Having spent a bit of time thinking about a relevant article in the media that best describes how not to report the crime of downloading / making indecent images of children, one tabloid immediately came to mind. Not that I am singling this particular paper out, but out of all the UK tabloids, this one uses the term that I am highlighting in this post, namely "child porn" on almost a daily basis.
My journey into the hell that is internet child porn
I wish the media would stop using this phrase. In reality, these are images of children who have been sexually exploited or abused - "crime scene photos". Using this phrase trivialises this crime hugely by labelling it as just another type of porn. We already have "food porn", "car porn" "poverty porn" - indeed anything and everything can be labelled as "porn". Should we be trivialising pictures and videos of child abuse by labelling them as just another "porn"?
Expanding on this a little, it could be said "yes", however we really need to be asking ourselves, would any normal person refer to these images and films as porn? My guess would be no, we wouldn't. Pornography is defined as "the explicit portrayal of sexual subject matter for the purposes of sexual arousal and erotic satisfaction", however the only people who would actively look at these images and describe it as such are paedophiles. Why should the media use such paedo-friendly language in their reporting - facilitating and helping paedophiles somehow justify their crimes? Answer - they shouldn't and they need to stop!
And what of people who have been abused and filmed? How do they feel having their abuse described as porn? Did they consent? Did they get paid to produce these abuse images and films for the sexual gratification of paedophiles? Of course not, and I am again taking a well educated guess that most take great offence having their abuse described as "porn".
Despite the fact that most child protection agencies actively discourage the use of this term, it is frustrating and disappointing that the media refuses to accept the prejudicial way that they report this crime.
The NSPCC state "The term child pornography remains a legal term in many jurisdictions and is commonly used in the media. However the NSPCC favours the term "child abuse images" as the NSPCC considers that to refer to images of child abuse as "pornography" detracts from the seriousness of the crime by implying that there is consent from the children involved and that it is neither abusive or harmful"
The IWF state "Please note that 'child pornography', 'child porn' and 'kiddie porn' are not acceptable terms. The use of such language acts to legitimise images which are not pornography, rather, they are permanent records of children being sexually abused and as such should be referred to as child sexual abuse images" (IWF).
The Phoenix Post state "Calling Indecent Images of Children ‘child porn’ is deeply offensive to the
victims, it undermines their justice and recovery, it facilitates the
paedophiles denial and helps them and the perverts to sell what are in fact
‘crime scene images’ on their own dark online market" (The Phoenix Pledge)
The excuses that I have been given by the various UK media are inexcusable and ignorant. Apart from the few that took time to think and see sense, the rest need to wake up and 'smell the coffee' I will be publishing some of the responses in my comments for you all to see.
As a post note, one paper has been particularly good in listening, hearing and taking action, and that is the Guardian. Not only did they agree to stop calling these images "porn", they went as far as to amend their style guide to reflect this as well (Guardian and Child Porn), one day it would be good to see all the UK media taking this stance.
Dear Mr Bougeard,
ReplyDeleteThank you for your email. I am sorry that you were unhappy with this headline.
However, I do not agree with your view that the phrase “child porn” trivialises or downplays this crime and I certainly do not agree that it legitimises the offence.
The phrase “child porn” is a widely used and widely understood term. Most people on seeing this phrase would react with horror and revulsion.
I cannot recall anybody else objecting to the use of this term on the grounds that you have done.
Richard,
ReplyDeleteI have a feeling you have raised the same issue with us before (excuse me if I’m wrong).
I can understand your point of view, but I do not think most readers would share it. Indecent images of children are generally referred to as “child porn”. This is no way downplays the crime.
However, I’ve taken note of your views. Please do not feel the need to contact me every time you see the term in our newspapers.
Dear Mr Bougeard,
ReplyDeleteI’m absolutely convinced you are right when you state that none of the victims of such abuse would consider themselves “child porn stars” but to suggest that’s what the coverage implies is both offensive and nonsensical. It does nothing of the sort.
We do not trivialize, downplay or legitimise the abuse carried out on children in the name of titillation. Indeed, by highlighting this heinous crime we are showing what will happen to those who become involved in downloading, viewing or paying for such pornography. We use a variety of terms in the context of the articles and will continue to do so to highlight the punishment of those involved.
Dear Mr Bougeard,
ReplyDeleteWhile I appreciate and respect your point of view, we will once again have to agree to differ on the correctness of the terminology used.
The sad fact is that images such as those concerned are used by certain individuals as pornography and are therefore capable of being described as such, with ‘porn’ being a well-understood and commonly used abbreviation for ‘pornography’ and ‘child’ being used adjectivally to qualify the term and distinguish it from other types of pornography, some of which are also unlawful.
I do not believe that the widespread use of the expression ‘child porn’ has ever led any reader, listener or viewer anywhere to believe that the material and activity thus described is anything other than illegal (and, indeed, by general consensus and connotation, deeply reprehensible).
We will continue to use the expression and, while I am sure you will disagree, I hope you will understand that I do not propose to enter into correspondence on the subject every time we do so.
Richard, thank you for your many emails, but I think you're slightly missing the point over the term child porn. **** is a populist newspaper and we try to use concise, widely used terms such as child porn so that our readers will understand what we are referring to, as do many other newspapers, magazines and news organisations who use the same term. I appreciate your argument but to the paedophiles who view indecent images of children it is a form of pornography, and they treat it as so, thus to use the term 'child porn' doesn't lessen the crime committed it simply explains what it is to these offenders. I think if you asked most right-minded people what child porn means to them they would automatically know it has a negative connotation and is something associated with and enjoyed by sick paedophiles, I find it hard to believe that the vast majority of people have considered for one second that the term trivialises child abuse. Pornography is defined as "the explicit portrayal of sexual subject matter for the purposes of sexual arousal and erotic satisfaction". Paedophiles seek sexual gratification from images of children, while the rest of us can see such images for what they are, vile criminal acts, unfortunately they don't.
ReplyDeleteNow I'm sure you will come back with several more reasons why we shouldn't use the term, but I suggest we agree to differ as this email has taken up way too much of my time already.
Regards
Welcome to the Blogsphere Richard, well done and good luck mate, no doubt the halfwit Haworth will be pestering you shortly :)
ReplyDeleteYour blog is great.
ReplyDeleteFab to have you fighting this horrid term.
Great stuff Ric. and good luck.
Sorry but why do you link up a the propaganda blog which attacks paedophiles in calling them scum after what you said on Jersey Radio last week?
ReplyDeleteI have linked to various blogs including some local ones. I stand by what I said about "naming and shaming" sites, ones similar to the one on FB do nothing to protect children.
DeleteJust when you thought it couldn't get any worse for CHILD PROTECTION
ReplyDelete