The New York Sun has pronounced that quality of life is declining in New York. In two front-page articles on Tuesday, the Sun lamented that first, rats have been observed on certain streets and second, that graffiti is on the rise. From these two data points, the Sun's banner headline screams: "Graffiti, Rats Make Comeback as Quality of Life Starts Sliding"
If you actually take the time to read the articles, however, you'll be hard pressed to find the facts to support such a strong conclusion. For example, to support its conclusion that graffiti is making a comeback [link to the article], the Sun relies on exactly two verifiable facts; the rest of the argument is based on anecdotal or speculative assertions, or worse, simple conclusory sentences without any support whatsoever.
These are the two facts: for the past month, there has been a vaguely poetic graffitum (what is the singular of graffiti, anyway?) on the side of a building near City Hall -- and down the street from the Sun's office, by the way -- that reads “The knowledge is innate feel inside to see you can not look with your eyes for the only thing you need". And, during the past nine months, graffiti-related arrests have declined 34%.
The Sun suggests that under Mayor Guiliani, the graffitum would have been painted over sooner than a month, but as discussed below, the speed with which a scrawl is covered over depends in part on the building owner and the community. It's not clear from the article that either have lifted a finger to help out. Interestingly, the Sun finds sinister portents in the apparently incoherent wording of the quote, although any intelligent reader will see that it is far to legible and literary to be a gang-style "tag" or invitation to further crime. More likely, its meaning is political in some way, which might account for its being written in the shadows of City Hall.
The decline in arrests, on the other hand, is indeed curious, and may bear more analysis, but the Sun doesn't deign to explore that question. Has the number of arrests declined because fewer people were writing graffiti? Was it a temporary decline while police focused on national security issues? Even if arrests declined overall during the last nine months, what has been the trend in the last three months (that is, have we rounded the corner)? These questions are unanswered. Worse, the so-called investigative reporter doesn't appear to have asked them. Nevertheless, the Sun is confident in implying a link between the decline in arrests and an increase in graffiti.
Not that the Sun documents the increase in graffiti in any verifiable way, mind you. Indeed, the Sun makes this stunning concession: "there is no reliable index of New York's graffiti levels." It would seem to me that this begs the question: if there is no reliable measure, how is it that the Sun can proclaim that graffiti is on the rise?
About the only objective measure of the city's response to graffiti incidents, moreover, shows that the city is still on the job: according to the city, records show that the city's anti-graffiti task force has cleaned about the same number of sites this year as it has in each other year that the program has been in existence -- years during which the number of defacements declined. At worst, this fact is neutral -- even if the city isn't making headway, at least it's not falling behind previous years' results. That's heartening news in an era of tough budgets.
Most of the article is content to "report" anecdotal "facts" such as this: the executive director of the Columbus Avenue Business Improvement District is quoted as saying (with no data to back up her statement) that "The graffiti on newsstands and street lamps and mailboxes never really went away,” and that she "cringes" "every time she walks down the avenue." Well, wait. If she is saying that the graffiti never went away, then her statement doesn't support the conclusion that there has been a sudden increase in graffiti incidents, does it? And of what relevance is her "cringing," other than pessimistic Bloomberg-bashing? Perhaps she has a lower tolerance for graffiti than normal New Yorkers. Maybe she just cringes alot.
And this: John Logue, the president of the 86th Street BID in Bay Ridge "confirms" (again without any data) that graffiti is on the increase "since last fall." Says Logue, “We’re playing catch-up now to get the cops interested in making sure we get these quality of life crimes addressed before we have a bigger problem." A little more detail would be helpful -- whom did he talk to, when, and what was the response, for starters. And how about interviewing someone in the Bay Ridge precinct to hear the Police Department's response? As for "confirming" an increase since last fall, this goes back to the "reliable index" problem -- how can you "confirm" a trend without first establishing what the baseline was? Did the BID catalog the number or rate of distinct new defacements over any period of time? Have they logged an increase of some kind? Where is the evidence?
Now, about the question of who's to blame for the supposed "increase" in defacements -- the Sun lays the blame squarely on Bloomberg's administration and takes a few veiled jabs at him (my favorite is a statement that damns the Mayor with faint praise: in it, the Sun notes that Bloomberg "has been careful to maintain the impression that he is holding the line on Mr. Giuliani’s 'quality of life' approach to government". Note the Sun's hedge -- Bloomberg isn't actually holding the line, but only "maintaining the impression" of holding the line.) Actually, the evidence indicates that the city's doing what it can, but the fact is that the city's anti-graffiti squad can't just clean up graffiti as it sees fit, as the Sun would apparently prefer it. In fact, before it can do anything, the city must first secure the cooperation of the owner of the building on whose walls the graffiti is written. As regards the anecdotal graffitum quoted by the Sun, therefore, City Hall can't simply order it to be cleaned-up, but must get the owner of that building to permit it. If the Sun wants to rail at something, how about the fact that the building owner has left the message on the building all this time. After all, aren't the owners themselves the first line of defense in this quality of life issue? Why is it that when the graffiti remains, it's the city's failing?
In the end, the Sun might be on to something or it might not, but it's hard to tell based on the evidence presented, and certainly, the histrionic headline was unwarranted; to my mind, the Sun's headline is more damaging to public confidence than any particular scrawl on a wall near City Hall.
The Sun, an upstart in the New York paper wars, had its origins in smartertimes.com, a critique of inaccurate and biased reporting the New York Times. Perhaps it's time for smartersun.com?
If you actually take the time to read the articles, however, you'll be hard pressed to find the facts to support such a strong conclusion. For example, to support its conclusion that graffiti is making a comeback [link to the article], the Sun relies on exactly two verifiable facts; the rest of the argument is based on anecdotal or speculative assertions, or worse, simple conclusory sentences without any support whatsoever.
These are the two facts: for the past month, there has been a vaguely poetic graffitum (what is the singular of graffiti, anyway?) on the side of a building near City Hall -- and down the street from the Sun's office, by the way -- that reads “The knowledge is innate feel inside to see you can not look with your eyes for the only thing you need". And, during the past nine months, graffiti-related arrests have declined 34%.
The Sun suggests that under Mayor Guiliani, the graffitum would have been painted over sooner than a month, but as discussed below, the speed with which a scrawl is covered over depends in part on the building owner and the community. It's not clear from the article that either have lifted a finger to help out. Interestingly, the Sun finds sinister portents in the apparently incoherent wording of the quote, although any intelligent reader will see that it is far to legible and literary to be a gang-style "tag" or invitation to further crime. More likely, its meaning is political in some way, which might account for its being written in the shadows of City Hall.
The decline in arrests, on the other hand, is indeed curious, and may bear more analysis, but the Sun doesn't deign to explore that question. Has the number of arrests declined because fewer people were writing graffiti? Was it a temporary decline while police focused on national security issues? Even if arrests declined overall during the last nine months, what has been the trend in the last three months (that is, have we rounded the corner)? These questions are unanswered. Worse, the so-called investigative reporter doesn't appear to have asked them. Nevertheless, the Sun is confident in implying a link between the decline in arrests and an increase in graffiti.
Not that the Sun documents the increase in graffiti in any verifiable way, mind you. Indeed, the Sun makes this stunning concession: "there is no reliable index of New York's graffiti levels." It would seem to me that this begs the question: if there is no reliable measure, how is it that the Sun can proclaim that graffiti is on the rise?
About the only objective measure of the city's response to graffiti incidents, moreover, shows that the city is still on the job: according to the city, records show that the city's anti-graffiti task force has cleaned about the same number of sites this year as it has in each other year that the program has been in existence -- years during which the number of defacements declined. At worst, this fact is neutral -- even if the city isn't making headway, at least it's not falling behind previous years' results. That's heartening news in an era of tough budgets.
Most of the article is content to "report" anecdotal "facts" such as this: the executive director of the Columbus Avenue Business Improvement District is quoted as saying (with no data to back up her statement) that "The graffiti on newsstands and street lamps and mailboxes never really went away,” and that she "cringes" "every time she walks down the avenue." Well, wait. If she is saying that the graffiti never went away, then her statement doesn't support the conclusion that there has been a sudden increase in graffiti incidents, does it? And of what relevance is her "cringing," other than pessimistic Bloomberg-bashing? Perhaps she has a lower tolerance for graffiti than normal New Yorkers. Maybe she just cringes alot.
And this: John Logue, the president of the 86th Street BID in Bay Ridge "confirms" (again without any data) that graffiti is on the increase "since last fall." Says Logue, “We’re playing catch-up now to get the cops interested in making sure we get these quality of life crimes addressed before we have a bigger problem." A little more detail would be helpful -- whom did he talk to, when, and what was the response, for starters. And how about interviewing someone in the Bay Ridge precinct to hear the Police Department's response? As for "confirming" an increase since last fall, this goes back to the "reliable index" problem -- how can you "confirm" a trend without first establishing what the baseline was? Did the BID catalog the number or rate of distinct new defacements over any period of time? Have they logged an increase of some kind? Where is the evidence?
Now, about the question of who's to blame for the supposed "increase" in defacements -- the Sun lays the blame squarely on Bloomberg's administration and takes a few veiled jabs at him (my favorite is a statement that damns the Mayor with faint praise: in it, the Sun notes that Bloomberg "has been careful to maintain the impression that he is holding the line on Mr. Giuliani’s 'quality of life' approach to government". Note the Sun's hedge -- Bloomberg isn't actually holding the line, but only "maintaining the impression" of holding the line.) Actually, the evidence indicates that the city's doing what it can, but the fact is that the city's anti-graffiti squad can't just clean up graffiti as it sees fit, as the Sun would apparently prefer it. In fact, before it can do anything, the city must first secure the cooperation of the owner of the building on whose walls the graffiti is written. As regards the anecdotal graffitum quoted by the Sun, therefore, City Hall can't simply order it to be cleaned-up, but must get the owner of that building to permit it. If the Sun wants to rail at something, how about the fact that the building owner has left the message on the building all this time. After all, aren't the owners themselves the first line of defense in this quality of life issue? Why is it that when the graffiti remains, it's the city's failing?
In the end, the Sun might be on to something or it might not, but it's hard to tell based on the evidence presented, and certainly, the histrionic headline was unwarranted; to my mind, the Sun's headline is more damaging to public confidence than any particular scrawl on a wall near City Hall.
The Sun, an upstart in the New York paper wars, had its origins in smartertimes.com, a critique of inaccurate and biased reporting the New York Times. Perhaps it's time for smartersun.com?
posted by Daniel at 12:42 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home