Spindoctrination
30 July 2007Jack McClellan is in the news yet again. He refuses to be silent, refuses to hide, refuses to be ashamed and refuses to violate the law. This frightens parents because he isn’t a stereotype. Maybe - they realise - the “typical paedophile” is not the mythical man with the moustache, weird smile and mug shot on the sex offenders’ register; he’s everyone. They’re right. There are most sex offenders are not paedophiles.
Despite this, the media are promoting the assumption that all paedophiles are either child molesters or “future child molesters.” This is incorrect.
I searched Google News for articles about Jack McClellan and found these headlines, among others -
- “Pedophile on the Loose”
- “Pedophile May Still Be Stalking SVC Kids”
- “Seattle-Area Pedophile Has ‘How-to’ Web Site for Men Seeking Little Girl Activities”
While these headlines don’t explicitly state that paedophiles are intent on molesting children, it is implicitly and subtly suggested, which shamelessly encourages such mainstream misconceptions about paedophilia.
In the articles, you may notice the following:
1. Emotive language -
“Moms fearing for their children’s safety are teaming up against a man who prowls playgrounds, amusement parks and fairs stalking little girls and then brazenly boasts about his exploits on his Web site.”
2. The disguised use of words describing uncertainty, a common tactic in subjective journalism -
“Sharon Hart is glad to know about a potential predator”
“Obviously, even if he’s not acting on his fantasies, this guy is a predator”
4. Finally, we have the infamous quote from a biased law enforcment officer -
““Has he acted on it? I can’t say,” Lieutenant Sirkel said. “But I’ve been in this business for 20 years, and I have never seen one who has not.””
Why would someone who works specifically with sex offenders - not paedophiles - ever have worked with a paedophile who hasn’t acted on his urges? The fact that he hasn’t worked with non-offenders doesn’t mean that non-offenders don’t exist; it is simply not part of his job to deal with law-abiding people. Obviously, he isn’t going to be aware of paedophiles who aren’t offenders unless they out themselves. As we have seen, a non-offending paedophile publicly outing himself is sufficiently rare to cause a media frenzy.
The fact is that, “people [are] upset that [they] don’t have any evidence of a crime.” If there is insufficient evidence to create a story, it is surprisingly easy for the media to subtly imply or suggest “information” or “facts” which the public wishes to hear. The media does this frequently, it’s doing this now, and the public fall for it every single time.
4 Responses to “Spindoctrination”
August 1st, 2007 at 11:49 am
Good article.
And yes, the manipulation is so very true.
And guess what? Some lawyers are trying to get him barred from being around children…
http://www.the-signal.com/?module=displaystory&story_id=49887&format=html
…and see the latest nonsense at AZ. “How do they KNOW he isn’t a criminal!!!111″
August 1st, 2007 at 12:58 pm
That injunction appears to be be nothing more than a publicity stunt/advertisement, in my opinion. I don’t know how anyone can claim that it doesn’t violate the 1st Amendment.
August 1st, 2007 at 2:29 pm
It would not even be tried here, for someone who is offence free.
WM
August 1st, 2007 at 5:06 pm
That also goes for the “can pedophile be stopped?” video in the Fox link. The British would still laugh at those three braying “news” clowns, and with good reason. Rarely has such an open admission of Freudian hysteria been expected in the news media.