For those of you who aren't familiar with the show, To Catch a Predator has volunteers pose as 13-year-olds and log into online chat rooms, where they wait to be hit on by older sex offenders. They then invite the men over to their house, where Dateline is waiting with hidden cameras and police force. The decoys greet the men, right before the host, Chris Hansen, enters the room to apprehend the potential offenders.
Ever since the show's premier in 2006, questions have been raised regarding whether or not their work is an ethical form of journalism. Some argue that the premise of the show is "entrapment". Stone Phillips, a Dateline host, said this:
"In many cases, the decoy is the first to bring up the subject of sex. However, the transcripts show that once the hook is baited, the fish jump and run with it like you wouldn't believe... Enticement? Yes. Entrapment. I don't think so. The closer I look at the online conversations (which are available on Perverted Justice's Web site) the more obvious it becomes that these men are not first-timers when it comes to engaging minors in graphic online chats. They tend to be remarkably matter-of-fact in their approach, as if it is part of an all too regular routine."Chris Hansen wrote:
"Our job is to investigate topics like computer predators, delve as deeply as we can into the topic so that viewers can see first hand what's happening. "But are they delving too deeply? How far should a show like this go? Where do they draw the line when enticing these men? Can this type of undercover work be justified under the umbrella of investigative journalism?
While I have absolutely no sympathy for the men featured on this show and am completely disgusted by their behavior, I am left wondering whether or not NBC has gone too far. There are some huge ethical journalistic implications here, and I'm not sure exactly where I stand - although I'm inclined to side with NBC. What do you guys think?
This is one of those instances where I would need to study the show in *great* detail - particularly the transcripts of the chats - before moving beyond my first reaction, which is just a little muddled. Bottom line is that a show like this has considerable utility. If child molesters in general fear that the child they are trying to seduce might be a cop running a sting, some of them might be discouraged, and that's a very good thing. But might the way the show is doing this be a kind of trigger, causing some would-be pervs to finally act out? If that's the case, it might be a kind of entrapment, though I don't know where the law would fall on this. So: I can see how this kind of journalism, which has a kind of ethical stink about it, might be useful. This is one instance where I'd want to measure twice (and maybe three times) and cut once, if you know what I mean
ReplyDelete