I cannot stand it. I hate it when media sources try their best to make their stories emotional, interesting, or outrageous for the sake of appealing to readers. Instead of containing accurate or informative information, they become filled with biased and misleading information for the sake of manipulating readers.

Here's a recent example that is what caused me to go on this rant:

http://edition.cnn.com/2014/06/18/wo...phy/index.html

The CNN article disgusts me. Not because I disagree with the author, but because the information is misleading, biased, and poorly interpreted. It is tailored for the sole purpose of making it seem like an outrage, in order to appeal to readers. I'm fine with them saying that it is so disgusting that it should be banned, even if it restricts free speech. I cannot hate them for having an opinion.

What truly disgusts me is the number of fallacies in the article, such as the fact that they took statistics about rising child abuse in Japan, and immediately blamed it on the prevalence of lolicon comics, even when a study by the NPA found that there is no correlation. They completely ignored the statistic, in favor of a second one:

"Child welfare advocates disagree.

Shihoko Fujiwara runs Lighthouse, a nonprofit for exploited children. She told CNN she once worked on a case where a predator used a cartoon to convince a child that sex abuse was normal. "So the *********s might bring the animation and say 'this is how you practice with adults,'" she said.

So because of one scenario where there was the slightest link to fictional comics and child abuse, it is assumed that it a major factor in the rising abuse rates. It is not considered that the abuser could have used multiple methods, besides fictional content, and that even if such content was illegal, the man is already committing a much more severe crime, and wouldn't have cared to respect such laws anyways.

Basically, they disregarded a professional study for 1 scenario in which there was only a correlation. This is a brilliant example of confirmation bias.
Then look at this paragraph:

It added: 'While the NPA continued to maintain that no link was established between these animated images and child victimization, other experts suggested children are harmed by a culture that appears to accept child sexual abuse."

They never cited the "experts" that made such statements. I have no reason to believe this statement. If they were experts, they should have mentioned the research facilities and organizations that discovered such information. I can claim anything is said by an "expert" , it doesn't mean anything if I don't cite a professional source. Experts say that sending Skilliard $1,000,000 in the mail will guarentee you will live forever!

Also, they fell for another fallacy, but I'm slightly forgiving of this one. They say that the culture accepts child sexual abuse, but that is not true. Almost every lolicon I know would never want to act out their fantasies in real life, even if legal, and they understand the difference between "2d" and "3d". Most lolicons abhor sexual abuse. If I enjoy watching a violent movie, or a violent videogame, it doesn't mean I support mass murder. The same is true of lolicon.

The video disgusts me even more. They made assumptions that the sole reason it's still legal is because of lobbyists. Not the millions that believe in free speech, or those that believe it reduces abuse rates due to providing a harmless alternative, but the lobbyists. This rivals the level of professionalism of a low placement high school speech class, where arguments are very simple and more of a direct product of emotion and assumption than actual research.


I really want to contact CNN and file a complaint for this unprofessional article, but I don't have the balls to use my real name. I know for a fact that they will twist my quotes to make me seem like a devilish Child abuse advocate, like all mainstream media does.


/rant