Outrage!
How Ideological Media Manufactures False Alarms
In an era of hyper-partisan media, information isn’t delivered to inform — it’s shaped to confirm. Beyond the clickbait economics of social media lies something more deliberate: ideological policy journals practicing “nutpicking” — finding a fringe anomaly and presenting it as a powerful movement.
My wife flagged a textbook case: a City Journal exposé (Manhattan Institute) on a “worrying new movement” in mental health that supposedly insists attraction to minors isn’t a disorder but an “identity to be affirmed.” She was alarmed. Reasonably — that’s what the piece is built to make you feel.
Step 1: Elevate the invisible outlier
The article’s “movement” is a small Maryland nonprofit, B4U-ACT, with no institutional backing and a budget measured in thousands, not millions. Its big symposium drew a whopping 38 people. A 2024 review of the academic literature found exactly 30 papers worldwide, across eight years, using the group’s preferred framing — out of hundreds of thousands published in the field. I’ve worked with offenders for years and had never encountered it. That’s not a tide turning. That’s a rounding error with a press release.
Step 2: Flatten nuance into propaganda
The piece also collapses a distinction the DSM-5 is explicit about: a paraphilia (an unchosen attraction) is not the same as a paraphilic disorder (which requires distress or harm). That line exists for a practical reason — abuse prevention. Shame and instant criminalization keep non-offending people from ever seeking help. Treating the impulse separately from the behavior is what lets someone walk into therapy before anything happens, not after. The article deliberately rebrands this protective clinical tool as “identity affirmation” — turning a quiet child-safety strategy into a culture-war villain.
Step 3: Trigger the emotional hijack
Center the story on child safety and you bypass the reader's critical thinking almost automatically — within minutes, my wife wasn't just concerned, she was running scenarios about whether someone above me at work might already be pushing this thinking onto the therapists who report to them. She wasn't accusing me. She was trying to find out if my employer already had. That's the hijack working as designed: once a reader's in that state, the slippery-slope logic writes itself — stop these fringe academics or medicine will legalize harm. Nuance doesn't survive that framing. You're either defending children or you're complicit.
The cost
This is the same playbook used against vaccines — one outlier, one primal fear, and trust in the relevant institution collapses along with it. The irony is that dismantling the clinical language built to keep kids safe doesn’t protect anyone; it just removes the guardrail. Outrage makes for good fundraising and bad public health policy.
I’m happy to report, however, that my marriage survived the fact-check.
Letters from a Psychotherapist is a reader-supported, ad-free publication. When you subscribe, you’re directly supporting this work and helping keep it independent and accessible.
I’m grateful you’re here.