The Chronicle‘s Mike Tolson penned a weekend article that uses “experts” to suggest rather strongly that growing public concern over rising violent crime (as measured in recent polling) is irrational. Here is one of Tolson’s experts:
Criminologists and sociologists who specialize in crime say parsing statistics for explanations of public fear of or perceptions about crime is pointless. The public is more likely responding from a general feeling, something lingering in the subconscious, they say, than with cold, numerical logic.
“I’m not convinced that the public is generally aware of crime-rate trends,” said Dennis Longmire, a criminology professor at Sam Houston State University’s Criminal Justice Center. “And I’m not convinced they are swayed in their attitudes toward crime based on news about crime rates and such. People would like to think that they are, but I think it is more visceral and emotional than rational.”
If Professor Longmire means to say that crime rates are not the only explanatory factor for growing public concern over crime in Houston, then that’s a reasonable position (since multiple variables are likely involved). However, if he means to suggest that rising violent crime rates and media coverage of rising crime rates (and, lately, HPD’s manpower shortage) are not important independent variables, he and/or Tolson need to provide justification for that position beyond the notion that the Professor is “not convinced.”
Here is Tolson’s conclusion to what seems more like an editorial admonition not to worry than objective reporting:
In 1985, Houston recorded 459 murders, which was encouraging because just a few years before, the total topped 700. Two decades later, a more populous city has three-quarters of that total and is alarmed.
With crime, like hemlines and home prices, bad news often is in the eye of the beholder.
The rise in murders is a documented fact, and not simply in the “eye of the beholder.” Indeed, the reporter seems to concede as much in his sixth paragraph, before the story is framed by the reporter’s quotes from “experts.” Needless to say, the conclusion comparing homicides to hemlines and home prices showed poor taste, even for the Chronicle.
Maybe Chief Hurtt sent a Fear Reduction Initiative psychologist over to visit this reporter. That’s at least one explanation for this “Don’t worry” editorial posing as a news story.
Still, if you follow Chief Hurtt’s advice — don’t involve yourself in particular behavior (like getting mugged or killed?), don’t go out at night, and stay off certain streets — you’ll probably be fine! And even if you think you won’t be fine, don’t worry — according to reporter/editorialist Mike Tolson and his experts, you’re probably just being irrational!
ANNE LINEHAN ADDS: In addition to the problems with the story Kevin points out, I’d like to add this:
Recent months have seen a handful of well-chronicled atrocities: the aggravated sexual assault of a teenager in Spring in which two skinheads have been charged; an engaged couple’s slaying inside their West End townhome; the shooting death of two Bellaire High School students in separate incidents; and the killing of an elderly Pasadena woman — allegedly by a trio of hurricane evacuees she had befriended.
Nice.
The Chronicle has routinely not labeled minorities when reporting crimes. In fact, Chron Reader Representative James Campbell said that NOT reporting race is more practical.
The question is why is it okay to describe white guys with a highly inflammatory label such as “skinhead”? Does the Chronicle know for sure they ARE skinheads? I mean, we can infer they are, but is that enough? Would that be enough if the suspects were black or brown? The Chron (and media outlets in general) are routinely loathe to identify race if the suspect is a minority. And the media are VERY loathe to use any further descriptions that might identify a group the suspect is a part of. For example, when that teen was killed in Chew Park, the Chron didn’t mention that he was a member of MS-13.
And for any reading-challenged yahoos out there who think I am defending the Spring suspects, smack that idea right out of your head. I’m not. I am criticizing the way the media report these things.
