Recently, the Whitewater Register ran a three-part series on the Whitewater Police Department. Here’s my assessment of the second part of that series, entitled, “A Diverse Community Presents Challenges.”

The Register lists three groups as contributing to the diversity of our community: (1) Hispanics, (2) students, and (3) juveniles.

The inclusion of juveniles as a category constituting diversity is unusual. Every community in America has juveniles; if they’re a category leading to diversity, then there is no place on earth that’s not diverse. When a category applies to everyone, it’s unique to no one, and useless as a distinguishing characteristic.

That leaves us with two groups that make us diverse, by that reckoning: Hispanics and UW-Whitewater students. Those groups do contribute to our diversity. I would not think, though, the most telling attribute of either group is that it presents a challenge.

Imagine how this sounds to someone not trapped in the town faction’s echo chamber: “Minorities and College Kids Present Challenges for the Rest of Us.” That would be a headline that’s false and insulting simultaneously.

There are two ways to consider the second part of the series – as history or journalism. I’m more interested in the story as journalism. (To see that it’s a history that the Register presents only in part, one need merely review the pages of this website.)

It’s as journalism, as reporting, that the story’s most interesting to me. It presents one side of the story in the words of those holding that view (Chief Coan or reports that he has prepared), but the other side only through the reporter’s words.

This technique represents only the appearance of balance. When both points of view do not have an equal voice within the story, the story’s unbalanced. There’s no reason not to interview and quote from members of the Hispanic community, or faculty involved in criminal justice matters, or immigration policy, etc.

I know that Editor Carrie Dampier once wrote that she was pressed for time, but these are not matters peripheral to a reporter’s concerns. They are central to a reporter’s craft.

It’s as though a pilot told you that he was too busy to look at the plane’s altimeter.

It’s easier and faster without the effort, but it’s also undesirable.

Recently, the Whitewater Register ran a three-part series on the Whitewater Police Department.

I know of no occasion when they’ve run a series like this. The series offers no explain for its length or timing. The three-part series did begin three weeks prior to the visit of a group that provides accreditation to local police departments. I’ll leave it to others to decide if the timing is more than coincidence.

I am unconcerned about the timing, for two reasons. First, accreditation matters not at all against the actual leadership of a department. Accreditation may not reflect good leadership, and good leadership may not seek accreditation.

Second, any series in the Register, no matter how slanted it might be, amounts to preaching to the choir. That fraction of the Register’s readership that considers the Register a good newspaper would be inclined to support its biases in any event.

There are three articles in the series. I’ll cover all three now that the series is done. First up, Part 1. Part one of the police series is entitled “Report: Crime Spikes 10 Percent in 2007.”

It’s a challenge when crimes increase in a small town, but it’s most important to know why. As a newspaper story, Dampier’s story on a spike in crime shows all that’s wrong with the Register.

• Dampier quotes only one person, Chief Coan.
Where’s an independent analyst’s perspective on our increase in crime? Our university would have a number of qualified faculty who could offer an opinion. Dampier doesn’t bother to find one.
• Tenuous assertions.

The story contends that a 10% increase in crime in Whitewater may be attributed to a rash of burglaries in the fall. Dampier never follow up with obvious lines of inquiry:

(1) With hundreds of different offenses committed in Whitewater each year, why would the burglaries alone lead to a 10% jump in crime? In the story, Coan says that the burglaries led to a spike in property crime, and Dampier concludes — I’m not sure if Coan agrees — that accounts for the 10% increase in overall crime. It’s very sloppy writing.

(2) Why did the burglaries go on for so long, and what changes are being made to prevent similar occurrences?

• Traffic tickets and traffic safety.

Whitewater officers write a lot of speeding tickets — there were nearly 800 traffic citations of all types in 2007.

Dampier never asks the obvious questions:

(1) When Coan contends that the tickets are to address traffic safety issues, how often is safety really involved? My point is not that speeding is unimportant, but I’m not sure how important it is. Does speeding always lead to a true safety threat? No, of course not. How often does Coan think it’s a problem?

(2) Has the number of speeding offenses decreased? If not, why is there no deterrent effect? If there is no effect, how is safety — such as claimed — advanced?

(3) How much are all those tickets worth to the city? What portion of city revenue do they constitute?

• Violent Crimes and Alcohol.

Dampier writes that there were 26 cases of simple assault, with 24 leading to an arrest. She quotes Chief Coan as remarking that most of these cases involved alcohol. I’m sure they did, but why no follow up?

(1) Were those involved legally intoxicated?

(2) Does Coan think that alcohol caused these assaults? If yes, would he advocate greater restrictions on alcohol? If not, why bother to mention alcohol consumption?

• Liquor Law Violations.

Dampier reports that there were 591 arrests for liquor law violations. The questions that the story misses:

(1) How many of these were violent offenders? (Apparently, based on other statistics, few.)

(2) How many of these violations were for underage drinking?

(3) What was the average fine charged? How much revenue does this provide to the City of Whitewater. (Quick answer: it’s likely more than a cottage industry.)

Next: Part 2 of the Register series, “A Diverse Community Presents Challenges.”

UPDATE 6:16 P.M.: The burglaries in the fall seem to have happened around a discrete time, preceded by other crimes earlier in the year. No one should think that they somehow happened each night during the fall. Their reputed impact on the overall crime rate is surprising, in any event. more >>

Before I post again on the Register, I’d like to set out a few standards that seem reasonable for any newspaper or site.

I am not a journalist, and I have never aspired to be one. FREE WHITEWATER is a website of independent commentary and essays.

Look, though, at the weekly newspaper in town, and you’ll find that the Register is hardly a work of journalism, either. The difference is that they should be, following on a century and a half legacy.

For papers and websites that contend they are newspapers, or news sites, a few standards would be helpful.

Here goes:

1. Provide attributions for what you publish. If you publish only your own copy, so be it. If you’re re-printing the written work of others, then say so. Often, media in Whitewater will publish something without identifying who wrote originally it.

I write all of my own copy, or attribute the author clearly. Everything published here is from one blogger, using the pen name John Adams, or is clearly attributed otherwise (selected inbox email, statements of others, etc.)

There are no recycled, unattributed press releases from for-profit concerns, including corporations whipping up a few paragraphs to get their names in the news.

2. Recognize interests and motivations. This is the point about listing a byline, and attributing stories and posts accurately. There’s a gullible notion that because a public official said something, the comments are not merely public ones, but objectively true ones, too.

There may be a wide difference between public remarks and truthful ones.

Officials’ comments can be as biased as any other; they’re not free from self-interest or error. It’s an overly-trusting, childlike notion that because a mayor, representative, etc., said something, then it must be true. When someone clips a section of a weekly report, and publishes it without attribution, it creates the impression that the words published are objectively true.

Works in the public domain are not unquestionably true; sometimes they’re not true at all.

The self-interest of human nature doesn’t release its grip when a man takes an oath of office.

3. Acknowledge political roles and conflicts. I hold no office in the city; you may have noticed that I prefer private life to public office. I prefer this generally.

A reporter, editor, or publisher of a newspaper (and not a blog of brief opinion posts like this one), should make especially clear any office-holding. It would be seen, correctly, as a possible conflict of interest if someone in office published news stories, each week.

If a reporter or editor at the Chicago Sun Times is also an alderman, that’s something his readers should know. That’s especially true if the reporter or editor is covering his own office, or his own election race. (It’s just an example; I know of no conflicts at the Sun Times.)

What applies in the Chicago example should apply here, too.

If an office-holder wants to post about his own office, so be it – just be clear about it, so that each and every reader will see the possible conflict in each published story. Only then can readers decide: is this conflict immaterial, or am I seeing an article or story that’s a valentine to the status quo, however subtly?

The officeholder or candidate with his own newspaper has a source of campaign advertising, about himself, or about other accomplishments that might advance support for his candidacy. There are very few incumbents who would publish account after account of all that they have neglected, failed to do, etc. For an incumbent, it’s either all roses or…silence.

When an ordinary citizen tries to distribute a few leaflets about an issue, he sometimes finds himself running afoul of campaign finance restrictions. Civil libertarians dislike these campaign restrictions, as they inhibit free speech and debate.

Worse still is when the ordinary citizen finds himself the subject of legal scrutiny for a few flyers, but existing officeholders get a free pass for their own daily or weekly publications.

Civil libertarians are opposed to campaign speech restrictions, but no less opposed to the inequitable enforcement of speech restrictions.

There’s a new blog in Whitewater, over at www.whitewaterconservatives.blogspot, called Conservative Thoughts from Whitewater.

I learned about it last week, and am happy to post about it today. It has some great advantages: a clear focus, and the joint effort of several people. Group blogs often explore topics more fully, and from slightly different angles, having more than one person to offer a perspective.

I am not just a blogger — I am a supporter of blogging in, and about, our town. I am not affiliated with this new effort, but happily welcome these bloggers. I have added the blog to my blogroll, on the side of my main page.

Please stop by and say hello to the team at the site: Brandon, Mati, Captain Conservative, the Great Republican, and Gregory.

Best wishes to all.