Dr. James Quinn is the first to admit that his views are politically incorrect. Quinn, professor in NT’s department of rehabilitation, social work and addictions, presented a lecture to a crowd of 13 Monday entitled Sex Offenders: Myths Surrounding their Crimes and Treatment Amenability.

“There’s a lot of political steam created out of hating sex offenders,” Quinn said. “We can all hate the perverts.”

But, according to Quinn, the nature of American sex offenders as portrayed by victim’s groups and the media is often times far removed from reality. Quinn attempted to dispel some of these myths in the fourth and last presentation of the NT Studies in Sexuality fall lecture series.

“If you want to avoid paranoia look at where the news is coming from,” Quinn said. “When you listen to the news, think — where, who, does this affect me? A lot of people are running on a media impression that is false.”

According to Quinn’s data, media crime coverage has increased more than 10 fold from 1990 to 2000 while actual crime statistics have dropped over the past decade. Aside from general sensationalism, Quinn pointed out several instances of the media’s misinterpretation of scientific studies on sex offenders. He thinks those reporting blunders have created a widespread misunderstanding of sex offenders and the dangers they pose to society.

The Center for Sex Offender Management is an offshoot of the U.S. Department of Justice and collects data on sex offenders nationwide. The center’s data shows that, on average, 12 percent of child molesters sexually abuse another minor after they are initially convicted. Only 18 percent of rapists are re-offenders after their first conviction.

The center data also reveals that sex offenders recommit their crimes less often than all other types of criminals. Anywhere from four to 13 percent of all types of sex offenders re-offend compared with 20 to 25 percent of re-offenders for other crimes. “Is this even close to what the media is talking about?” Quinn said.

Quinn sited victim surveys as a major source of confusion regarding sex offenders and their propensity to re-offend as well. These surveys, which can be given out by victim advocacy groups or other private entities, often contain definitional problems that can lead to a misinterpretation of facts.

Quinn was involved in one victim survey at the University of North Dakota where he saw the confusion first hand.

“We asked all the college women if they had ever been raped,” Quinn said. “48 percent said ‘I don’t know.’ Where does rape begin? That’s a definitional problem. These surveys are fueling the victim’s movement in a lot of ways. You’ve got some inflated numbers out there that are very politically powerful.”

The ability for sex offenders to be rehabilitated is often perceived as non-existent in many circles, but Quinn thinks this could not be further from the truth. Cognitive-behavioral therapy seems to be the best choice for rehabilitating these criminals. This type of therapy focuses on ways the patient can reduce the stress that triggers their deviant fantasies.

Quinn said traditional psychoanalysis, or the Freudian way of doing things, actually makes sex offender patients worse. His data showed that, after a five to 25 year follow-up, 18 percent of treated child molesters re-offended compared with a 43 percent re-offense rate among untreated molesters.

“Treatment does work most of the time,” Quinn said.

Dr. Marilyn Morris, faculty adviser for NT’s Studies in Sexuality program and department of history professor, absorbed Quinn’s lecture from the front row. “I think the most important thing is seeing all the different perspectives you can study sexuality with,” Morris said. “It’s amazing how connected this field is.”

The NT Studies in Sexuality program started two years ago and is the only one of its kind in Texas. The program will sponsor more lectures next spring.

http://media.www.ntdaily.com/media/storage/paper877/news/2004/11/16/UndefinedSection/Professor.Reveals.Sex.Offender.Truths-1892294.shtml?reffeature=recentlycommentedstoriestab

Title: Evolution
Agency: Ogilvy & Mather, Toronto
Production Company: Reginald Pike
Director: Yael Staav

I like the ads. I like that they are bringing the objectification of women to our attention. I just don’t like that Dove is using thousands of years of female degradation to sell their brand.

So here’s a fun parody.

There are many parodies of Dove Evolution, but this is by far, my favorite. The male model in The Tuff Sheet‘s parody mimicks everything the model in Evolutiondoes until the photoshop scene begins. Turn off your sound and start them both at the same time. Watch them side by side. You’ll see what I mean.

——————————————————

I’m back… it’s a few hours later and I found ANOTHER great parody. This one confronts Unilever (Dove’s parent) for owning two companies (Dove and Axe) with conflicting ad campaigns (Axe=sex sells and Dove=”real beauty”)

I commend the creator for bringing another (obvious) hypocrisy to our attention, but why in the world would Unilever have anything to do with Dove or Axe’s ad camps? It’s all about the money. I guess that’s just another thing that’s blatantly obvious (that I’m blogging about).

- Miss Information

Groseclose and Milyo based their research on a standard gauge of a lawmaker’s support for liberal causes. Americans for Democratic Action (ADA) tracks the percentage of times that each lawmaker votes on the liberal side of an issue. Based on these votes, the ADA assigns a numerical score to each lawmaker, where “100″ is the most liberal and “0″ is the most conservative. After adjustments to compensate for disproportionate representation that the Senate gives to low‑population states and the lack of representation for the District of Columbia, the average ADA score in Congress (50.1) was assumed to represent the political position of the average U.S. voter.

Groseclose and Milyo then directed 21 research assistants — most of them college students — to scour U.S. media coverage of the past 10 years. They tallied the number of times each media outlet referred to think tanks and policy groups, such as the left-leaning NAACP or the right-leaning Heritage Foundation.

Next, they did the same exercise with speeches of U.S. lawmakers. If a media outlet displayed a citation pattern similar to that of a lawmaker, then Groseclose and Milyo’s method assigned both a similar ADA score (Sullivan).

Conclusions:

Although we expected to find that most media lean left, we were astounded by the degree. A norm among journalists is to present “both sides of the issue.” Consequently, while we expected members of Congress to cite primarily think tanks that are on the same side of the ideological spectrum as they are, we expected journalists to practice a much more balanced citation practice, even if the journalist’s own ideology opposed the think tanks that he or she is sometimes citing. This was not always the case. Most of the mainstream media outlets that we examined (ie all those besides Drudge Report and Fox News’ Special Report) were closer to the average Democrat in Congress than they were to the median member of the House (Groseclose).

Groseclose/Miylo Findings: A PDF of the media left, right and moderate

Other studies on media bias:

PDF: David P. Baron, Stanford University

PDF: Media Research Center: Media Bias Basics

These studies consequently have opposite findings (especially “Media Bias Basics”). So I guess there is bias in the media and research.

The point is we’re all biased because of our psychology (nature v nurture). Our environment makes us biased, how we grew up makes us biased and how we think makes us biased.

I grew up with both parents and 1 brother in an upper-middle class neighborhood. Those three factors alone set me apart from someone who grew up with one parent (mother or father), no or 6 siblings and in a rich or poor neighborhood. We’ll both see things differently.

You could also look at it as the parallax effect. Put your thumb right in front of your face and close one of your eyes. Now switch back and forth between the left eye and right eye. Each eye represents a different person and how they see the world.

It’s the same reason we have so many religions and different “facts” about God. No one can agree. We’re all different people with different stories.

Sources:

Groseclose, Tim, and Jeff Milyo. “A Measure of Media Bias.” Department of Political Science. 1 Sep. 2003. 12 Nov. 2003 <mason.gmu.edu/~atabarro/MediaBias.doc>.

Sullivan, M. “Media Bias Is Real, Finds UCLA Political Scientist.” / UCLA Newsroom. 14 Dec. 2005. 12 Nov 2007.<http://www.newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/Media-Bias-Is-Real-Finds-UCLA-6664.aspx>.

- Miss Information

“The Three Little Pigs and Adolf Wolf”, WWII era

Betty Boop, “Making Stars” 1935

  

“Little Black Sambo”, 1932

Bugs Bunny Commercial, War Bonds

“Boys Beware”, Classroom Teaching Film about how homosexuals are always lurking (and mentally ill)

- Miss Information

When a tragedy happens, every news outlet is in competition for your attention. Essentially every outlet has the same exact information but each outlet wants you to watch their channel for coverage.

Example: The Columbine Shooting

I can clearly remember The Columbine Shooting. It was my 17th birthday and I was glued to the news to watch the events unfold.

KDFW, WFAA and NBC5 were competing all day right along with the cable channels covering the shooting. I kept hearing words like “massacre” and ”rampage” and phrases like “stormed the school” all day. It was scary.

News networks (and this is the same for all T.V. shows) cut to commercial around the same time give or take a few seconds in hopes you won’t change the channel, but they try to come back earlier then the other news stations (or shows.)

News networks also promise “special reports” that end up being an insight from a local psychologist who thinks they know what the Columbine shooters were thinking or feeling.

Why do they do this? They are competing for numbers! They need your numbers because your numbers sell air time for commercials and many other things. They have to differentiate themselves from the other networks to get your attention. If they don’t then numbers go down (and that’s bad.)

Obviously this isn’t new information- but this is where it all becomes circular:

Networks are competing for numbers > The same “massacre” is all over the news > “Massacre” gets over reported in an effort to get numbers (you must watch “x” channel) > People become scared of ___________ new threat

Hope that helps explain our media world a little. If you don’t like it, don’t watch it (I don’t).

-Miss Information

Here’s the thing I find interesting- according to my university’s Center for Student Academic Rights and Responsibilities under personal safety —

Students are responsible for compliance with university rules and regulations prohibiting firearms, explosives, incendiaries and weapons of any kind on the campus. Students are also responsible to abide by all health/safety rules and procedures in all academic courses and laboratories.

No guns on campus. It’s always been this way, but in the wake of the Virginia Tech shootings Students for Concealed Campus formed. Their purpose is to push state legislation for the right to carry their weapon onto gun-free campus zones in the hopes of mitigating future tragedies.

So the question I pose is, ”what’re they scared of?” Surely driving your car to class is far more dangerous then actually sitting there.

It is. You see, the media has a tendency to try to scare the shit out of you.

Ex #1. Fox News Facts (the media’s glorification of death)

Ex #2. The Youth Violence Project (the not so damn scary statistics)

It should be noted that at the time of these statistics, the Youth Violence Project didn’t include college shootings. At the time, the media didn’t widely cover college shootings and since we’ve watched the widely covered Virginia Tech shooting leaving 33 dead (2007). It should also be noted that this study only includes students who were killed, not injured.

Essentially, the students who died in 2005 had a .000000017218543% chance of dieing in a school shooting, just like every other student. Sucks huh.  

The same research and statistics can be found from different sources like here or here. 

How many students do you think there are in the United States? 75.5 million. Your chances are as slim as dieing in a plane crash. Okay, actually you might be more likely to die in a plane crash depending on how often you fly.  

As my media writing professor says, “It’s not news unless it’s bizarre” but bizarre things don’t happen often, which is what makes it newsworthy.

The media will use words like “rampage” and guide the reader/viewer with imagery of what victims saw. It allows you to see through the eyes of the survivor and it’s fuckin’ scary. And if building a clear image of students “crying under their desks during the crazed gunman’s rampage,” isn’t enough, they show you images like this.

…and they show you the scared students crying, the fear, the bloody injured, the fear, the faces of the dead, the fear, the pictures of the shooter, the fear, the memorials, the fear…the fear…the fear.

I’m intentionally not placing other examples of images because  you’ve seen them and I will not contribute further.

Fact is, it isn’t dangerous in school- it’s just being reported more and more (and creatively at that), and people are scared shitless.

The American answer is of course, guns.

My answer is information.

- Miss Information