Part three of the Register‘s police series: “Going Beyond the Bad Guys.”

In many respects, this is the hoped for result of all policing: going beyond the bad guys. A community benefits most from a close relationship between its officers and its residents. I have posted concerns and suggestions about police leadership (especially, the goal of adopting the guidelines from Principles for Promoting Police Integrity).

Yet, for it all, I have never doubted the work of patrol officers. To suggest otherwise is to misunderstand what I have written – willfully so.

(One contrast to community policing is the idea of the police officer as warrior – a concept that predates community policing theory. The warrior model is a poor one, as it risks pitting the officer against not merely alleged criminals and but the community he serves. Many of my remarks in a December post entitled, “The Force We Need,” were directed at the how destructive the idea of the officer-as-warrior model can be.)

Almost everyone who was heard of police work has heard of community policing. I am not sure if one can hear or consider how officers should conduct themselves and not have heard of it. This is an important point – ordinary people of all types should think about how policing should be conducted. How is a community to organize itself, and protect itself, against crime? That’s not just a position for a few people, but something about which an entire community can offer an opinion.

That’s what’s missing in the third and final part of the Register series – there’s just not a lot of interviewing going on. Let’s assume – however odd the assumption may be – that a reporter doesn’t ordinarily have time to interview sources.

If that’s true ordinarily, then shouldn’t there be an exception for a multi-part series? When I read this third installment, I could not tell if Carrie Dampier was quoting from a live interview with Chief Coan, or from his words in a report. Perhaps it’s both. Nonetheless, a written report should be a springboard to further inquiry and questions, not an end-in-itself.

A few interviews with people who were part of a police academy, or had experiences (of any kind worth recounting) would have made the story different and better.

It’s one of the most disappointing aspects of the Register: it’s just not a curious, inquisitive paper.

I believe that a curious paper on any other part of the political spectrum would be better than a dull one that shared one’s views. There are others in town, apparently, who would disagree.

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.