This week’s case study is a perfect example of how a reporter’s misuse of math can sensationalize a story to the point of misleading an audience. “Violent crime increases in Gainesville” is full of miscalculations, played-up figures and vague statements. The problems begin in the lead with the personification of the city of Gainesville. This also occurs in the sixth graf. Instead of saying “the citizens of Gainesville saw a 19 percent increase in violent crime,” it said “the city of Gainesville saw a 19 percent increase.” A city doesn’t see, but the public does. The story also jumps between Gainesville trends and national trends a couple of times, which can be especially confusing to readers in a story that involves as much math as this one. The majority of the remaining issues I have with this story deal with the uses and misuses of numbers.
One major problem with this story is false information in the lead. Both percentage increases given were incorrect. No story should start out by reporting miscalculations, especially if they have to deal with something as serious as rising crime rates, which affects the entire population. According to the table on Gainesville crime given beneath the story, there was a 16 percent increase in violent crime, not a 19 percent increase, and there was a 57 percent increase in robberies, not a 59 percent increase. While these slight errors might not seem to have a significant impact on the story, they are still inaccurate figures and should not have appeared in the story. There is also an element of sensationalism that might misrepresent the severity of the problem of murders and arsons reported. According to the article, “murder and arson reports doubled” from 2005 to 2006. While this is true, it is making it seem like more of a severe problem than it really is. There was one murder in 2005 and two in 2006, and there were two arsons in 2005 and four in 2006. These figures did double, but they were at such low numbers to begin with that doubling them isn’t that significant of an increase. The story used percentages in instances when using actual numbers would be more revealing of the current so-called “trends.” Additionally, the story doesn’t take population increase into account, which could account for the rise in crimes committed.
There is an important point raised in the story that “people are reporting crimes more than ever.” This seems like a better topic for the story, yet there is no insight as to why the number of crimes reported has risen. This aspect is instead buried deep in the story. Another quote I had an issue with was “it’s a trend that reinforces that, at all times, you have to be aware of your surroundings because crime can happen anywhere.” I think this trivializes one’s awareness of possible dangers, as if people don’t know what’s going on around them and that’s why they become victims. Another small but glaring error was the two spellings of GPD Sgt. Keith Kameg’s name. It is spelled as Kameg and Kaneg, which shows poor editing and a lack of focus. Overall, the story had several flaws, and further supports the theme of the story abstracts that reporters and editors should question the numbers so the audience doesn’t have to.
