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.
Comments
See what your friends and neighbors have to say about this.
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.
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.
...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.)
<i>Dave K, given the overall tone of your comments on this blog, I
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.
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.
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”.
<em>But that doesn
<i>The
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?
<i>Can you point out where I said that? I don
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.
<i>Dave
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.
<i>That you would put this sentence into your
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. 😊
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.
Some quick responses for Dave K:
1) This one has been covered already. At 11:32am you said: “But that doesn
Share your thoughts with the community.
Commenting is no longer permitted on this post.