When readers are asked to identify the type of news they value most, crime news is typically at the top of the list. It easily outranks topics such as sports, entertainment, government reporting and food/cooking.
The details of crime stories can arouse morbid curiosity – the rubberneck effect, it is called – but interest in crime reporting has legitimate motives, too. Crime news is important to readers because it informs, educates and holds accountable those in power, contributing to a safer and better-informed community. Citizens have a direct vested interest in this type of news. It’s happening in their city, their neighborhood, perhaps involving people they know. It is important to be informed for all those reasons.
Yet too often, what is most important to readers (crime news) is the most difficult to report.
The Dispatch has found reporting on crime in Starkville more challenging than it ought to be because Starkville Police Department is slow to respond to our requests for information or withholds information altogether. SPD makes no clear distinction between crime details that should be shared with the public and those that could compromise an investigation or public safety.
The Starkville Police Department, like other law enforcement, issues press releases via email. Sometimes there is simply a dearth of information, especially in the immediate aftermath of a crime. But SPD increasingly has been unwilling to provide the details when we call them.
A most recent example demonstrates the futility created by a failure to share basic details of crime that the public has a right to know.
On Tuesday, Sergeant Brandon Lovelady, the SPD’s public information officer, issued a news release about an incident involving an attempted traffic stop that led to pursuit on Saturday evening. Details were scarce, but the release said the suspect, James Reikhof of Starkville, was arrested on Monday after the SPD executed a search warrant. It also stated that Reikhof was charged with felony fleeing and possession of a weapon by a felon.
Many basic questions were not addressed by the release.
What prompted the initial stop?
Where did the pursuit begin?
Where was the warrant executed?
Why did it take two days to execute the warrant?
These may seem like nit-picky questions, but the answers to questions like these help give the public a full picture of the incident.
When we asked them, SPD said they were unwilling to provide any information that wasn’t in the original release.
It is hard to understand how answering basic questions would jeopardize any investigation, especially given that the suspect was already under arrest.
If there is an innocent explanation for these omissions, would it not be in the SPD’s best interests to provide that information?
This one example out of many seems to indicate that the SPD does not take seriously its role in keeping the public informed, which is not only frustrating, but detrimental to relations between police and the public.
The Dispatch Editorial Board is made up of publisher Peter Imes, columnist Slim Smith, managing editor Zack Plair and senior newsroom staff.
You can help your community
Quality, in-depth journalism is essential to a healthy community. The Dispatch brings you the most complete reporting and insightful commentary in the Golden Triangle, but we need your help to continue our efforts. In the past week, our reporters have posted 36 articles to cdispatch.com. Please consider subscribing to our website for only $2.30 per week to help support local journalism and our community.
You can help your community
Quality, in-depth journalism is essential to a healthy community. The Dispatch brings you the most complete reporting and insightful commentary in the Golden Triangle, but we need your help to continue our efforts. In the past week, our reporters have posted 36 articles to cdispatch.com. Please consider subscribing to our website for only $2.30 per week to help support local journalism and our community.
