This page is an ongoing project to take real-world information dissemination and inform you, the reader, about thought- and opinion-altering tactics that you are exposed to throughout every day of your life. It is also not specifically sex offender related, because that is not the purpose here. I hope to empower you to see through the subtle deceptions and twisting of words and information used to manipulate your thoughts and force you without even realizing it to believe in things that are untrue. By the time you have finished reading this page, my goal is for you to be able to see these subtle deceptions when they are presented and become critical of them, always attempting to find out "what's wrong with this picture?" Remember, you should never believe anything that you see or hear if you haven't looked at all possible sides of the story and come to your own conclusions. This page is about keeping others from changing your conclusions to match theirs, and helping you to find truth through all attempts to prevent you from finding it.

After seeing enough items in the paper, on the news, and plastered all over the Internet, I have often found myself wondering precisely how it is that various media outlets, politicians, interest groups, and organizations with hidden agendas manage to get away with all kinds of errors in logic, cherry-picking of data, and even making outright false statements that are disseminated to the public under the guise of factual, fair, balanced, and comprehensive information discussion and reporting. For a long time, I have become more and more skeptical, cynical, and critical of anything that is presented to me, and I have seen almost every type of deception that can be used to present an argument and make it appear valid on its face. Every day that I read a new article filled with mistakes, I was pushed just a little bit closer to the edge. However, it wasn't until I read this article entitled "Sex offender bill will ban online contact" that my frustration and anger at the subtle thought manipulation of the readers, listeners, and viewers of media presentations pushed past the proverbial "breaking point."

What offense did the article commit that pushed me over the edge? It certainly seems like it's the perfect candidate to be at the top of this page, so here we go!

The paragraph in the article that seems to be a perfect candidate for the final paragraph reads:

"The numbers reported by law enforcement clearly show us that a problem exists, and we have a responsibility to address it," Boland said. "Technology is not going to slow down, so neither can the lawmaking needed to address the new challenges it possesses." Since the article is about a law that limits sex offenders' access to MySpace and similar sites, that paragraph is clearly the ending of the article, and it makes for a pretty good ending to the story. (Despite fallacies in the the quote's statements, it's a good ending quote and shouldn't be messed with.)

But then, the writer made sure to leave the reader not with the memory of the bill and where it stands, but rather with this little quip that stands out as an anomaly, not conforming to the writing style or the flow of the article, surely not placed at the very end by accident, and so subtle in its manipulative nature that it's very, very dangerous:

"According to the U.S. Department of Justice, in 2005 13 percent of children between ages 10 and 17 received a sexual solicitation on the Internet."

It's like looking at a glossy paint job on a brand new car, and then right as you finish walking around it, you see a big green paintball splat on the back bumper, from out of nowhere. This "fact" is presented at the termination of this article, with no context, no elaboration, NOTHING. The writer of this article leaves this little nugget behind at the tail end of an otherwise well-written piece of coverage, and while it's only one sentence quoting a stat from a government agency, it tells us far more than its face value if we take the time to dig into it:

• Ask the question, "What is the underlying implication of that random statistic?" To the lay person reading, because the article's context is about "Internet predators" and the general public has already been conditioned to believe that there is a "predator epidemic" in the country, the inclusion of the random statistic at the end implies that a very large number of children will be sexually solicited by an "Internet predator" online.
  
  
• This indicates that the statistic's inclusion plays a number of purposes that the reader is unknowingly falling for by accepting its inclusion at the end of this article without argument:
  
  
  • The statistic's implication to the average reader reinforces the media- and politician-generated "fact" that there is a huge "Internet predator epidemic" or at least the general concept of a horde of malicious child predators just waiting out the opportunity to rape and kill as many children as possible.
    
    
  • Because of the purpose of reinforcing the "predator panic," a secondary purpose also reveals itself: bolstering support for the bill being reported on.
    
    
  • As a consequence of this reinforcement, with continuous exposure to these types of subtle "proofs" of the "predator epidemic" in similar fashion to this one, over time the reader may become more likely to vote for any politician (or read any paper, even) that is positioned as being "ready to do something about the problem."
  
  
• The statistic in question is quoted with none of the context from the study; therefore, it may be intentionally "cherry-picked" and quoted out of context. There is no way for the reader to be sure without digging up the original source and reviewing the study themselves.
  
  
• The source is simply quoted as an agency, "The USDOJ," instead of as a specific source that can be verified through peer review. The source is quoted vaguely, therefore the path of least resistance is to simply accept the information and its implications at face value, rather than attempting to find out which of the thousands of USDOJ publications or statements holds the original statistic. Without a verifiable source, the statistic quoted cannot be relied upon, but the supporter of the agenda that this statistic's implications are boosting is relying on the reader accepting it and moving on, rather than discounting it as unverifiable or finding the context themselves.
  
  
• Part of the missing context is crucial. What exactly constitutes a "sexual solicitation on the Internet" in this statistic? Does it include accidental or intentional visits to paid porn sites? What about solicitations from teens being kept separate from adult solicitations? Is a "sexual solicitation" an active request to engage in sexual activity in person, on a webcam, or through "cybering" in a chat room, or is a "sexual solicitation" ANY situation online where sex is involved, such as frank discussion of sexual facts or even sex-related gossip between teens? The definition of "sexual solicitation" is not carried over, which leaves the reader to rely on implications yet again, and because of article context, a typical reader will define "sexual solicitation" as something to the effect of "adults making sexual passes at minors." This is a deception, but because the definition is simply omitted, the writer is technically telling the truth while the implication the reader is given from context is a blatant lie.

Are you fed up with being manipulated by the media? Do you have a good example of manipulation that you'd like to see featured here? If so, send the Offender a message and blow the whistle! Feedback is welcome. Any and all persons have full permission to reproduce this page in its entirety or in part at their discretion, regardless of purpose; I hereby release it into the public domain and request that everyone who can copy or mirror it, please do so with my warmest regards.