My Challenge to the Dr. Drew Show (and why most opinions about the Jared Fogle case aren't worth a five dollar footlong)

Everyone has been having a field day with the revelation that former Subway sandwich spokesman Jared Fogle is pleading guilty to both possession of child pornography AND having sex with a couple of teenage prostitutes. Of course, we've had to endure more five dollar footlong comments in the past 72 hours than in 15 years of Jared's Subway ads. 

The New York Post engaging in its usual fashion. 

But aside from the juvenile humor and the endless barrage of stories shoveling the piles of bovine excrement to mountainous proportions from folks looking to put in their two cent's worth into the conversation (such as this tripe from "Hollywood jail consultant Larry Levine"), very little is being said other than fueling the flames of ignorance and hatred among the uneducated masses. 

Of course, I'd somehow get sucked into this media circus, if only for a moment. 

After returning for an extended trip to the great state of Oregon to visit a friend/ fellow activist and enjoy some well-deserved R&R, I was finally getting back into the swing of things. (Of course, even on my "vacation," I still took calls and emails from registered citizens in need of advice as well as engaged in a couple of protests. Then again, I find public demonstrations a great stress reliever). I missed an email so I got a text from the producer from the Dr. Drew Show. The subject for my segment was Jared Fogle, of course. I wasn't really ecstatic about the subject matter but since this was to be my FOURTH appearance on Dr. Drew's HLN brouhaha, why reject the challenge and the chance for exposure for Once Fallen, right? 

Unfortunately, I experienced a bit of a technical issue no thanks to McAfee's Virus Software deciding that the best time to pester me with updates was 9:30pm, just as I'm having a live Skype interview. Because of that unexpected problem, I wasn't sure that what I said was even aired, but I was later assured my comment made it on-air. I figured (rightfully) that I'd only have one moment to say what I feel is important, that because of the stigma of being called "sex offender" is so great, there are barriers to those who recognize they need help for sexual deviancy but cannot find the help. (I must admit, because of the technical difficulties I flubbed the words but I managed to get the words out, though not as eloquently as I just typed). So it wasn't my best performance, and I'm sure they knew I was having technical issues so they never returned to me.

HOWEVER, I so wish I was able to rebut the statements that came after my statement. 

First off, I have to say, who the hell is Omarosa, and why is she a panelist? I'm willing to bet when you hear the name Omarosa you probably envision a samurai, but no, she's just a washed-up reality star best known for being a nasty piece of work on the first season of Donald Trump's old reality show "The Apprentice." This is the washed-up reality star had to say:

"I disagree. There is a lot of outlets. If you have a problem, there are doctors, psychologists, sociologist, you can go and turn yourself into the police. The problem is that people saying that they do not know, you really do. Because if you get street justice, it is a lot worse than what you are going if you turn yourself in."

Dr. Drew, THIS is why you don't get washed-up reality stars to join in on serious discussions. 

Allow me to explain why Omarosa's comment is stupid. First, no one is going to turn themselves over to the police or even talk to a shrink if they are having deviant sexual thoughts. Why would anyone put themselves through such abuse? Lets say someone has deviant thoughts but has not acted on them and is disturbed by them. Say this man goes to a shrink to get help. Say this man has a wife and kids. This man tells the shrink about these issues. What do you THINK will happen to this poor guy? This man will be reported to the police (Geez, has ANYONE ever heard of CAPTA, aka "mandatory reporting of child abuse" signed into law by Richard "I'm not a Crook" Nixon?). He will be investigated and his name is dragged through the mud. Ultimately, even if it has been determined that the man never acted on these feelings, he will be labeled, shamed, and threatened by people in society. Who in their right minds would rat themselves out KNOWING this is the end result?

Dr. Drew himself wasn't any better. In fact, in my four times on the show, I have yet to see him get a factoid about sex offender right. I'm being a little harsh on my gracious host and all, but his attitude on the show was too dismissive. "Go to Sex Addicts anonymous, S.A. Go there now," the doctor says. I support these Anonymous groups and all, but SA and related Anonymous groups tend to deal primarily with sexual addictions of a general nature. It is hard to imagine that guys who "merely" cheat on their wives or spend time watching adult transvestite midget bondage porn will be willing to share space with a guy baring his soul about an attraction to children. Yes, there ARE online groups like "Virtuous Pedophiles" or "B4U-Act," but they are not as easy to find as you may think. Also, these groups have been attacked by online vigilante thugs like Perverted Justice and Anonymous and at times, members of such groups have been outed and personally attacked. 

I could rip Drew over calling 17 year olds "children," but that's a rant for a different day. However, I will say that in some states, having sex with a 17 year old is legal. 

This stereotype is getting too old. I think
it is time we retire it. 

The truth is, we've been so adept at treating the sex offender as "monsters" that we've enabled those with sexual deviancy engage in cognitive dissonance. "Monsters" are old men wearing wrinkly trenchcoats with pockets full of candy and puppies luring kids into rusty vans. Thus, when Uncle Mike or Father John or kindly Mr. Smith are accused of sex crimes, those who know them can't believe. Why, they're nice guys! Jared Fogle had such a great story and a million-dollar charity helping kids get skinny! But now that he's outed as a sex offender, people are saying they "knew it all along," "he looked creepy," and the like. No, folks, you DIDN'T know, so sit down and grab a tall glass of "Shut The Hell Up." 

Thank God the Washington Post had the decency to write a bastion of reason in this sea of incompetence!  (I strongly advise you to CLICK HERE AND READ IT!) Admittedly, they proved my points a bit better than I did on the Dr. Drew show. It does point out that our trained response to sex offenders is actually impeding our understanding of them. Calling all sex offenders "monsters" certainly does a great disservice to the discussion. No amount of TV panel discussions with D-Listers, entertaining as they are, will amount to the price of a Subway sandwich. 

If Dr. Drew (or any other TV show) wants to have a REAL discussion about sex crime prevention, there are few things you need to do. First, replace Omarosa with a bona fide expert like Fred Berlin, Karl Hanson, Emily Horowitz, Jill Levenson, Richard Tewksbury, Lisa Sample, Eric S. Janus, or the researcher with arguably the coolest-sounding name in the research business, Crysanthi Leon. Of course, Once Fallen should be in it. If you want the other side to be represented, then being on some celebrity advocate like John Walsh, Mark Lunsford, or even Ron Book and his airheaded daughter Lauren to the show. Lets pit folks with more than a passing interest in the topic against each other. Sure, I'd still be arguing with idiots, but I'd take Walsh over Omarosa any day. At least we'll stay on topic. And most of all, that show will be as informative as it is entertaining.

So to the "New" Dr. Drew show, I just pitched my idea for you. You've had me on four times now, so I know you can make this happen. It might even be your best show ever! Maybe. 

Mythbusting in action

Over the past few months, I have been focusing primarily on a number of sex offender myths typically propagated by the media. For those who were unable to attend the 2013 RSOL Conference, I have made my presentation at the conference available both on YouTube and on my website.

I have given a number of tips on how to become a myth buster at the end of my presentation; the most important tips I gave was to consider your source and read the original source material. I have discovered that often times, media reports tend to get things wrong. There are a number of reasons why the media would get a written report wrong. Those in the media are tasks with giving a very brief article on a lengthy research report. Reporters often have short deadlines, so they do not have the time to read a 30 to 100 page report, so chances are they rarely read beyond the summary pages. Spellcheckers may catch grammatical errors, but they do not always catch information that is inaccurate, so at times, glaring errors are sometimes overlooked.

I wish to take a moment to walk you through the process of myth busting by looking at an article forwarded to me this afternoon.

The article I am dissecting today was published by the website Breitbart.com; it is a prime example of shoddy reporting. Earlier, I mentioned “consider the source.” What is Breitbart? Breitbart.com is a conservative news and opinion website founded by Andrew Breitbart, former journalist for the Washington Times. It is, in essence, an independent Internet news site. Thus, the standards of journalism found at this site are likely of lower standards than those of the mass media. Brietbart.com was also been embroiled in controversy over the years, including a number of hoaxes and a doctored video that caused problems for the group ACORN.

Yesterday, Breitbart.com published an article entitled “FEDS RELEASE THOUSANDS OF IMMIGRANTS WHO ARE SEX OFFENDERS” by Tony Lee [Link: http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/09/16/Feds-Release-Thousands-of-Immigrants-Who-Are-Sex-Offenders]. Lee had also published three other articles that day. The article begins with an ominous statement highlighted by its larger size and use of bold script:

“The United States government has released nearly 3,000 immigrant sex offenders, some of whom were illegal immigrants, since September 2012. Of those, nearly 3,000, or about 5%, were not even properly registered with local authorities as sex offenders.”

You notice something off about this statement? Look at the numbers. How much is 5% of 3000? I am pretty sure the answer is not 3000. Judging by the following comment, this simple gaffe has the potential to amplify the panic effect this article is trying to achieve:

TennesseeRedDog  mush57 • 7 hours ago −

5% of the 60,000 total is = ~3,000 sex offenders who were not registered at all. That is the only way the math works. But that is not the way it was written. "... of those" should refer to the total of 60,000 who were released. [Comment Link: http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/09/16/Feds-Release-Thousands-of-Immigrants-Who-Are-Sex-Offenders#comment-1048243101]

TennesseeRedDog’s problem is not his math or his grammar. The problem lies in his reading comprehension skills. The next statement in the article states the following:

“According to a Government Accountability Office (GAO) report released last week, "nearly 3,000 sex offenders are part of the 59,347 immigrants who the courts have ruled cannot be held" as of September 2012 because they were unable to be sent home. These immigrants were released "under some sort of supervision." As Stephen Dinan of the Washington Times noted, though, the GAO concluded that ‘about 5 percent of the time U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement didn’t ensure that the immigrants released were properly registered with local authorities as sex offenders’.”

The article states that “nearly 3,000 sex offenders” are “part of the 59,347 immigrants” released by the

government. Only about 3,000 of nearly 60,000 immigrants temporarily detained by the government were “sex offenders.” The 3000 number is a rounded total of registrants, not a subgroup of a larger number of registrants. The fact that 3,000 is 5% of 60,000 is a mere coincidence. Five percent of 3,000 is 150.

At this point, I'd like to point out the Breitbart.com article is a rewrite of a Washington Times article; the Times article does not round up the numbers. The Times article sets the actual number of registrants as 2,837, so 5% of that number is 142. The Times article does not include the gaffe in the Breitbart.com article. It is interesting that the only changes made by the Breitbart.com reporter made the myth worse.

So where did this “5% of the time immigrant registrants are not registering” claim originate? The article claims the source was from a recently released study from the Government Accountability Office (GAO). Indeed, the GAO just released an article entitled “SEX OFFENDERS: ICE Could Better Inform Offenders It Supervises of Registration Responsibilities and Notify Jurisdictions when Offenders Are Removed.” This is where reading the source material now becomes important:

[http://www.gao.gov/assets/660/657831.pdf]

What GAO Found

On the basis of GAO’s analysis of a representative sample of 131 alien sex offenders under U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) supervision, GAO estimates that as of September 2012, 72 percent of alien sex offenders were registered, 22 percent were not required to register, and 5 percent did not register but should have. According to officials, offenders were not required to register for various reasons, such as the offense not requiring registration in some states. Of the 6 offenders in GAO’s sample that should have registered, officials from ICE’s Enforcement and Removal Operations (ICE-ERO) field offices informed 4 of their registration requirements. However, officials at some of these field offices identified several reasons why they did not ensure that these offenders actually registered. For example, the offender may have moved and no longer resided in the area of responsibility for that particular field office. ICE had not informed the remaining 2 offenders of their registration requirements.

In any study, sample size is important. The larger the sample size, the less likely a solitary case will greatly influence the numbers. The sample size of the GAO study is 131. Therefore, adding one registrant to the number of those who “should have registered but didn't” greatly increases the overall number. Six of the 131 registrants “should have registered but didn't,” or 4.6%. Percentage points are a bigger deal when we're discussing larger numbers. Remember when I divided 3000 by 5% earlier? The more accurate formula is now 2,837 divided by 4.5%; now the magic number is 128 (22 less than our first estimate). These are indeed very small numbers.

Of course, the real issue is the Breitbart.com article scares us with “thousands of immigrant sex offenders (scary), SOME OF THEM ILLEGAL (even scarier), are released by the feds (OM-f’ing-G!).” The study is not clear how many of them are here “illegally.” The GAO report does discuss the process by which immigrants are eligible for deportation and the limitations on that ability below:

The Enforcement and Removal Operations directorate of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE-ERO) is responsible for the identification, apprehension, detention, and removal of removable aliens. ICE-ERO prioritizes the removal of convicted criminals, among other groups. However, there are circumstances in which criminal aliens who have been ordered removed from the United States—including those convicted of a sex offense—cannot be removed. For example, a criminal alien may not be removed because the designated country will not accept the alien’s return. The decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in Zadvydas v. Davis imposes strict limits on ICE’s ability to detain aliens beyond 6 months after the issuance of a final order of removal if removal is not significantly likely in the reasonably foreseeable future. In these instances, ICE-ERO may release the alien into the community under an order of supervision. According to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), of the 59,347 aliens under an order of supervision as of September 2012, 2,837 (5 percent) of them had been convicted of a sex offense.

The bottom line is the Breitbart.com article cannot accurately portray the source material, since the author did not even read the source material. It is the online equivalent of the “telephone game.” Remember my myth busting tips—consider your sources and read the source material. The article caters to the conservative (assumed anti-immigration) crowd. The article expects the reader to fill in the blanks and, judging by many of the posts in the comments section, most have bought the hype.

Myth busting isn’t easy but it can be learned. It takes critical thinking, reading comprehension, dusting off your math skills, and taking the time to follow the information back to its source. If you want to learn more, be sure to visit my Sex Offender Myth Busterspage on Once Fallen and/or watch my presentation from the RSOL Conference, also available online. 

Whatever happened to "innocent until proven guilty?" Ask the media

This weekend, yet another high-profile trial ended, and there are a lot of angry people. People are protesting, a few attacks have occurred, and the fear of full scale riots are gripping the nation. Of course, this is not the only high-profile case in recent memory. Casey Anthony, Michael Jackson, and OJ Simpson  have all invoked public outrage and divided a nation, sometimes over race, sometimes for other reasons like celebrity or class status. Soon, the hoopla over the George Zimmerman trial will be replaced with the case of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, the alleged Boston Bomber.

We all believed these cases should end in guilty verdicts, but each of these people were found "Not Guilty" by our justice system. How did come to be so sure of a person's guilt even before the trial begins? One word -- MEDIA.

It is no secret the media is very influential. Even the politicians get most of their information from the media. The media is a business, and the business is selling advertising. Controversy sells. Sex offenders, serial murders, terrorist attacks, random acts of crime are the bread and butter of the "serious news" industry. Crime stories play a central role in both local and national media. Anyone who reads or watches the news knows that. 

The media is protected by the First Amendment. "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press..." As with any Constitutional right, there are some limits to the right, and the media can be regulated to a point. In fact, in 1949, the FCC introduced the Fairness Doctrine, which required the media to present both sides in controversial issues (though they weren't forced to give equal time to both sides). Unfortunately, that rule was repealed in 1987. The media is no longer obligated to tell the other side of the story, so they often refuse to tell that opposing viewpoint. 

The media isn't very regulated, nor has the media faced many instances of regulation. As far back as the 1700s, the newspapers were exploited by those who owned the printing presses. Ben Franklin wrote under pen names "Silence Dogood" and "busybody" to influence people. It is subject to bias and personal whims. The media is not objective, yet we rely on a biased media for giving information. 

To illustrate the impact of the media, think about a great tragedy that was in the news a little over a decade ago -- the school shooting at Columbine in Colorado. What do you remember? You remember those two bullied teens who created their little group called the 'Trench Coat Mafia," and shot up a school in retaliation for their ill-treatment. Don't forget that they targeted minorities and other groups, and most of all, a girl named Cassie Bernall was asked if she believed in God, she replied 'Yes," and was killed for it (there was even a song by Flyleaf about that event). We believe that much about Columbine.

There is just one little problem-- most of this story was bullshit. The two Columbine killers were actually popular kids, were never a part of the school's "Trench Coat Mafia" goup, or wore Gothic Clothes. The shooting was the result of a botched school bombing-- after they failed to successfully set off a bomb, they just decided to shoot as many people as possible, and the killing was indiscriminate. Cassie Bernall was indeed shot and killed, but it was Valeen Schnurr who was posed the question of her faith after she was shot, and she survived the shooting.

This does not make the Columbine school shooting any less tragic, but it separates myth from reality, and fact from fiction. Some of the myths were comforting (after all, a movement was started based on Cassie's "martyrdom") but desires do not turn untruths into truths. In order to understand a tragedy, we have to see the events as it truly unfolded.

Critical thinking and skepticism does not come easily in a society filled with simple anthems and symbols. It is easy to latch onto the symbolism of "Skittles and a Hoodie" or a "Rachel's Prayer" or "Two I-Beams shaped like a cross" because they become symbols of comfort and of innocence. It is a world of black-and-white where the person we call the victims are wholly innocent and the perpetrators are all guilty as sin. Symbols are powerful things, but sometimes we focus too much on the symbol rather than the message.

In our 24/7 news era, there is no shortage of people willing to talk (and talk and talk and talk...). After a while, there needs to be something new to discuss. In the case of breaking news, there is competition to be the first to bring up something new. The news is more than willing to put something fresh and new, or "get the exclusive." Too often, it comes at a huge price. The old adage "the best impression is the first impression" never rings truer than in the court of public opinion.

This brings this commentary full circle to my original premise-- the first impression may be the lasting impression but it may not be the right impression. The media flooded the airwaves with a preliminary view of events and that story sticks into people's minds. That initial report is repeated. By the time contradictions are presented, those initial reports have been etched into memory. Once that story is etched into a person's mind, it is hard to convince that person to see things differently. 

The Sixth Amendment: "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense." 

There is nothing in the 6th Amendment about the right to be tried in the court of public opinion (or "trial by media"). In theory, the US Justice system selects a jury of "peers," or at least a jury of people least favorable to media hype. In today's culture of 24/7 braking news, that is a very tall order. The only way to be completely ignorant of an event these days is to be free of the internet, the TV, avert your eyes in the checkout lanes (because of gossip rags), and avoid gossipy friends. 

By the time a case goes to trial, the court of public opinion has reached its verdict-- GUILTY! So the people watch and wait. But then something happens. The defense presents contractions to the myth. The killer's glove didn't fit. Casey's mom dismantles the myth of the Chloroform Google search. Rachel Jeantel takes the stand and the star witness for the prosecution becomes the star witness for the defense. There was a gap between the man and the myth. In court, this gap is called "reasonable doubt."

In a court of law, reasonable doubt is the highest standard of proof. When a myth in our minds, given to us by the media, is dispelled in court, and for a moment we feel we have been lied to, that is reasonable doubt. We were so sure it happened "this way," but we were proven wrong. Is there even a small chance that perhaps this person may not be guilty? That is reasonable doubt. That is not the same as "innocence." 

The court of public opinion has no standards. In the court of public opinion, the first evidence is the best evidence. That explains the discrepancy between public perception and jury decisions in many high profile cases. if people are mad at the court's decision, it is mainly because they already made up their minds and hate being told they were wrong. "Don't confuse me with the facts, I have made up my mind."

English jurist William Blackstone said in 1765, "It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer." Today, we feel differently, thanks in large part of the media. Until 2008 we had "Court TV" (now TruTV), media talking heads like Nancy (dis)Grace and Dr. Drew run back-to-back to rehash the same news bite, and justice-based TV dramas like Law and Order SVU that further skew our perception of "the system" (we even call the influence of these shows on perceptions of the system the "CSI Effect"). Few, if anyone, is innocent, on those shows. Even the portrayals of the defendants has changed-- a couple of decades ago, we had shows like Matlock and Perry Mason, where defendants were almost always innocent by a witty defense attorney/ investigator. The shows reflect the public attitude, which in turn reflects the media.

This is a long rant, but I have a point to all this. There are a few things that the media COULD do to end bias. I know they won't and this is a pipe dream, but if they could, the world would be a better place and the system of justice would be restored to its role as solemn seeker of justice:

1. I think media coverage of criminal trials in America should follow the guidelines set by our friends across the pond. In the United Kingdom, strict contempt of court regulations restrict the media's reporting of legal proceedings after a person is formally arrested. These rules are designed so that a defendant receives a fair trial in front of a jury that has not been tainted by prior media coverage. Our US Constitution was written in a way to favor the defense for a reason-- to ensure we did not lock up an innocent man, even at the risk of letting a guilty man go free.

2. The media should also bring back the Fairness Doctrine as a rule. One-sided debates, celebrities and washed-up reality stars asked to elaborate on subjects in a "Politically Incorrect" show format does not count. I'd like to see more real, civil debates between experts, not between screeching harpies and dirt truck drivers or hotel managers-turned-celebrity activists with no credentials. 

3. We must revive the concept of "innocent until proven guilty." Far too often, a person's life is ruined simply because that person is accused of a crime. That person becomes a target because some people equate accusations with guilt We cheer, for example, if a man kills another man and claims he did so because the other man "molested his daughter." Do we know that for sure? There was never a trial, just an execution. It gives the green light for others to do the same. 

The media wields great power, and with that great power comes great responsibility in wielding that power. It is past time for the media to be held responsible for this power. 

How the Media "BUT-fucks" (tm) an article

If there is one thing I've learned about the media over the years, it is they are biased and full of shit. We all know that, but while we poke fun at Faux News and their ilk, there are plenty of brain-dead sheeple who take them seriously.

There are plenty of these articles and it goes something like this. You are reading an article and 90% of the story is good, but in the interest of showing the other side, the reporter finds some random schmuck to spout some dissenting catchphrase. This person is generally introduced (not always but often) with the word BUT, and it is a big ole BUT.

This article has just been BUT-fucked. 

There are two recent articles that illustrate this trend of media sodomy. 

EXAMPLE #1: http://arkansasmatters.com/fulltext?nxd_id=541902

Sex Offender Registry and Community Safety: Does it Work?

By: Marci Manley, KARK 4 News

Updated: May 17, 2012

In 2010, KARK took a look at the sex offender registry system and how well it works. Changes in state law and the way information is reported had us taking another look to see if the system keeps communities safe.

"I'm a level three, which is called a high risk sex offender," he said across the desk. 

Robert Combs is required to check in with Little Rock Police every six months to make sure they know where he lives. 

"I think we have to step back from that one-size fits all approach to the way we deal with people on the registry," Combs said.

Combs is a Level III sex offender, but he's also the Executive Director of an  advocacy group for sex offenders in the Natural State, called Arkansas Time After Time, pushing for fewer barriers for some offenders. 

"It's the knee-jerk reaction to pass further laws like residency restrictions that people think it's going to make communities safer but really it makes communities less safe," he said. 

His reasoning? Combs said the restrictions on residency  make finding a house, a job, or a normal existence next to impossible, so some offenders will try to skirt the system.

"It's harder for their probation parole officer and their supervising team to watch them," Combs said. "They'll move to the countryside and if they're in the city they will go underground. That actually makes communities less safe." 

Paula Stitz, the Arkansas Sex Offender Registry manager, disagrees. (Here is the "but fucking")She said two major strides in the past year have made the Sex Offender Registry more efficient and more capable of keeping communities informed. 

"You can't tell me having the registry does not save people's lives," she said. "I know, I hear stories every day, where it has and continues to keep people safe. Information is power. Sex offenders have relied on our hesitancy to say the word sex or sex offender. It allowed them to stay in the dark. But now, this system is shining a light on them, and they don't care for that. It doesn't really allow them to live the lifestyle they want to live." 

EXAMPLE #2: http://www.wktv.com/news/local/Woman-engaged-to-sex-offender-registry-ruined-our-life-143561776.html

Woman engaged to sex offender: registry ruined our life

By HILARY LANE

Story Created: Mar 20, 2012 at 6:19 PM EDT

Story Updated: Mar 20, 2012 at 6:19 PM EDT 

ONEIDA, N.Y. (WKTV) - A woman engaged to a man who committed a sex crime is calling for the New York State Sex Offender Registry to be eliminated.

Shana Rowan's fiance committed a sex crime in 2004 and served four years in jail. Now her fiance's name is cemented in the New York State Sex Offender Registry forever and Rowan says it is impossible for them to move on.

"As long as the registry exists, I am always going to be living in fear," said Rowan. "I already had my car vandalized. My car is on the registry since he drives it. My neighbors won't talk to us, they think we are scum, and I never know how long my relationships are going to last. I never know if they are going to find out and think that he is scum and decide I am not worth it."

Rowan has now dedicated her life to advocating for families of sex offenders tormented by the registry and openly talks about these issues on her blog: iloveasexoffender.blogspot.com

"We don't believe sex crimes shouldn't be punished. We don't believe it is okay. We are not condoning it," said Rowan. "All we are promoting is safety and equality for families. All families. Part of that is allowing families of registrants to be safe in their homes."

(Here comes the BUT-fucking)

Richard Ferrucci, Senior Investigator for the District Attorney's Office, said the Sex Offender Registry is vital to society.

"The public has the right to know these people were dangerous, probably still are dangerous, or can be dangerous in the future to young children," said Ferrucci. "Children don't really have a means to protect themselves. By having a means to access information that is out there about crimes these people commit is paramount to keep their children safe."

I each example, the big BUT comes in the form of two people, Paula Stitz and Richard Ferrucci. Stitz is a disgraced police chief who was fired over corruption yet got a job with Arkansas sex offender registry. Richard Ferrucci, who is this clown? What is his credentials?

In each story, the focus of the article was supposed to be collateral consequences of life on the registry, the impact of life on the registry, BUT(fucked) then, someone pulls out the big BUT and fucked the entire article. What was the article about again?

The position of the big BUT is important, because for those who don't simply read the headline and actually take the time to read the article will remember the BUT because it is usually at the end of the article. So the article looks more like this:

The real story is this person we inconvenienced to tell his/her important story, BUT! This random expert spouts a myth and this person is important so listen to this random expert and fuck the first person.

This is your media article on the sex offender issue in a nutshell.

I'm not sure what to offer by way of remedy but Tom Madison, former CEO of SOClear Media, came up with this term in a recent conversation and it is worthy of use. I have been a victim of media sodomy as well. The media will approach me for an interview, butter me up (oh wait is that butter or vaseline?), then when the article comes up, my story is overshadowed by someone's big fat BUT. I'm not the only one. Perhaps we should register reporters that do these things. What do you think?

Leave Elizabeth Smart alone!

Where's this annoying internet prick
when you need him?

Many vigilante and self-professed child advocacy groups constantly complain that people who have suffered abuse at some point in their lives are "scarred for life" or "never heal" and thus they justify harassing and ostracizing those who served their sentences. Few discuss the role of media in keeping those victimized from moving on with their lives and forcing them to relive their victimization for the sake of ratings.

Do I even have to mention why we know who Elizabeth Smart is? If you actually don't know her story, well there's a million articles about her on the Internet. At any rate, while Elizabeth Smart is still an advocate for missing children and apparently works with ABC news, but that doesn't mean she's allowing those same media hounds she works for abuse her. Now don't get me wrong, I'm no fan of her politics or anyone who pushes for poorly crafted laws (and NAMED laws are a pet peeve of mine), and her daddy, Ed Smart, works way too closely with the controversial Mark Lunsford. But I have to admit there are times I respect her. Like that time she owned media whore Nancy Disgrace on her own show:

Anyone who puts Nancy in her place wins points in my book. I still don't like many of the things she advocated but she made Disgrace look, well, disGRACEful. This hasn't stopped the media from reminding both Miss Smart and the rest of us she's a "Former Kidnapping Victim for the 1,835,799,225,456th time. It was a decade ago, the man responsible was tried and convicted and will never be free again, and this woman moved on with her life for the most part. It doesn't help to see every article about her start off like this:

It is the media who can't seem to let go. Is it fair for Elizabeth Smart to have her wedding plans changed because of the media frenzy for "Former kidnap victim Elizabeth Smart"? I think not. A large number of comments must've exploded the Reuters article since it keeps showing me error screens, but here are a few comments I copied:

How about they quit referring to her as the Former Kidnap Victim? We all know what happened, just call her by her name. Glad to hear she's getting everything back to normal, wish her the best


How about, "Elizabeth Smart marries in Hawaii"?


That's pathetic media leave this poor girl alone. She can't have a private moment she's trying to move on from what happened to her. She doesn't need the media constantly reminding her of it.


The whole world knows about Elizabeth Smart's kidnapping years ago. This article is suppose to be her WEDDING DAY! WHY does this person reporting the WEDDING open this article with: "Elizabeth Smart, who was kidnap at age 14 from her Utah home and held for what she described as (nine months of hell)" and start the article like this: ELIZABETH SMART EXCHANGED VOWS ON SATURDAY..........Just write the WEDDING CELEBRATION without any mention of her kidnapping. Poor lady. When are they going to leave her kidnapping part of her life and concentrate on the present. I suppose, when she'll have her first baby and announce of it's coming into the world, they'll start the article with her kidnapping again. MEDIA/REPORTERS, leave that episode of her life when writing about her!!! Don't keep reminding her of the KIDNAPPING!!!!


Shameful news coverage Reuters and Yahoo. Respect her privacy. "...media attention that was growing "increasingly invasive"


The media should just call her Elizabeth Smart, her name, rather than introducing her as the girl who was kidnaped and raped, Elizabeth Smart. Reminding her about what happened every time there is news about her is probably not the best feeling in the world.


She changed her wedding plans to avoid a media frenzy and STILL these a**holes hound her every move. Let her be already.