The New York Times recently returned to the cyberpedophile beat with an anthropological study of pedophiles' online discourse. The article discusses various behaviors, codes, and arguments, complete with characters (who may or may not exist) and cautionary observations from outside authorities.
The back and forth between pseudonym and police officer does fit the journalistic practice of telling both sides, although it's clear where the article falls. But federal laws and statements don't get the same balance, appearing only as concerned actions:
In recent months, new concerns have emerged about whether the ubiquitous nature of broadband technology, instant message communications and digital imagery is presenting new and poorly understood risks to children. Already, there have been many Congressional hearings on the topic, as well as efforts to write comprehensive legislation to address the issue.
There's also the usual trope that this online nastiness is increasing:
it is no longer just chatter in the ether. What started online almost two decades ago as a means of swapping child pornography has transformed in recent years into a more complex and diversified community that uses the virtual world to advance its interests in the real one.
I'd love to see articles about the decline of scary web sites, a decrease in the number of corrupting chat rooms, or a drop in bad things happening in games.
Interestingly, the fears the article instills in its readers are not aimed at the internet, since Eichenwald takes pains to emphasize the hidden, furtive, and elusive nature of cyberpedophilic activity. Instead, the article makes us think of pedophiles "advance [their] interests in the real [world]", noting plots to get near kids by becoming schoolteachers, camp counselors, and interesting people in boring social situations.
Recent Comments