of course, media coverage of more common crimes exploits and
broadcasts them in a way that wasn't possible years ago.  If it
happens anywhere in the world and is "juicy" and bloody, it will be on
a TV program that gives it multi-continental distribution.

Hmmm.  So, the net/net of this is that, while there may have always
been a significant number of child abuse and violence/murders (once is
too much if you ask me), the GA community does, in many respects, buy
into the theory that increased media/Internet exposure to these
horrific concepts somehow translates into these acts being carried out
on our innocent youth.

The adrenalin rush and endorphin release also can be addicting,
thereby causing a certain number of these offenders to repeat the
offense by causing a positive psychological feedback loop that rewards
negative/pathological behaviour. Indeed interesting.  And, even those
of us who choose to be spectators... be that by watching the special
victims unit version of a popular TV show, by purchasing violent video
games, or even by accidentally stumbling across inappropriate content
on the Internet, could potentially feed our own systems with these
same "drugs"... desensitizing us to the stimuli... and blurring the
line between acceptable behaviour and not.

I try to be very careful about what I "feed my brain" so to speak (I
have a photographic memory) AND...it's not that I'm some right wing
conservative or a prude or not open minded. That's not me at all. But,
even for the vast majority of people (who probably don't have this
type of memory), knowing how powerful these physical/phsycological
reactions can be, one must ask themselves why they would knowingly
expose themselves to this extreme content in the first place.

That said, there will always be the fringe... the guy/gal on the edge
between right and wrong... who gets tempted and starts down the
slippery slope.

***So, the question remains:**** What can an outraged and caring
community (or parent, or family...) do to protect our children from
these animals -- animals that, for whatever reason, cannot discern
what is right from what is wrong and who prey on our most vulnerable. 
If, statistically, 2 in 100 people are sociopaths, how can we teach
our children to protect themselves when we literally come in contact
with sociopaths in our every day life (neighbor, co-worker, vendor,
etc.) and WE can't weed them out? You always hear things like "He was
such a nice guy... so quite... no one thought he could do something
like this..." on the news.

I have no clue what to tell children what to look out for.  The
"stranger in the car" or "stranger with the lost puppy" scenario is
too cliche'. These guys have all sorts of new tools at their disposal,
and the children often know (and maybe even trust) the abuser.

I'd appreciate keeping this string going, but it may be far enough
down the list now that folks don't notice it.  I appreciate everyone's
time and input to date into this perplexing issue.  Thank you very
much!

Second Timothy 3; 1-7 " But know this, that in the last days critical
times hard to deal with will be here. 2. For men will be lovers of
themselves, lovers of money, self assuming, haughty, blasphemers,
disobedient to parents, unthankful, disloyal.3. having no natural
affection, not open to any agreement, slanderers, without self
control, fierce, without love of goodness.4. Betrayers, headstrong,
puffed up with pride, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, 5.
Having a form of Godly devotion, but proving false to its power, and
from these turn away. 6. For from these arise such men who slyly work
their way into households, and lead as their captives weak women
loaded down with sins, led by various desires. 7. Always learning and
yet never able to come to an accurate knowledge of truth.
The Bible really says it all.

As a parent, be very involved in your childrens activities. Ask lots
of questions. Be a bit suspicious by nature. Check out invitations to
events. Show up at events and get a good look at the environment and
who is around. Watch TV shows and movies for yourself. Read reviews.
Get to know the other parents involved. Meet the parents, teachers,
coaches and administrators. Build a network you can rely on. If you
are doing the driving, ask the group about events and what they think.
You would be surprised at the stuff that pops up in a group returning
from a movie, game or event. Do not assume other parents use good
judgment.

BTW, a high % of kids who perpetrate school shootings play "first
person perspective" video games involving predatory shootings that
seem pointless and random. These games often use the same video
techniques used by the US military and in police training for serious
reasons. Movies, such as "Sin City" now in theaters, are a cgi
graphics blend of film and video special effects. The "R" rating
doesn't begin to suggest the appaling degree of violence. As a parent
be a careful consumer and a bit of a snoop.

I think that myoarin's comment, more than demonstrating the force of
the Internet, demonstrates the ability of the tabloid media to create
a story out of an extreme case. Germany is not full of cannibals. Most
murders in Germany are crime-related, or related to domestic violence.
If I count other causes of "untimely" death, I'd say that drug and
alcohol are responsible for many cases (not only the death of addicts,
but also death by drunk drivers or between drug-gangs). In other
words, a tabloid like the Bild prefers to continue to advertise beer
and sell papers through cannibalism stories, than to discuss
thoroughly the question of alcohol usage in Germany. And if we're at
it, those Germans who conceived the most horrible murders in the 20th
century, did not have the Internet to inspire them.

Politicalguru-ga,

Two different ideas about the influence of media and internet are entwined here:
that the media (and internet as a medium) broadcast everything and
harp on the "juicy" stuff  - that one can also easily seek "in depth"
then on the web (your req. for clarification and last comment);
and what pinkfreud-ga introduced: 
that the communication possibilities in internet let bloggers and
silent readers "discover"/"get the impression" that their weird
feelings are not so unique and weird (not all bloggers, of course!).

I was responding to this.  The example was  not a comment about
Germany.  Of course, pursuing the influence of the media, you are
right.  I don't read Bild (the major german tabloid), but the
Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (one of the two "serious" nationwide
dailies) reported in enough detail.

First of all the huge number just recently is not a trend it's just a
lot in a brief period of time.  There are also plenty of longer
periods of time with very few - THEY DON'T GET REPORTED!!!!!  You
don't notice them when they're not there.

We are experiencing incremental societal decadence.  Why must a story
of a missing woman who was about to be married be broadcast on every
AM radio station and news outlet in the country for dozens and dozens
of news cycles in a row?  Because we've slowly accepted more and more
gossip / worthless information that can provide no benefit whatsoever
for our own lives.  It's human nature - we've slowly adapted to
tolerate and enjoy gossip - useless - clutter to our brains instead of
worthwhile information.  Just another way that the people running and
dispersing information can dumb down and destroy a society so they can
rebuild it in their way.  Unfortunately, my friend, we won't be left
with much say.  If you doubt  what I've said - take my simple test. 
The next time you're listening to your local AM radio station and the
news comes on.  After each story ask yourself if the reporting of each
individual story can somehow benefit you.  Then ask yourself  - I
wonder about what percent of the people listening to this story could
benefit in any way, shape, or form.  You'll be stunned at what you
begin to realize.  The reason our Founding Fathers were 100 times
smarter than our smartest people today is they only digested useful
information.  Gossip and worthless (meaning no value to the average
traveler) information could not find it's way around - it wasn't there
for the consumption.  Brains are like computers - if you put gossip
garbage in - you get nothing in return.  Quickly - If I should move
out to Santa Barbara with my children I'll know not to go to Michael
Jackson's ranch.  I learned that the first ten seconds I heard a
report about him.  What did we learn about the Scott Peterson case? 
That one woman in every 3,000,000,000 may be drowned by a heathen
husband who wants to create another relationship?  I hope I've given
you the concrete answer you've been looking for.  Good luck!

Hi there, MediaReform

I buy into your argument re "garbage in, garbage out"...  I'm very
careful what I put into my brain. However, I think your note has more
to do with the general decline in media quality than it does with my
question.

My question was primarily "What can we (parents/society) do to protect
our children from these monsters." as well as "What makes these
monsters either a) grow in number or b) more visible." My hypothesis
is that, in a large part, I believe the Internet and mass media
contribute significanlty on both counts.

Still, for many of the reasons you mention, I do not watch much
television, nor do I listen to the mass news media (with the exception
of NPR every a.m. on my way to work.)  Since the advent of the
Internet, I use more global outlets for my access to news. I am a
Google News user as well. This allows me to be selective so that I can
choose world events and technology innovation as the two primary
things I focus on.

Thanks for posting,
Margi

i have also been concerned about the amount of coverage about these
issues of late. i believe it is a type of terorism in itself---causing
parents and children to fear and suspect ,inspiring bad behavior----i
also think it's all meant to be a BIG distraction from the war in
Iraq,a dying economy,and a sky-rocketing deficit...not to mention an
administration guilty of war crimes, special interests...whatever it
is,this trend cannot be healthy. i have contacted Ohio Rep. Dennis
Kucinich reguarding this issue.by supporting his proposed Dept. of
Peace,these and other issues can start to be addressed. more info
kucinich.us or peace alliance website.

This PDF file has extensive data for the 20th century:
http://www.pbs.org/fmc/book/pdf/ch12.pdf

and this article analyzes the media's coverage of these events:
http://www.media-awareness.ca/english/resources/educational/handouts/crime/our_top_story_tonight.cfm