Cause and effect
November 19, 2007Detroit has snatched the No. 1 ranking from St. Louis, now having the title of America’s most dangerous city. Some people are crying foul:
Detroit Deputy Police Chief James Tate had no immediate comment on the report. But the mayor of 30th-ranked Rochester, N.Y. — an ex-police chief himself — said the study’s authors should consider the harm that the report causes.
“What I take exception to is the use of these statistics and the damage they inflict on a number of these cities,” said Mayor Robert Duffy, chairman of the Criminal and Social Justice Committee for the U.S. Conference of Mayors.
The rankings “do groundless harm to many communities,” said Michael Tonry, president of the American Society of Criminology.
“They also work against a key goal of our society, which is a better understanding of crime-related issues by both scientists and the public,” Tonry said.
Critics also complain that numbers don’t tell the whole story because of differences among cities.
This is an issue journalists wrestle with in covering their individual cities. When we report that a certain neighborhood or section of town is dangerous or “crime-ridden,” we add to a reputation that makes it hard for people trying to revitalize the area. But if we don’t, we’re withholding vital information people need.
I don’t think anyone has figured out the right balance, but I suspect the answer involves more complete reporting. I’ve always lived on the near-south side, and my parents lived in the heart of southeast Fort Wayne. I can’t quibble with the reporting of the bad things that have happened on this side of town. But there are wonderful things that happen here that deserve reporting, too. For what it’s worth, our newspaper has made an effort to tell the whole story, and I know some other outlets have, too. But “objective” journalism always misses a lot of nuances.
November 19, 2007 at 10:21 am
I admire the objectivity aspect to reporting, but it’s pretty darn hard to be “objective” when you see houses broken into daily, gunshots after midnight, houses boarded up for YEARS, people smoking pot on the street in broad daylight, and more cars with inoperable lighting than you can shake a tow bar at.
I’ve had a chemical bottle bomb tossed on the lawn, had a gun pulled on me, had a brick through a window, had the house egged, paintballed and BBed, and all I want to do is just live here.
That’s the side of objective reporting that is rarely covered. That’s why I bring it to the forefront. If this stuff never gets reported, that doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist, savvy?
So maybe it’s a good thing I’m not an “official” reporter….I’d have more stories than the Naked City, and they about a million.
BY the way….that reminds me of the youth that was loading a .22 gun a few years back on our corner.
B.G.
November 20, 2007 at 4:35 am
The mayor of Rochester is worried about the harm that will come to the city by revealing these facts?
What about the harm that is apparantly coming to the current citizens from the existense of this crime. Shouldn’t new or potential citizens to this area have the right to this information.
The Mayor’s excuse is as weak as that of a doctor who doesn’t want quality of patient care results published. “Why if we allow this, patients will stop seeing the bad doctors!”
Certainly, great care should be given to objectively study and report on such information. But to not want someone to point out that something is bad, because then people will think it is bad, is ridiculous.