I’m concerned for the health of the American news media and representatives of our federal government. It appears both may be suffering from a serious affliction, or perhaps an addiction.With an insatiable appetite for the sensational and a reaction to all things tawdry that makes Pavlov’s pooch seem unpredictable by comparison, the national media jumps to conclusions as though there’s a Pulitzer available for “Excellence in Logic Leaping.”

In its current reporting on the potential threats to children posed by surfing the Internet, for example, our collective news media appears to have contracted a severe case of Unfounded Assumption Syndrome, or perhaps “Fact-check-itis”.

Take the recent testimony on Capitol Hill by young Justin Berry, the Southern California lad who related to a House subcommittee a troubling tale of being enticed and exploited (but not physically molested) by hundreds of online “child-predators.”

In addition to describing his experience, Berry also testified that he had provided names and other identifying data for hundreds of such men to the Department of Justice, collected over the five year period of his “exploitation,” and that only two of the men had been arrested as a result.

Reaction to Berry’s testimony was predictably strong; pundits far and wide, asserting that Berry’s story was “common,” talked about the tens of thousands of predators lurking online and an apparent sharp rate of increase in the exploitation of children.

Politicians, naturally, seized on Berry’s appearance before the House subcommittee as an opportunity to beat their chests, point fingers in blame, and generally look and talk tough for the cameras.

“I find it just unbelievable the different stories that I’ve heard about this investigation,” said Representative Ed Whitfield, (R-KY). “It appears that this section in the Justice Department is failing miserably on this issue.”

To be fair, the cable news outlets, network news programs, major national magazines and newspapers all covered the basic story accurately enough; TV stations ran portions of Berry’s emotional testimony, interspersed with comments from their “experts.”

It was the coverage that followed Berry’s testimony; the so-called “in-depth” reporting into the general subject of child exploitation online where the Logical Long-Jump competition began in earnest.

Conflating reports from the Department of Justice and other sources concerning the increasing severity of the acts contained in recent online child pornography with an increase in the rate of incidence of such crimes, the national media presented the public with a set of “facts” strongly suggestive of a virtual pandemic of child molestation.

Behind this “increase” in abuse, and the “growing threat” to our children, of course, was everybody’s favorite modern technological boogeyman – The Internet.

The Internet, we have been told, has brought on a Dark Age of child predation, an environment wherein no child is safe and Chester the Molester lurks in every chat room, waiting to pounce.

Let’s be clear here; there is no doubt that the relative anonymity of the Web presents opportunities for those inclined to do so to make “harmful” contact with minors, opportunities not possible through other means or other mediums. There’s also no doubt that the Web has increased the scope and distribution of child pornography.

Before we go overboard, though, in assessing the severity and commonality of the threat, and label it “critical,” we should consider some of the implications of the arguments being made and the evidence supporting those arguments.

One problem with the debate over the severity of the threat to children posed by the internet is common use of highly definitive language when a more qualified and measured choice of words would be more appropriate. This is a problem unnervingly common among representatives of the current Executive Branch of the federal government, in particular.

Consider this comment (with emphasis added) made by US Attorney General Alberto Gonzales during his announcement of the launch of “Project Safe Childhood:”

“It is not an exaggeration to say that we are in the midst of an epidemic of sexual abuse and exploitation of our children.”

Gonzales also asserted a causal connection between the distribution of “obscenity” (meaning arguably illegal forms of adult pornography, as opposed to patently illegal child pornography) and the creation of a more threatening environment for children.

“I realize that child pornography and sexual enticement are not the only criminal activities that threaten our society,” Gonzales said. “Obscenity debases men and women, fostering a culture in which these heinous crimes against our children become acceptable.”

Setting aside the assertion that obscenity “debases men and women” for a moment, let’s consider the second part of Gozales statement; has the increase in access to “obscene” materials in recent history actually led to crimes against children becoming more “acceptable?”

Beyond that question, is it really “not an exaggeration” to say we’re experiencing an “epidemic of sexual abuse and exploitation?”

No question, the amount of sexually explicit material that is more “hardcore” or “extreme” has increased greatly in recent years and, no doubt, that market has been driven in part by the general growth of the online pornography market. Regardless of whether one considers that content to be legally “obscene,” there is no question there is now easier access to more pornography than ever before.

According to Gonzales’ contention, during that same period of time we should have seen an increase in sex crimes generally, and sex crimes against children in particular. One would also expect that increase to be reflected in relevant statistical indices used to track such crimes.

The relevant statistics, however, including statistics kept by Gonzales’ own DOJ, show a trend quite different from the one Gonzales and others have presented in their rhetoric.

According to the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP), a division of the Justice Dept., the annual number of reported incidents of child molestation nationwide decreased significantly during the years of the Internet’s greatest growth.

In a 2004 report, the OJJDP found that the number of incidents of child sexual abuse had declined from approximately 150,000 per year in 1992 to 89,500 in 2000 – a drop of over 40%!

Now “one statistic does not a trend disprove,” necessarily, but it does suggest that both Gonzales’ axiom pertaining to the effects of obscenity, and his claim of an “epidemic” might be off the mark. At the very least, the crime statistics pose an alternative possibility to Gonzales’ rather bleak assessment.

I suppose one could argue that fewer cases are being reported because now that molesting children has become more “acceptable,” people are more hesitant to report the incidents. Such an argument strains credulity, however; given the complete lack of public support for child abusers and molesters. It’s hard to imagine that a significant percentage people privately believe it “acceptable” to molest children…

Another indication of how “acceptable” a given crime is considered to be within a society is the severity of punishment doled out by that society to those who commit said crime. If sexual abuse is becoming more “acceptable” by way of the increasing availability of “obscene” materials, as Gonzales suggests, then one would expect sentencing trends to reveal lighter sentencing of such offenders in recent years.

Here too, the numbers not only fail to support Gonzales’ assertion, they seem to run entirely contrary to it.

In 2003, Congress passed the Protect Act, which, among other things, increased the minimum sentences for a wide variety of sex crimes and instituted a compulsory life sentence for many classes of second-time sex offenders. It also included provisions that removed the ability of judges to issue lower penalties according to their own discretion.

Since federal laws now allow for far harsher penalties than most of their state law equivalents, state authorities are increasingly turning to their federal peers to take over prosecutions of sex offenders. In some cases, the state authorities invite the feds in to bring on additional, federal charges, if a state-level prosecution leads to a sentence prosecutors believe is too light.

Rod Rosenstein, US Attorney General for Maryland, told the Legal Times in a recent interview that state prosecutors “have come to us [federal authorities] because they ran into problems.”

As a result of the emphasis on and preference for federal enforcement, child pornography and abuse cases prosecuted by the DOJ’s 94 nationwide U.S. Attorney’s Offices increased from 344 in 1995 to 1,576 in 2005.

This increase in federal prosecution has led to a higher average length of sentence for sex offenders and harsher punishments for sexual abusers of children in particular, than in years previous.

If sex crimes against children have become more “acceptable” by way of an increase in general obscenity, might not one expect that defense attorneys would have noticed this more charitable attitude towards their sex offender clients, as well?

“These are the toughest cases within the realm of criminal defense today,” Ian Friedman, an Ohio-based criminal defense attorney who has represented clients accused of internet sex crimes told the Times. “First off, the penalties are stiff, the political climate is horrendous against them, there’s no understanding of the offense itself, and there’s no compassion. It’s almost as if the defendant is stripped of the presumption of innocence.”

Do the facts above sound like evidence of a “culture” in which “heinous crimes against our children” have “become acceptable?”

In raising the possibility that the internet is not to blame for an increase in sex crimes or crimes against children, and further asserting that the alleged increase itself is more imagined or assumed than actual, I’m not suggesting that we drop efforts to combat child pornography, prosecute and incarcerate sexual predators, or rethink sentencing guidelines for sex offenders.

I’m merely suggesting that those charged with disseminating information on which the public is meant to base its own conclusions have put the rhetorical cart in front of the logical horse – AGAIN.

In short, before one can conclude that there is causality – in this case, the nature and existence of the internet causing an increase in child abuse, and a corresponding increase in the “acceptability” of such abuse – one must first establish whether the supposed effect in question actually exists.

Approaching the “child protection” issue based on rational analysis and carefully considered action presents the possibility of making substantive progress in providing some protection, or at least some prophylactic education, to kids.

Discussions rooted in hyperbolic rhetoric and flawed assumptions, on the other hand, will lead only to more Congressional hearings, more talk-show jabbering, and a fistful of useless new laws.

Unfortunately, hyperbole and emotional tirades make better sound byte material than do rational arguments, and appealing to people by way of their natural inclination to worry about their children is a tried and true maneuver of campaign strategists of all political stripes.

In other words, don’t hold your breath waiting for that rational analysis; this is an election year, after all.