Bruning Says: Lock Up Yer Kids!
Have you heard the obnoxious, over-the-top, everybody-freak-out radio ad from Jon Bruning’s office on the topic of child predators? It’s awful. The ad breathlessly declares that your children are threatened by child-raping sickos thousands (sic) of times every day. It’s so over the top that until Bruning himself started speaking, I was convinced it was some sort of morning show prank.
Don’t get me wrong, there’s nothing amusing about sexual predators, and parents and kids do need to be aware of the dangers. But whipping out your best Chicken Little impression definitely isn’t the best way to spread the word. Besides, the threat from random strangers on the web is dramatically overstated. Most sex crimes are committed by family members or acquaintances of the victim. The biggest threat to children isn’t some faceless freak living in his mom’s basement. But then, it’s easier to think that way than to consider the possibility that an uncle, a babysitter, or *gulp* a parent could be the culprit.
I couldn’t find the radio ad on the AG’s website—dear Lord that is an awful website!—but I did find these two videos. The videos aren’t as panic-laden as the radio ad, but they both fall into the “stereotypical freaky dude in his mom’s basement” trap.
The Comments
Dave K December 5, 2006 at 11:04am
It sounds like Bruning is doing a good job of making everyone aware of child predation. If you think the threat from random strangers is overstated, you should watch Dateline’s To Catch A Predator. That show is on once every couple of weeks, and they have no shortage of men trying to have sex with very young girls. It’s not just a phenomenon in the area that they tape the show. If I recall correctly, there have been arrests in Nebraska in recent years of men trying to meet up with underage girls. So complain all you want about Bruning, but I’m not so sure you’d feel the same way about online predation if you had a young daughter.
Swid December 5, 2006 at 11:52am
My only experience with “To Catch A Predator” is when one of the Law & Order series used a fictionalized version of it as a plot element recently.
Dave K, given the overall tone of your comments on this blog, I’m guessing that you are a parent. As someone who is not a parent (but will hopefully be one *someday*), I’m curious as to why, exactly, being a parent makes so many people worry about abhorrent (but statistically unlikely) things. Sure, there are people in Nebraska who have tried to arrange meetings with underage kids, but there are also people in Nebraska who have died of West Nile or from contaminated spinach.
In all those cases, the chances of one of those particular bad things I mentioned happening to you or a loved one is extremely unlikely. If I had a young daughter, the thing I should be most terrified of by far would be occupying a motor vehicle with her, because that’s the most statistically likely way an evil stranger can harm the both of us.
Michael December 5, 2006 at 12:29pm
...So despite “no shortage of men trying to have sex with very young girls”, almost 3/4 of sex crimes are perpetrated not by the freak in the Dateline segment, but by someone known to the victim.
How come there are no radio spots or TV news magazine segments warning parents to watch out for their brother-in-law or Uncle Jehoshaphat?
(BTW, I’m the father of a teenaged daughter. I’ve tried to make sure she’s informed, confident, and capable of making smart decisions. I don’t worry about this stuff too much.)
Dave K December 5, 2006 at 12:32pm
Dave K, given the overall tone of your comments on this blog, I’m guessing that you are a parent.
Nope.
the thing I should be most terrified of by far would be occupying a motor vehicle with her, because that’s the most statistically likely way an evil stranger can harm the both of us.
Would you buckle her seat belt though? Or at least make her aware of the danger of not buckling her seat belt? It’s also extremely unlikely that your daughter would be killed in a car accident. Just because there are things that are more likely to harm your child doesn’t mean you should ignore the other things or complain about it when someone is trying to warn you of those things.
For what it’s worth, I haven’t heard the ad, but I’ve seen the television ads. Is it possible they’re a little over the top? Sure. But that doesn’t mean you should say they’re warning of a non-risk.
Dave K December 5, 2006 at 12:40pm
How come there are no radio spots or TV news magazine segments warning parents to watch out for their brother-in-law or Uncle Jehoshaphat?
Because parents should already know that danger. Internet predation is something that is more or less new, and a parental education regarding the danger is certainly warranted, because parents are stupid enough as it is. The ads are just telling parents to apply the “Don’t talk to strangers” adage to the internet as well as the playground. Hate Bruning as much as you wish, but don’t downplay a risk because he’s telling you about it.
Barbara December 5, 2006 at 12:52pm
Well, Dave, of course parents should know of the danger from brothers-in-law and uncles, etc. But statistics show that they don’t seem to, or aren’t willing to face facts.
The “stranger danger” campaigns have been going on since the 70’s at least. Kids are far more likely to be molested by family or friends—as stated in comments above.
If there is a need to educate parents about the dangers of the Internet, should it be a scary bogey-man, hide your children sort of campaign? Or a sensible, matter-of-fact approach? Frankly, I find Bruning’s approach insulting, and I’m sure most thinking people would.
Swid December 5, 2006 at 12:52pm
Two points: Yes, while the absolute likelihood of being killed in a car accident is still quite unlikely, the relative likelihood of it happening (versus, say, being abducted by a stranger) is orders of magnitude more common.
What annoys me about the Bruning ads (and what, I presume, bothers Mr. Wilson) is that it’s a fairly blatant fear-mongering ploy, and one funded at our expense, to boot. (On a related tangent, I’m also fairly annoyed by the AG “cult of personality” that Stenberg began and Bruning has continued.) Many of the AG ads aired are, in effect, campaign ads, showing off how our wonderful AG is ”thinking of the children”.
Mr. Wilson December 5, 2006 at 1:00pm
But that doesn’t mean you should say they’re warning of a non-risk.
(Emphasis added.)
Can you point out where I said that? I don’t believe I have ever made the claim that strangers are a non-risk, and it’s unfair to suggest that I have. Rather, the danger of strangers shouldn’t be overstated to the point of hyperbole, as Bruning has done.
There is certainly room for an educational campaign on internet predation. But Bruning’s ads aren’t educational, except to the extent that they remind people of the problem. Beyond that, they are little more than scare tactics designed to showcase Mr. Bruning’s caring voice and face. As such, they are a waste of money, something which you, given other opinions you have expressed, really should be rallying against, not for.
I could get behind an educational campaign based on facts. Tell me the signs of online predation. Tell me how many of these crimes have been reported in Nebraska. Tell me how many people have been charged in Nebraska with these crimes. Remind me that parental control software is available. And most importantly, point me to resources (online and off) where I can learn more about how to help keep my kids out of troubles. No hyperbole, exaggerations, scary images, or political grandstanding required.
Dave K December 5, 2006 at 1:12pm
The “stranger danger” campaigns have been going on since the 70’s at least. Kids are far more likely to be molested by family or friends—as stated in comments above.
They’re also far more likely to die in cars. Does that mean they should ride on motorcycles with reckless abandon?
If there is a need to educate parents about the dangers of the Internet, should it be a scary bogey-man, hide your children sort of campaign?
Is there a better way? I could imagine a campaign with kitty cats and little fluffy bunnies and rainbows, but I don’t think that would get the message across. The commercial was outrageous enough to prompt community discussion, so in that case it’s more effective than a simple informative commercial that some seem to be promoting. Are you going to be less protective of your child because the commercial was outrageous?
Barbara December 5, 2006 at 1:18pm
Dave—you’re resorting to straw man arguments. I’m not sure why you feel the need to do that.
Bruning’s campaign is simple political grand-standing. Don’t believe for a second that he ‘just wants to protect your children.’ Really, don’t you expect better from your officials?
Dave K December 5, 2006 at 1:20pm
Can you point out where I said that? I don’t believe I have ever made the claim that strangers are a non-risk<i>
<i>the threat from random strangers on the web is dramatically overstated.
If the threat is ‘dramatically overstated’, then it is even a threat?
they are a waste of money, something which you, given other opinions you have expressed, really should be rallying against, not for.
I’ve argued against your point that the advertising is outrageous because the threat is overstated. We can argue about how to spend taxpayer dollars, if you wish, but that clearly wasn’t the point of your original posting.
I’ll say it again: hate Bruning all you want, but don’t downplay the risk that online predation poses young people.
Swid December 5, 2006 at 1:21pm
I love how you chose to ignore the political grandstanding/public spending points and that Mr. Wilson did suggest a “better way”, as you say, but, sadly, I do have to agree with this:
The commercial was outrageous enough to prompt community discussion
Public discourse in this country has devolved into who can make the loudest, most outrageous statements; it’s rare to read any political commentary that rises above simple trolling.
The terrorists have won.
Dave K December 5, 2006 at 1:23pm
Dave—you’re resorting to straw man arguments. I’m not sure why you feel the need to do that.
Example?
Bruning’s campaign is simple political grand-standing. Don’t believe for a second that he ‘just wants to protect your children.’ Really, don’t you expect better from your officials?
That’s the difference between me and you. I like and trust Jon Bruning. You clearly don’t. You’re against his advertising because you don’t like him. Are you willing to jeopardize the safety of young children because of your dislike for our Attorney General?
Barbara December 5, 2006 at 1:28pm
Dave - I have no personal feeling one way or another about Bruning. Apparently you do?
“Are you willing to jeopardize the safety of young children because of your dislike for our Attorney General?”
That you would put this sentence into your “argument” means that clearly this debate is over.
Dave K December 5, 2006 at 1:32pm
That you would put this sentence into your “argument” means that clearly this debate is over.
Kind of illustrates the absurdity of your argument, doesn’t it?
Barbara December 5, 2006 at 1:32pm
Oh, you wanted examples of your straw man arguments;
1) Saying that Brent believes that Bruning is warning against a non-risk. Brent never said that.
2) Say that I advocate a campaign of fluffy bunnies instead of the one that Bruning is employing; I never said that.
3) Saying that I just ‘don’t like’ Bruning personally. I never said that.
Those are three straw man arguments that you’ve made.
And *now* I’m done.
Dave K December 5, 2006 at 1:43pm
I thought you said this was over?
1) If you can point out where I said he said that, I’d appreciate it. I know you’ll point to the implication, but that doesn’t work, especially when accusing someone of a fallacy.
2) Again, I never said that was the campaign you were advocating.
3) I never said you don’t like Bruning.
...in other words, your accusation of me making straw man arguments is just one giant straw man.
Mr. Wilson December 5, 2006 at 2:44pm
Some quick responses for Dave K:
1) This one has been covered already. At 11:32am you said: “But that doesn’t mean you should say they’re warning of a non-risk.”
2) You’re correct as far as I can tell.
3) Oh come on, Dave K, are you serious? 12:23pm: “I like and trust Jon Bruning. You clearly don’t. You’re against his advertising because you don’t like him. Are you willing to jeopardize the safety of young children because of your dislike for our Attorney General?”
These comments are closed. Feel free to continue the discussion in the forum if you like.