I'm not a fan of DJ Neil Fox. 'Dr. Fox' I think he styles himself. As is so often the case with personal dislikes, it is hard to pin down precisely what one finds so repulsive. However, in Fox's case he kindly provides me with a beautifully concise quote with which to defend my feelings. It is so beautiful I have used it as the title for this entry. To give it a little more context, Fox was one of several unwitting celebrity dupes on a satirical television programme. The 'celebs' were given scripts reporting supposedly true facts about a very serious subject. After stating one such patently ridiculous 'fact', Fox's script concluded: "That's scientific fact. There's no real evidence for it, but its scientific fact." And he read it aloud. Into camera. And it was broadcast on national television.
One of the points of the programme was to demonstrate how stupid people can be, in particular how famous people will often act without thinking when they sniff an opportunity to prolong or extend their fame. Another point of the programme was to demonstrate how funny paedophilia can be.
Well, that's not exactly true, but it is what the tabloid papers as well as several very senior politicians claimed was the message. Their outrage was... predictable. In truth, the main point of the programme was to illustrate how ridiculously hysterical the media's and politicians' responses to serious subjects can be and how that hysteria can be deeply hypocritical. So perhaps irony died the day after broadcast when the Daily Mail reported that the show was "Unspeakably Sick" next to a story featuring pictures of the 11 and 13-year old princesses Beatrice and Eugenie in bikinis.
The Brass Eye episode 'Paedogeddon' was first shown in 2001, but of course it made little difference. Many politicians still jump on any moral bandwagon going and our media continues to plumb new depths of hypocrisy (see for example the prudesh self-righteousness of the Daily Express, whose publisher is porn-magnate Richard Desmond). But the one topic guaranteed to unite the stupid and the reckless in precipitate calls to arms remains paedophilia. In 2001 Brass Eye fooled people into stating as fact that paedophiles were using "an area of the internet the size of Ireland" and that they could make a child's computer emit smells that would make them more suggestible. So I was momentarily amused in 2010 to read today's BBC headline: "Paedophiles'increasingly access images from webcams'".
Something called the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre (Ceops) is the source of this story. They use language such as "cross-sector expertise", "bespoke front line services", "new ways of thinking" and "truly holistic", which I suppose you would if you wanted to defend your little corner of the Government budget. Having said that, it isn't clear where Ceops's funding comes from since their website (http://www.ceop.gov.uk/about/) is silent on the question. However, given the .gov domain name, one assumes we are paying for the bulk of it. I can't see too many companies wishing to lend their brand to an organisation targeting the sexual abuse of children, although Ceops tells us that VISA, SERCO and Microsoft provide support, and that the police force and the NSPCC provide some personnel.
But what does Ceops do exactly? Surely any successes in preventing child abuse are to be applauded?* Again, the details are hazy, but they boldly tell us they are "dedicated to eradicating the sexual abuse of children" (hmm, wonder if they know what 'eradicating' means?) They do however give us STATISTICS. And as we all know, you can't argue with STATISTICS. Ceops say that "new ways of tracking offenders and better tactical intelligence gathering had seen 58 arrests, deportations or warrants issued." Unfortunately they don't say precisely what part Ceops played in this. In fact we should re-read that statement. Does it actually say that Ceops had anything to do with any arrests, deportations or warrants? But here's a positive claim that we can definitely grasp: "(Ceops has) safeguarded a total of 624 children since its launch in 2006". In case we're in any doubt what this means, we're assured this activity is delivering "significant results" in the fight against child sexual abuse.
But wait, what's that? I smell something emanating from my computer. Could Brass Eye have been right all along? Can computers be made to emit odours? Perhaps so, but so far the only thing I smell is bullshit. What precisely does 'safeguarded' mean? Does it mean extracting a young child from the clutches of a paedophile at the very last moment? Or could it perhaps mean something a little less impressive, say giving common sense advice in response to a query from a child or concerned parent? One specific claim that Ceops makes is that it disrupts or prevents the international travel plans of known paedophiles. Thailand has 13 million children under 15, so I guess that if Ceops prevents one paedophile from flying to Bangkok they have "safeguarded" 13 million children (since there are 10 million children in the UK, one could argue that only a net figure of 3 million had been 'safeguarded', but it is in the nature of these things that the more impressive figure is always used).
I hesitate to dismiss Ceops as a quangocratic waste of time and money. To be fair, their website does provide some more specifics about their actions in preventing abuse (e.g. http://www.ceop.police.uk/mediacentre/pressreleases/2010/ceop_08062010.asp), but they fail to mention whether this is only possible due to the existence of Ceops. Isn't this a job for, like... well... the police? As it is, Ceops only seems to act as a conduit for gathering and disseminating information. It seems to come down to the police or other enforcement agencies to act on that information, so what is Ceops adding that couldn't be done in house? Having a nice logo? How much did that cost? And how much is the "CEO" paid compared to, say a Chief Superintendent?
I may be wrong about Ceops, but there is absolutely nothing in the BBC News report to counter my suspicions. It is a classic example of modern non-journalism as described in frightening detail in Nick Davies's Flat Earth News. This is journalism by press release. An agency, company, charity, celebrity, etc puts out a press release and the media reports it as news. Ceops tells us they are doing an excellent job in a vitally important area, protecting children, and there is no attempt made to find out if there is any truth in their claims. If it is all bullshit, how many children will suffer as a result of our credulity, our failure to act effectively?
So I suppose, ultimately, this is a critique of the media. I do wish they would do their jobs properly so that we don't have to doubt everything we read.
* Strictly speaking and as with everything else, this depends on cost. If we threw our entire national budget at the problem, presumably at least one child would be saved from abuse, but no one is suggesting that. Anyone who disagrees should answer this question: should we close all our hospitals and schools, disband the army and the police force, and reduce rubbish collections to less than once a fortnight in order to protect one child from sexual abuse? If they answer yes, they really haven't understood the question.
No comments:
Post a Comment