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

June 23, 2009 by shanecroucher Leave a Comment

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.

Filed under Journalism Tagged with , , , , , ,

Cheap shots

June 1, 2009 by shanecroucher Leave a Comment

I recently received some exposure from a Liberal Democrat website run by councillors in Rochford. They highlighted my article on voting in local elections. You can find their post here.

I was then alerted to an article on their Conservative opponent Councillor Stephen Castle’s blog. He said:

 

I was also struck this evening by two posts on the Lib Dem web site. Firstly one that promotes the Blog of a journalism student in Rochford – clearly the Lib Dems seem pretty excited because there is some implied criticism of the local Tories but the language on the site http://shanecroucher.wordpress.com/2009/05/22/use-your-box-when-voting-locally/ is completely  unacceptable and I am surprised that the Rayleigh Lib Dems need to stoop so low as to promote it.

This rather irritated me. I hadn’t set out to target the Tory Party. I used a hypothetical Tory candidate to illustrate a point I was trying to make. As for my criticism of James Duddridge MP- I can’t help that he’s a Tory. In my post on his expenses I make no judgement on his belonging to the Conservatives. So the “implied criticism” that Cllr Castle seems to have found puzzled me. Frankly, it appears that he was clutching at straws in trying to find a way of digging at the Lib Dems.

He refers to my language as “completely unacceptable”. In twelve posts I’ve sworn seven times. It’s hardly a tirade of expletives. To misrepresent my writing as such is wrong and I once again suggest that Cllr Castle is putting his own spin on things to try and have a cheap shot at his opponents.

I e-mailed him a few days ago to express my annoyance – he didn’t reply. He’s since put up posts on his blog so I expect he has seen my e-mail. I’ve decided to put it up here. Maybe he didn’t like what I said. Do you think any of it is inappropriate?

 

Hello there.
 
I’m writing in response to the criticism that I seem to have received on your website.
 
I’d like to know in what way the language I used is ‘completely unacceptable’. It’s my own, personal blog. I didn’t ask for exposure, although I appreciate it, from the Lib Dems. Swear words, like it or not, are a part of the English language. If I had been swearing every other word, making my blog unreadable, perhaps I would have accepted your statement. But to misrepresent my blog as some kind of foul-mouthed rant is wrong and offensive. The idea that promoting my writing is ‘stooping’ is unjust. I wonder, if the shoe had been on the other foot…
 
Perhaps if you had read the blog article free from Tory emotion, you would have realised that I was only using a Tory candidate as a hypothetical example. I think most reasonable people would have realised this. So, actually, there isn’t any ‘implied Tory criticism’.
 
As for the blog on Jame Duddridge, where is the Tory criticism in that?
 
It’s this kind of cheap, party-political mud-slinging that’s putting so many people off of politics. Do you actually care about election issues, or are you more bothered about losing face over perceived criticism from a student blogger?
 
I’d suggest that people who stick so rigidly to party politics are politically naive. People don’t care for Labour, Tory, Lib Dem – they care about what you (as an elected representative) can or will do for them.
 
I would appreciate an apology and a retraction.
 
Regards,
 
Shane Croucher

Even if Cllr Castle doesn’t want to apologise or retract his unfair criticism, a reply would have been courteous.

It looks like he’s already been called out anyway.

Filed under Uncategorized Tagged with , , , , , ,