that the evidence was 'inadequate'". Conflict of interest Beginning with the fourth investigation, Dateline began paying Perverted-Justice a consultant's fee to do its regular work; the fee was reported to have been over $100,000 for that operation. Al Tompkins of the Poynter Institute for Media Studies suggested that this payment created a potential conflict of interest for Perverted-Justice, an organization run largely on the efforts of volunteers, and furthermore, that for Dateline to pay this fee would be tantamount to paying news sources, a practice widely frowned upon in the journalism industry. The department kept itself separate from Dateline staff during the sting as well, to avoid legal hassles later on, says Burns. Officials were positioned in a location near but not inside the house where offenders arrived for meetings. Communications and video equipment permitted authorities to keep tabs on what transpired, and all chats were transmitted directly to officials as they took place. "We didn't want to blur the line of ethics between law enforcement and the media," Burns explained. "We didn't even speak to Dateline officials during the operations." The potential for conflict of interest was one of several concerns that led to the non-prosecution of 23 cases in Collin County, Texas. District Attorney John Roach questioned circumstances of the May 2007 sting, stating: "What is exactly the deal between the City of Murphy and NBC? What is the deal between NBC and Perverted-Justice? Who's getting paid what? Who has an axe to grind?" Investigative journalist Byron Harris explained, "John Roach knew the money issue would come up in court as part of the required disclosure of benefits received by possible witnesses." Staged versions The series inspired a trend of YouTube prankster videos produced by individuals emulating To Catch a Predator as a form of social justice activism, without police involvement or legal qualifications. In these videos, when the sting is revealed to the would-be predator lured to the sting, unlike To Catch a Predator, the YouTubers scold the alleged perpetrator and allow them to leave. These videos were debunked as fake, and not actual stings of alleged criminals, which resulted in criticism and mockery by others in the YouTube community, and led some of the content creators behind them to quit YouTube entirely. Sarah Manavis, writing for New Statesman, criticized these videos, which garnered high viewerships and brand sponsorships, saying, "If the videos are, indeed, entirely staged,