writes in to point us to a story out of Australia, where police in Victoria are blaming the internet for a recent rise in youth crimes
. Of course, this seems to go against almost all other evidence
, but why let that stop a little fear mongering:
The head of the police youth affairs office, Inspector Steve Soden, said too many children were viewing inappropriate content on the internet and this, coupled with boredom due to a lack of community services on Melbourne's fringes, was behind the alarming rise in youth crime.
Does he have any
evidence of this? Nope. But it doesn't stop the newspaper from going with the headline: "Net blamed as 10,000 kids turn to crime." In fact, buried way down towards the end of the article, is the news of an actual
research paper that looked into what was causing the growth in youth crime:
The paper says social factors, including unemployment, drug and alcohol abuse, sexual abuse and homelessness, contribute to youth crime. But the two key factors influencing young offenders are poor parenting and schooling.
Notice that the internet is totally absent. Yet, why is this fact buried in the 13th paragraph, when the headline and the first few paragraphs blame the internet?