[user104658]

... ... ... ... ... ... I think the truth of the matter is likely that the 17 year old involved was probably already a drug addict unrelated to this, and was providing the pictures to fund their drug habit.

And with that in mind - to be frank - no I wouldn't be surprised if the parents of an already-drug-addicted 17 year old aren't telling the whole story and have ulterior motives.

In terms of whichever presenter is involved all of that is largely irrelevant - funding a child's drug habit by buying underage pornography of them is both illegal and morally abhorrent. Really just bottom-of-the-barrel low.