The Spin Stops Here

Thursday, July 13, 2006

Have you ever wondered how to get someone to believe something that isn't true? One way to do it I've discovered is to hop on over to Wikipedia find the topic of your choice and edit to your hearts content. Why lots of people do it....for example....

Lindsay Ashford with the pedophile entry, or how about Blueribbon and Jillium on the new Wikia. What's interesting to note is that both use the same references to support their propoganda that approximately 90% of all child sex abuse cases are NOT committed by pedophiles. So if that doesn't ring true to you, let's see if we can figure out why.

First they quote this figure and link to Ken Lanning's 2001 Behavioral Analysis Study, which we previously showed you was incorrect HERE. So where in the world did they get that figure? The one we all know isn't true. Read the references listed in Wiki (and of course HT to Jillium for pointing me in the right direction). There's 3 references listed here that they seem to rely on the most. The first is an article by JoAnn DiLorenzo, the second is a study posted on the Correctional Services of Canada website, and the third is a study by Australian Northern Territory Government.

So we're gonna tell you what they say is in the reports and what's really there, we'll give you links to them and let you decide for yourself.

Today we're going to talk about JoAnn DiLorenzo. No, no she's not a scientist, she's not a physician, she's not a law enforcement officer, or an attorney, judge, or psychologist. What she is though, is a journalist. She writes for an alternative news source called Valley Advocate. In 2001 she wrote an article called Profile of a Pedophile. Subtitled How a prominent Ware attorney preyed on troubled boys - and why some people in town continue to stand by him.. And THIS is how she is referenced over on Wiki.
{10}^ DiLorenzo, JoAnn (1981). "How a prominent Ware attorney preyed on troubled boys," The Valley Advocate, quoting the FBI's Kenneth Lanning, who estimates that only 10% of child sex offenders are preferential.

Hmmm, seems simple enough, let's trot on over and see what Ms. DiLorenzo wrote, shall we?
Lanning believes most child molesters fit neatly into two categories. About 90 percent are so-called "situational child molesters" who capitalize on opportunities to molest children but don't necessarily prefer sex with children. The situational molester sexually exploits children to satisfy a curiosity, for kicks or because he's simply morally indiscriminate.

The 10 percent of child molesters who make up the second category are the bona fide "pedophiles," those who genuinely favor sex with children. This category, Lanning said, has two subsets, the "introvert" and the "seductor." The seductor can be a seemingly upstanding citizen, the "male role model" a family's been looking, a priest, mentor, coach, friend. This is deeply unsettling to most people.

Now look at those two paragraphs. This experienced journalist, makes it appear that she's interviewing Lanning and quoting him. She's not. She throws in enough quotes (taken word for word from his 2001 study) to make it appear that her own words are his. They are not. If we return to Lanning's 2001 study we see that she has mischaracterized what he said.

DiLorenzo said:
Lanning believes most child molesters fit neatly into two categories.

Lanning said:
Although my old typology was still useful, its limitations gradually became evident to me. I realized that complex human behavior did not easily fit into neat little boxes. I, therefore, slowly began to revise it, and it has been updated by the typology presented here. This newer typology places all sex offenders, not just child molesters, along a motivational continuum, Situational to Preferential,instead of into one of two categories. It is a continuum, not one or the other. p. 24

And now for the real kicker........this is the perfect example of media SPIN

DiLorenzo writes:
"There are two things society still doesn't understand about child sexual assault," Lanning said. "The first is ... child molesters can be seemingly nice people who go to church every Sunday, nurse little birdies that fall out of the trees. They're involved in the community, they volunteer."

The other is that just as offenders are not always evil to the bone, victims are not always 100 percent good. Society wants its victims to be innocent. It's cleaner that way and easier to sympathize with the victim's plight. But it's not always the truth.

WHOA! Did you see that? Notice where the quotations are.... and then notice where they are not. The quoted source is straight out of Lannings 2001 study, the 2nd paragraph is straight out of Ms. DiLorenzo's head. What Lanning actually said was:
Other than lying, there are many possible alternative explanations for why victims might allege things that do not seem to be accurate. The

  • child might be exhibiting distortions in traumatic memory
  • child’s account might reflect normal childhood fears and fantasy
  • child’s account might reflect misperception and confusion caused by deliberate trickery or drugs used by perpetrators
  • child’s account might be affected by suggestions, assumptions, and misinterpretations of overzealous interveners
  • child’s account might reflect urban legends and shared cultural mythology

  • Such factors, alone or in combination, can influence a child’s account to be inaccurate without necessarily making it a “lie.” Children are not adults in little bodies. Children go through developmental stages that must be evaluated and understood. In many ways, however, children are no better or worse than other victims or witnesses of a crime. They should not be automatically believed or dismissed. p. 109
    When adults and children have sex, the child is always the victim. p. 3

    Lanning goes on to decribe all the reasons children may be dishonest such as shame, fear etc. He discusses all the challenges of dealing with the young victims. Wonder why it sounds so different coming from Ms. DiLorenzo? You think she might be trying to sway opinion? Have you ever heard of anyone referencing a journalist?

    Don't take my word for this, follow the links, dig a little deeper, uncover the truth for yourself! Why are they lying and distorting the truth? If you can answer that question, then you need not ask any others.

    The media, journalists, reporters etc can distort truths, they can mislead and spin and lie. Sometimes they get away with it, sometimes they don't. Ask Dan Rather, he'll tell you.
    blog comments powered by Disqus