This chapter follows Richard Garvey while he investigates the murder of Lena Lucas and Purnell Booker. Simon also includes a lengthy description of the interrogation process, which is far more deceitful, though understandably, than I had thought. I wonder if interrogation is still like that in modern police work.
The Baltimore homicide unit gets back up staff because their clearance rate (crimes closed by arrest) is too low. Essentially they've hit "rock bottom."
Slanted statistics
The colonel decides to intervene in the homicide unit because their clearance rate is at 36 per cent. That's pretty bad, but there are factors that weren't taken into account.
"There is no point in explaining that three fifths of D'Addario's homicides happen to be drug-related, just as seven of those solved by Stanton's shift are domestics or other arguments," page 194.
Drug related murders are harder to solve, domestics have a clear suspect.
This isn't reflected in that 36 per cent.
"The homicide clearance rate is equally vulnerable to subtle forms of manipulation-all of which are permitted under the FBI's guidelines for uniform crime reporting," page 195.
This manipulation means any time a suspect spends behind bars-whether it goes to a grand jury or not, counts as a solved case. A solved crime from the previous year can be carried over to the next, or vice versa.
In journalism, research gives our work authority and credibility. Online, there is a ton of pie charts, percentages, and numbers laid out for easy consumption.
BUT
As shown, there's many factors that can come into play when a statistic is used to represent something, there can be a lot of variables.
I think statistics are a good way to show a representation of what is happening, and no matter how many tactics the homicide unit uses, it's still clear they're in trouble. Hypothetically, I would use this statistic in one of my stories, but a number doesn't show everything.
Statistics should be used, but responsibly. Journalists should do research and be cautious about biased numbers or research. Numbers can provide a strong base to any story, it just should be a fair representation.
Body language, or lack thereof
"As he begins asking questions, Garvey touches the young woman's elbow lightly, as if to emphasize that only the truth should pass between them," page 180.
Body language is so important, it conveys emotion, as shown above. In my journalism schooling, I've heard two perspectives from two different instructors on how reporters should act during interviews. They're both right, they're obviously both experienced so I think it's just a matter of choosing what's more comfortable.
The first is visual engagement. Nodding, encouraging statements like "oh yeah," or mouthing the words because the camera and mic are on. This is the method tend to use without realizing it. When I'm interviewing someone I'm actively listening because I find their story interesting, and so I can think of follow up questions.
Embarrassing story: I'm a video beat reporter, and I was interviewing someone on campus, and someone I know was watching. They took a video of me while I was interviewing. I was nodding like a bobble head for thirty seconds. I was humiliated when I saw the video because I didn't even realize I did that.
While I look dumb, people tend to keep talking when I do that. I do think that this method depends on what the story is.
Another instructor said that a woman was the best reporter there is because she asks questions and then dead pans until she gets an answer. I see the merit to this, and since I only heard it a few days ago, I have yet to try it.
No comments:
Post a Comment