To Catch a Predator with a Predator The business of exploitation television and the ethical considerations stemming from such programming are never clearer than in the show “To Catch a Predator.” Under the guise of catching criminals in the act and exposing sexual predators the networks (NBC and MSNBC) carried out a show of sting operations bolstered by the journalistic credibility of Chris Hansen who had reported for NBC Dateline previously. I argue that the predatory nature with which the program was carried out not only may have violated the civil rights of both the victims and the target sex predator but even more so sets up a dilemma as it pertains to the journalism profession. Additionally, privacy was likely invaded for both parties involved before any crime was committed, bringing entrapment into the conversation.
Let me first address the subject of civil rights as a matter of privacy insomuch as it relates to getting a fair trial. In our justice system an individual must be presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt when he or she is charged with a crime. By placing someone’s face on television prior to the trial where that must be proven, it has great potential to and some would argue that it is likely to taint a jury. Obviously, situations of publicity cannot be avoided altogether. However, the intentional use of such footage to anchor a television show may not fall into that category of those which cannot be avoided. Ultimately on this point there is great question as to whether a person could get a fair trial given such circumstances. Specifically on the privacy issue, there are children and spouses who are also involved. It is not only the suspects who are harmed but those around him. Those people are not looking for the negative attention and hurt that is brought upon them, and thus are the actual victims in the situation.
Next and just as important is the issue of journalistic deception. This is not a clear cut subject but I believe it is important to look at the show from that aspect because it involves Chris Hansen and activists posing as underage potential sex partners over the internet and on the phone. Hansen was already well known for his work on Dateline NBC. That success paved the way for him to have credibility immediately when the show initially started. Bringing that credibility may have played a prominent role in why the show was not questioned more harshly in the beginning and throughout its run. The problem of course lies in the widely accepted principles of journalism that allow deception in only a few instances. In a democratic society journalists are held to a high standard and the good ones are held in high regard. Journalists’ number one job is to report and provide information to the people in order to help them with self-government and their obligation is to the truth. They are supposed to be transparent in their methods and sources although as we know there are many times those sources must be protected. Some who take a utilitarian approach to things may think it is fine to be deceptive as long as it serves the greater good or has benefits that outweigh the harm of the few. The big argument of those who are okay with the methods used in “To Catch a Predator” is that the type of method is necessary because child predators operate in such secrecy that they could not be caught without deceiving them. There certainly is some merit to this argument considering criminals are not likely to just give themselves up easily or open themselves up to the risk knowingly. As the old saying goes though, two wrongs do not make a right. What I mean by this is by offering one’s trust and credibility up to show that another cannot be trusted or is not credible is inherently absurd.
As a counter argument it is easy to see why many people would just say that it does not matter how we catch child predators or others that would prey on the weakest among us, that it just matters that we do what we can to stop them. This of course makes sense and one would be hesitant to argue the other side. Who would be against protecting children? This argument would certainly hold more sway in this case if there was not a profit being made for the network. When money is added into the equation I think we must ask whether we can fully trust what we are being shown, at least from an intent standpoint. Had the proceeds gone to a charity for victims of predators this line of thinking would make much more sense. Unfortunately, it is a bit more complex when we are trying to protect our liberties as well. The rules of society have to be followed on all sides or they are undermined on all. It is why the process of ethical decision-making is just as important as the end result. It is akin to studying history. If we do not know what has happened and why, we are much more likely to repeat it. Ultimately the responsibility of the journalist is to the public and to the public knowledge, not to act as vigilante enforcers even if it is for good. And while it is difficult to argue such a point it is important to maintain the balance required in our value system.

Bibliography
Elliott, D., & Culver, C. (1992). Defining and Analyzing Journalistic Deception. Journal of Mass Media Ethics, 7(2), 70-79.

Patterson, P., & Wilkins, L. (2007). Media Ethics: Issues and Cases (6th ed.). Boston: McGraw-Hill.