Stop ‘balancing’ articles when the evidence on either side doesn’t match up

Plans to switch off street lights over night by Essex County Council have met fierce opposition in the form of Charles March, a pensioner from Pitsea. He’s started a campaign against it on the basis that:

the plans…would be a nightmare and violent crime would inevitably rocket.

the move would not save much taxpayers’ money and would have little effect on the environment.

They’re talking nonsense about the environment. It won’t have the slightest effect in the overall picture.

When the council has to deal with billions of pounds, it’s hardly going to save that much money either.

What Mr March fails to do is qualify his claims with any tangible evidence. In actual fact, the switching off of street lights has already happened in suburban Essex, with:

a police report [showed] that crime in the two districts which trialled the scheme has actually fallen

Another report, this time by Greater Manchester Police, pointed out that lighting can actually be the catalyst for criminal activity:

In certain situations, lighting may aid or encourage congregation, crime and disorder.

I’m not saying that the concerns about criminal activity increasing shouldn’t be aired or addressed, my argument is that with a little bit of research on the part of the journalist, they can make an informed judgement on how to present the article. The Council does get a chance to reply to Mr March, whereby they highlight that there isn’t a correlation between an increase in criminal activity and street lights being switched off, as well as them saving a third on energy costs if they do partake in the scheme – blowing Mr March’s arguments out of the water:

The council said that in areas where the scheme was trialled, the number of crimes fell, while costs were saved because electricity usage fell by a third, which was better for the environment.

Scott Wilson, county council spokesman, said a safer communities committee was looking at whether the scheme could be applied countywide, but had not made a decision yet.

He said: “There are all sorts of exceptions. It’s only areas that are least used.

Main roads, town centre lights and lights around the town centre would not be turned off.”

The weight that the original Echo story gave to Mr March’s criticisms was far too much. They led with the headline:

Street lights switch off ‘will cause more crime’

It implies that the assertion of a definite increase in crime is given by a credible authority, when in reality it’s just an ordinary member of the public who is basing their arguments on no statistics or factual evidence. The Echo also publishes Mr March’s claim that crime would “inevitably sky-rocket”. Why would it? What is he basing this on? The Echo should have challenged him on this, and if he provided nothing to substantiate what he is saying then write it into the article.

By giving a ‘fair’ representation of both sides you over legitimise arguments that aren’t very well founded. By giving equal weight, or even more weight towards Mr March as it appears, you do the public an injustice by allowing them to make a poorly informed judgement.

Sorry Evening Echo, you got it wrong.