Out Cole
Doin' It All for the Cookie
Pages to Fold
Introducing Ask Torontoist
A Trash Bin Quandary
Photo by David Topping.
Last week, Torontoist spent a good amount of time and energy analyzing homicide statistics in Toronto. From the data we examined, we concluded that not only was Toronto a relatively safe city (insofar as homicides measure overall safety), but that it actually seemed to be improving—and that the media had a responsibility it had been largely neglecting to report the truth rather than sensationalize it.
You need only look at today's Toronto Sun to see a pitch-perfect example of how to do it wrong. The cover screams "Summer of the Gun...Again," and, in text beside it, attests: "Despite report calling T.O. safe, shootings up 22% over last year." Their article inside, written by Chris Doucette, is even worse, heavy on statistics but somehow still light on facts.
Based on today's Sun, we've assembled a guide for media organizations looking to report on crime dishonestly, scare their readers, and—hey, let's be honest—sell some papers. 'Cause hey, if they don't love you, they might as well fear you.
Report facts wrong
Both the print and, so far, online versions read:
Following the Crime Stoppers media awards at police headquarters on July 4, Chief Bill Blair told the Sun he was encouraged by the major drop in the homicide rate.Dylan Ellis and Oliver Martin were killed just after midnight on June 13, not July 13. The date of the Crime Stoppers awards isn't a typo—they took place on July 4—meaning that the Sun's entire timeline is off, not just their facts. Incidentally, at Crime Stoppers' awards ceremony, the Sun won two awards for "a story about the emergence of YouTube as an investigative tool." Whoops.But, the city's top cop was reluctant to say more because he's been around long enough to know how quickly numbers can change.
Nine days later, Dylan Ellis and Oliver Martin, 25, were gunned down as they sat in an SUV parked on Richmond St. W. near Bathurst St.
Report facts selectively, or not at all
The article treats it as totally secondary that the number of people who have actually been killed this year, by any kind of weapon, is 28% lower than at this time last year or the year before, and it entirely neglects to mention that the number of people shot in 2008 actually represents a 31% decrease compared to the number by this point in 2006. It does not report that more people died from guns by this point in 2007 (or 2006) than in 2008. Nor does it report that the number of shootings where there were no injuries at all (which increased from 23 to 42) or where the status of the victim is unknown (from 9 to 16)—which we can presume meant there were either no injuries or no serious injuries—completely accounts for the increase in overall victims.
Reports facts from more trustworthy sources condescendingly
In the last 12 days, seven men have been murdered and an eighth is clinging to life following another weekend of shootings in the city. All but one of those victims was gunned down.Statistic Canada's report demonstrated through carefully collected, analyzed, and fact-checked statistics—sort of that organization's forte—that Toronto's violent crime rate was measurably one of the lowest in the country in 2007.This in what Statistics Canada recently called one of the safest cities in Canada.
Ignore the advice of the only expert you quote
"It's alarming, but it's also summer and there are more people out and about," [Toronto Police Detective-Sergeant Gary] Grinton said. "I think it's dangerous to look for a trend based on two weeks."
Provide no historical data whatsoever
Even though the Toronto Police statistics website includes 2006 data, and data is available in their yearly publications for at least a decade before that (and far, far further back than that from Police Corporate Information Services), the article provides no dates before 2007. To borrow Douglas Bell's words about that Toronto Life feature, it "fails in even one instance to place this 'trend' in any sort of context." Without any context, the Sun can report something like that Toronto "routinely sees" "70-plus killings" each year, when Toronto Police data going back to 1993 reports only three years with 70 or more homicides: 2005 (80), 2006 (70), and 2007 (84). (Though, again, the homicide rate was still less in those three years than many dates in the 1980s and 1990s.)
Poll your readers about it
Now that the Sun has scared its readers into thinking that Toronto is more dangerous than it actually is, the front page of their Toronto section asks them if they think Toronto is safe. So far, 75% say it isn't—less a demonstration of the Sun's ability to correctly discern the safety of the city than disheartening proof of its ability to completely misshape and distort en masse its readers' vision of Toronto.
add to digg
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
email this
add to facebook
add to del.icio.us
David: as long as you were merely assembling statistics to try to get this issue right, you did a fine job. But now you're pointing fingers, and that's inevitably undermining your efforts.
Talk about being condescending: if you think the Sun has the "ability to completely misshape and distort en masse its readers' vision of Toronto" you obviously don't give much credit to the readers.
Nor are you crediting the fact that the Sun reflects the beliefs of its readers as much as it shapes them.
And if the three past years sequentially have above 70 homicides, and we're headed that way this year, I'd say that amounts to routine. Which is reason for concern all around.
Metrocide was an excellent effort. Use it to inform your readers and your own approach. You don't need to take the rest of the media to school.
Disclosure: I work for the Canoe.ca editorial team, and we are corporate partners to the Sun.
I guess making sensational news makes more profit. That's what journalism is all about isn't it?
Mr. Newland,
Deceiving to "reflect the beliefs" of your readership is still deception. And if your readership really wants to be deceived into believing something that just isn't true then there really isn't much credit to be given to them, is there?
I think David's piece is more fairly balanced than it could have been. Seriously: there could be an entire regular column devoted to the antics of the Toronto Sun. Given the proper treatment, it could be a comedy piece.
Part of me constantly wonders how it is that the Sun's reporting practices have escaped serious scrutiny. Whether you choose to accept it or not, there is actually a difference between mere bias and outright deception.
You are right.
The timeline in the "Summer Shootings Rise" was incorrect. The story has been fixed online and a correction will run in the print edition of tomorrow's Sun.
- Irene Thomaidis (web editor at torontosun.com)
Factual errors are just that - errors. It's rather too cynical, in my view, to suggest that The Sun, or any other outlet around here, deliberately deceives their readership.
With regard to bias: Torontoist's underlying assumption all along was that the facts would show the city was safe. Now Torontoist is trumpeting that as a conclusion, having done not so much reportage, as research. Excellent research, to be sure. Fine and dandy. The readers can make up their minds.
It appears The Sun does not agree that the city is safe. And how could they, since they regularly report on murders? You can't pretend they're not happening when you're looking at them week in and week out, and reporting - literally, going to the scene - and taking in the awful details.
And I ask you this: had The Sun not been putting gun violence and murders in our faces all along, would we now be talking about this issue in so many public forums, including this one?
I suspect not, precisely because there is a contingent who have already made up their minds that the city is safe. They would rather devote their reading time (in multiple media) to things like where to get the best latte, or who's playing at the clubs.
I sincerely hope that the efforts of ALL the media around here shake us from that kind of complacency.
its fucking exasperating, ridiculous, that the Sun is following your anti-sensationalism crusade closely enough that the first comment on the article is from a member of a Sun Media editorial board, but rather than heeding the call of reason, agreeing that the tactics are a little dishonest, and should be reflected upon, he's basically thrown a bunch of hyperbole your way, ignored the points you've made completely, and told you to shut up. but so it goes... Sun Media publishes nothing but reactionary tripe anyways, i wouldn't care if the Sun came out with nothing but screaming hysterical headlines about danger and violence every day for the rest of the summer; you want rags like the Globe and Star to hopefully hear AND listen. But ignore the dude from Sun Media - once you publish enough trash you become irrelevant and inconsequential anyways, and complaining about sensationalism in the more fictional-ish (see; truthiness) tabloids may be a futile enterprise. This whole thing has been great though, with Metrocide and now this article, very Chomskyan, way to go Topping don't stop!
good work David; it's about time to make these scare mongers accountable for their misinformation.
(trying hard not to give into the urge to make light of the (probably false) notion of the Sun having editorial team)
Correction: I'm not a member of the Sun editorial team, I'm a member of the Canoe editorial team, and as I was careful to disclose, we are involved in a corporate partnership with The Sun.
I don't work for The Sun and have no influence on their editorial policies or procedures.
I am a frequent reader of this site and have frequently been supportive, as I'm sure David Topping would attest.
I've also dealt with this same issue from time to time on Canoe, notably in the Canoe Dossier: blog.canoe.ca/canoedossier
I see no reason to call my credibility into account.
member of a Sun Media editorial team.
Mr. Newland,
Just because the Sun reports on murders does not make them any more or less qualified than any other media outlet. It certainly doesn't make them experts. If anything, one would think it would make them better at statistical analysis, but it clearly hasn't. And their weak derision of Statistics Canada's numbers is just willful blindness.
Also, neither are they the only ones reporting on murders. Although, one might believe that if it's the only source you read.
It's a valiant effort at giving all the credit to the Sun for bringing this issue to the forefront. But it's just not true. Even if it were true, the grand scale attempt at deception isn't an appropriate manner in which to enlighten the populace.
CityTV were calling this "The Summer of the Storm" this morning (oooooooh).
One really interesting aspect to homicide in Toronto is that it is reported much more in the media than in other cities.
This is likely a function of having ~70 homicides per year. One per week, plus a couple gory multiple killings, makes for good headlines.
Most homicides in New York, for example, are not reported in the papers or TV, despite the vast number of media outlets in that city. Only shootings by police or of children or in multiples usually make the back pages of the papers at all. Check out this far-too-casual summary in the "newspaper of record":
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/27/nyregion/27bronx.html
Here is a similar summary from a Chicago paper:
http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/1042844,violence070708.article
Both cities "only" have 500 murders a year now, but that is still an overwhelming number and far too many to put in the paper every day.
But in Toronto that one murder a week is big news for several days. It is also temptingly close to zero murders a week, leading to a lot of hand-wringing. Toronto is perpetually within reach of having almost no homicides at all, leading to a lot more press over each one.
"But in Toronto that one murder a week is big news for several days. It is also temptingly close to zero murders a week, leading to a lot of hand-wringing. Toronto is perpetually within reach of having almost no homicides at all, leading to a lot more press over each one."
This is a good thing, IMO. People and newspapers should never become callous to murder.
I think DT is wrong in saying that the paper shouldn't be outraged at another TO killing because, as per DT's argument "in the grand scheme of things the murder doesn't really matter"
there's difference between outrage and hype.
Marketers love the flexibility for statistics, and fear sells more newspapers.
Sorry, that was meant to be "of statistics".
Just a few small things, as I've pretty much said my piece in the article above and throughout the Metrocide series. For the record, matty, I have never said or suggested anything like that "the paper shouldn't be outraged at another TO killing" or that "in the grand scheme of things the murder doesn't really matter." I've, in fact, only ever said the opposite:
David Newland is right that he is "a frequent reader of this site and [has] frequently been supportive." His opinion, I think, shouldn't be dismissed because he's loosely associated with the Sun, but because it largely bends back on itself to prove my whole point.When I wrote that the Sun can "completely misshape and distort en masse [their] readers' vision," I didn't mean mind control; I meant pretty much exactly what David said, which is that the paper "reflects the beliefs of its readers as much as it shapes them"—and that that ability is precisely why misreporting or omitting or bending or distorting facts is so bad. The Sun article was consistently misleading and, in at least one instance, wholly wrong. For a cover story about crime in a major daily newspaper, I don't think that that's defensible, or should warrant a pass.
Distorting the facts is inexcusable, but I think it's too late to expect journalistic or editorial integrity from the Sun. And now that there's this deluded horde convinced the city is safe (no doubt in league with the Liberals and NDP in a plot to steal blue collar paycheques with a perpetual safety tax) it can only get worse.
I work in the Justice Sector. I deal with victims and police and my daily work involves consideration of violent crimes, including homicides. I do not because of this automatically consider the city less safe. Overwhelmingly, I am saddened by the violence we do to each other - when most of it involves people known to each other. Certainly, that isn't what the headlines convey. The Sun, in particular, makes it seem like we are at danger all the time, from strangers. My experience, growing up in Toronto, working in the non-profit volunteer sector, and now in government, is that we are a fortunate privileged group of people today, and that we are safer.
Newland's assumption that Torontoist readers "...would rather devote their reading time (in multiple media) to things like where to get the best latte, or who's playing at the clubs" is offensive. I read the news daily and pay attention to justice issues as well as civics, but I visit Torontoist for a variety of reasons several times a day. I appreciate Metrocide for collating data for me, and presenting findings that support my experience-derived perception. What I don't appreciate is a bunch of reporters screaming about how we're all gonna die from gun-toting gangsters and how liberal judges, effete bloggers, and socialist mayors are responsible for the collapse of society as we know it.
Andrew, you completely twisted my words.
The quote you pulled doesn't refer to Torontoist readers as a whole (if you'd been following, you'd know I'm a frequent one of those myself), but to a contingent of people in this city who are apathetic, or in denial about the problems all around us.
It's classic that beneath an article which calls attention to purported mis-reporting and/or misuse of facts, misquotes and obvious skewing of readily verifiable material seem to the order of the day in the comments threads.
So either you're convinced the city is dangerous, or you're apathetic/in denial. Got it.
lol @ "Feel the Heat"
the 70 homicides did not take place, rather they were the continuation of an absence of violence by other means. toronto must offer a sensationalized 70 per annum as sacrifice to the gods, to keep toronto safe... turn that into a binary.
Some thoughts:
- I thought the article was going to be another picture of something in bad taste (i.e. headline: "Summer of the gun again" with ad that says "Feel the HEAT!") with a sentence saying as much; I was relieved that is wasn't.
- Whenever it comes to crime and sensationalism, I'm reminded of that individual (can't remember any specifics so if you know feel free to remind me) who virtually spurred a crime wave simply by reporting all the crime that went on in the daily life of a city. By putting homicide stories somewhere other than the front page the media isn't being callous, but when they throw all of them in our faces they are fear-mongering.
David Newland,
You got a big mouth, mister - you must have because you keep sticking your foot in it. You’re arguing that although you acknowledge your factual errors and beg forgiveness for them, pointing them out is undermining the efforts of Topping et al to discuss the issue; that more important than the facts is the experience; and that some mysterious group is somehow damping the public discourse around crime and safety in Toronto [possibly related to hot beverages and booty-shaking]. You’re a hypocrite, telling Topping to stick to the facts and then saying the Sun doesn’t need to. After all, you have reportage whereas Torontoist has research.
Do you expect your Letters to the Editor to adhere to your profession’s standards? Should we interpret any deviation from those standards [five w’s, verifiability, etc.] as an indictment of the quality of your work?
I expect better of you. You, and your paper [and your website], disappoint me. I would return to reading the Sun if the quality of your reporting improved.
I have to say that reading D. Newland's apologia for the Sun (ie. even though the Sun gets facts wrong that just happen to make things sound worse, and which is consistent with the Sun's editorial campaign to keep people in fear, pointing out such errors reveals the Torontoist's editorial bias) reminds me of the Seinfeld line, as I blink confusedly: "What does that even mean!?".
The Torontoist provided a service last week, in showing actual data, which shows Toronto to be very safe (not *perfectly* safe, but pretty damn safe). The Sun, as a believer that "the plural of anecdote is data" believes its reporting belies that - and Newland seems to buy that line of thinking.
Nobody here has said that Toronto is *perfectly* safe. But the fact is that if you are not buying or selling drugs, you don't associate with criminal confederates, and you don't have an abusive spouse, your chances of being murdered in Toronto are exceptionally small - as in, less than the chance of being hit by lightning. But if the Sun's editorial policy was to reflect this reality, it would sell a lot less newspapers.
David: I can appreciate your frustration. Although a lot of the posters here can post very eloquent descriptions of their own arguments, their characterizations of those they disagree with are often outright, and perhaps purposefully wrong.
Err, I meant to say David Newland.
I love that the city being dangerous is now a matter of opinion. Danger is something that is relatively easy to quantify based on the number of crimes that occur every day. By that metric, Toronto is not dangerous. Arguing that that is just an OPINION holds no ground -- it's like being of the opinion that it's raining outside when, really, it's just f'ing raining. Opinion does not factor in.
As I noted in a comment in Metrocide, Toronto's homicide rate is actually slightly less than Canada's national average. So is it the Sun's and David N's opinion that Canada is a dangerous country, or that Toronto is actually slightly safer than the rest of the nation?
Inquiring minds want to know if the Sun would ever side with Toronto against its western/rural demographic.
Gee, I didn't see complaints about the Sun's journalistic integrity when they broke Igor Kenk...
Whether you agree with their editorial stance or not, the Sun actually has some of the best local coverage going. Even the spacing wire headline aggregation folks have realized this.
The Sun broke Igor Kenk? Really?
They also broke 9/11. I remember the headline fondly: "YOU BASTARDS!!!"
oooohhhhhh, they broke kenk? i had no idea, that completely redeems the good god-fearing folks at the Sun, pure atonement!
kenk sounds to me though like a disillusioned libertarian leftist who maybe does a little too much drinking? he definitely has it out for property rights; the only thing that could raise his rank on the Sun's hit list, me thinks, would be if he was openly averse to bikini clad blondes and a close personal friend of laton and chow. i mean, the man, the scumbag, lives with his also-would-be-evildoer classically trained pianist common-law wife, and - as reported by the Sun - the cops seized three keys of green from kenk, along with more bikes, last night. If only he had been an import car thief, huh Sun?
*methinks
The Kenk story had wings before anyone "broke" the story. The guy had been stealing bikes for years and anybody who'd bothered reporting it to the police were told by them to go check Igor's. The Sun's questionable proximity to the case couldn't have had much to do with the breaking of the Kenk story.
Also, from Spacing Wire: "The other interesting aspect of this story is the new interest in bike issues of the Sun and the police, who haven’t previously paid them much attention."
Doesn't exactly corroborate this pattern of journalistic integrity so claimed.
Brett's a good reporter.
This is Brett Clarkson at the Sun. This isn't the Summer of The Gun pt. 2. It's the Summer Of The Bike!
With that, anybody with questions about our coverage of Igor Kenk and the above poster's cynical claim of our 'questionable proximity' to the case is welcome to e-mail me at brettclarkson@sunmedia.ca
Otherwise, feel free to spout your opinions.
For the record, I'm not interested in towing anybody's line or putting a target on anybody's back. I'm interested in the story and I don't care for sensationalism. For the record, Igor was never on any 'hit-list'. In fact, I did my best to be fair and reasonable in my coverage of him
But then again, you could read the piece and judge for yourself.
The Kenk story continues, and it will get more interesting.
Brett - are you stating, then, that you and your paper claim sole responsibility for breaking the story? That's the "questionable proximity" to which I was referring. I don't see how it's cynical for me to (a) not make assumptions without knowing the facts or, (b) to give credit without sufficient evidence which nate88 hadn't provided (especially in citing Spacing Wire). Hardly spouting opinions.
If you are indeed solely responsible for breaking the story and putting Igor behind bars, I gladly congratulate you and thank you as well as someone who's had several bike's stolen.
However, you're right - this comment thread has nothing to do with violence against bikes.
No, I would never claim sole responsibility. That would be just ridiculous.
We were the only paper to have interviewed Igor and the only paper to have witnessed his actual arrest. We might have 'broken' the story in terms of the actual day-to-day news, but it's not our story. It's everybody's story now. Other newspapers, including the Globe and Mail and Toronto Star, are doing some excellent work. BlogTO has also been covering it well — attending some of the raids and providing good colour and detail.
I thought you were referring to a "questionable proximity" between The Sun's coverage of Igor and the sudden police interest in bike theft. I got the impression you were implying The Sun wasn't working independently in its bike-theft coverage. Hence the reason I felt the need to set the record straight by inviting any questions.
Journalism in this day and age is more interesting and community-involved than ever because the Internet allows us to debate and discuss the stories we write. I embrace that.
Nope - I was only questioning nate88's post #31
On the topic of the bike theft, what are they going to do with the 1500+ unclaimed bikes? My friend Brian suggested they could bring back the Bike Share program with so many...
http://www.citynews.ca/news/news_25191.aspx
it seems like this whole thing is turning into a kind of sub-surface headlines debate between Torontoist et al. v. Toronto Life, the Sun, maybe CityNews et al.
Awesome. Hysteria is fun.
2008: Summer of the Headline