Chester 24, Dateline 1*

I think their very first package qualified as news. It wasn't just John-rustling, they also had context and examples of children who were preyed on. But every show since then was for ratings, plain and simple.

 

I watched this show once, and I was co disgusted by both the people who showed up and the idea of the show itself that I turned it off and have never watched it again.

Yuck.

 

Do the pervs have to sign a release allowing Dateline to use their images? And if so, doesn't that make Dateline an entertainment show rather than a journalistic one?

 

Why would they have to get them to sign a release? The perpetrators are coming onto private property. It's not like Dateline is spying on them in their own houses.

But again, I laugh at this big news vs. entertainment argument. As if Dateline was some bastion of journalistic excellence prior to TCAP?

Guffaw.

 

No, they don't.

 

So because it attracts viewership Hansen is not pure of heart, and the whole thing is bad?

And sorry, the "let the cops do their jobs" line is just weak, unless you're making the case that newspapers and TV news should go to an all-blotter and feature format and complete give up investigative work, since cops should really be the ones doing that.

While you may choose to ignore this, the problem is quite large. As I said, my station did one of these. On day one, 16 guys showed up at the door expecting to have sex with a 13 year old. I'd say there's a good chance some of them may find another hobby after turning up on TV -- assuming they don't go to jail -- and if that's the case then they're providing a hell of a service.

 

Get a badge or get out of the business. And the problem -- whatever it is -- isn't "quite large." The actual criminal-justice stats prove otherwise. Unless, of course, TV stations, most of which don't have the moral sense god gave a frog, decide to throw some bait out there.

 

The bait, of course, being a child at a computer, which is apparently so irresistible we need to cut the molesters some slack.

Again, I have some first hand experience with one of these reports. The size of the problem is nothing short of nauseating. I was pretty down on the whole idea going in, but seeing the response led me to believe that despite the ethical questions it rises, nailing these guys is absolutely worthwhile.

 

No, the bait being some faker at a computer.
I have no doubt that local TV can convince itself that any whoring-after-ratings is a boon to society, but creating a crime so you can go trolling, in contravention of the actual statistics? I'm sure your numbers went up but you're not at this as a public service so, please, can the messianic doom-mongering.

 

And spare me the "it's TV", shit, all right? You can do better than lobbing some hackneyed cliche to support your argument here.

"Creating a crime" is a tidy way to put it, but it's absolutely wrong. Ask a cop dealing with computer crime or crimes against children if online solicitation of children is a problem.

Again, I have some qualms about the ethical issues here. I have bigger qualms about child rape.

 

Here's the biggest issue I have with this whole thing, and it's a line from the story:

Unless that "hundreds" is 200 -- and I doubt it is -- than getting just 194 convictions is poor. If they're going to use this tactic, increase the conviction percentage or find a better way so that the cops aren't wasting their time making arrests that never result in court convictions.

 

I would prefer to ask a cop. I'd prefer to ask a toad rather than the average local TV news director.
And, yes, this is about the fundamental flaw in television news morality -- namely, fake moral outrage for the purpose of goosing the numbers. And playing upon the fears of your audience for the purposes of same.