Crime and marathon -- whose side are we on?
Lee Corrigan, who runs the Baltimore Running Festival, which includes the marathon, posted a blistering letter on The Sun's website that once again takes me to task for writing about the marathon route going through some troubled, crime-ridden neighborhoods. He writes in part:
I had no idea that he and the folks at The Baltimore Sun would present it in such a negative way. I found it interesting that Mr. Hermann buried the fact in the article that no crime had ever been perpetrated on any of our participants over the first eight years of the event. If the author's intent was to truly cover crime and how it relates to the marathon, why wasn't this fact in the lead paragraph? Clearly the article was a blatant, calculated attempt to scare away our visitors and give one of the city's crown jewels a black eye just one day before the event.
What The Sun did was big slap in the face to all the runners, sponsors, citizens of Baltimore, benefiting charities and city agencies that have made this event a city tradition. The word "Baltimore" is in the name of your paper. Whose side are you on, anyway?
I've answered many of these questions in past posts, but I think it's important to reiterate that in no way was the article saying that runners were at risk along the route. It merely pointed out that sections of the 26.2 mile marathon passed through some dangerous and depressed areas of the city. It quoted residents saying they loved the fact that runners would get to see different parts of the city, both the good and the bad, and subsequent posters noted they came to Baltimore, not despite the route, but because of the route.
This was one of many articles this newspaper did on the race and crime was a consideration in how the route was designed. My intent was to inform readers of what some of the areas they were to run through were like; you can't hide the blight and the fact that at least 13 people were killed this year along just two sections of the route.
Mr. Corrigan asks what side we are on. That's the point -- we aren't on any "side." Our job is to inform -- sometimes that involves invoking our watchdog role, other times it is to entertain, still other times it is to report back on what our government and citizens are doing. The story on crime along the marathon was but one in a package that included, over the course of several weeks, front page stories on the "greening" of the event, on the race itself, on a couple who got engaged on the route and on the tragic death of a participant. What our job is not is to cheerlead.
In fact, many readers felt we fell down on the job by not playing up more a shooting that occurred a block away from the route in East Baltimore, just about an hour and after runners had gone by the location. The victim died. Here is another side to our reporting:
I thought you did good job articulating the fact we should not all walk around with blinders on and pretend the town is the beacon of hope for all. It is nice to have a paper that reports both sides of life in the city. As an outsider however, I was blown away at how very little was reported about the shooting on Kenwood. Had it been an hour earlier, and with the city known for stray bullets hitting innnocent bystanders (the woman outside Kennedy Krieger hit in the purse for example), it could have been a lot worse. So thank you for reporting facts that every day city citizens live with every day, and that those who live in suburbs never see don't seem to care about and don't want the rest of the country to see.
Here is Mr. Corrigan's letter in full:
I was pretty busy last week tending to the thousands of details that it takes to put on a major running event in a big city for 20,000 people, but even I was shocked to see Peter Hermann's October 9 article about crime along the Baltimore Marathon course ("Marathoners see city's good, bad").
While I knew something about crime was going to be written because I was interviewed for the piece, I had no idea that he and the folks at The Baltimore Sun would present it in such a negative way. I found it interesting that Mr. Hermann buried the fact in the article that no crime had ever been perpetrated on any of our participants over the first eight years of the event. If the author's intent was to truly cover crime and how it relates to the marathon, why wasn't this fact in the lead paragraph? Clearly the article was a blatant, calculated attempt to scare away our visitors and give one of the city's crown jewels a black eye just one day before the event.
The overall good of the event for the city is especially evident when you consider the economic impact (more than $20 million a year), the charitable proceeds (more than $4 million has been generated over the first eight years) and most importantly the very real and impactful long-term public relations and grassroots marketing that the event does for the city. About 40 percent of the participants are from out of the state, including 44 countries. Those people, more often than not, travel back home to other cities to run and tell positive tales about Charm City and its fine people and convey what a great time they had in our city during their trip here.
And that scenario has apparently been occurring because we have managed to grow 15 percent to 20 percent every year. In fact, in the running community the Under Armour Baltimore Marathon is held in high esteem and has helped show people around the country that Baltimore is a great place with supportive, friendly people just like former mayors Kurt Schmoke and Martin O'Malley and former city councilwoman Catherine Pugh dreamed nine years ago when we started.
As one of the founders of the marathon, I am absolutely disgusted and infuriated by what Mr. Herman did and what the editors and publisher allowed to appear in our home town paper. Who is steering that ship, and are they just trying to create pandemonium to sell papers?
Every city agency from the police to the Department of Sanitation are involved with the event and are proud to be a part of it. And the event is sponsored and supported by some of the finest Baltimore-based companies such as Under Armour, Legg Mason, CareFirst, MedStar and M&T Bank, that have a real pride in this first-class event that we have developed.
What The Sun did was big slap in the face to all the runners, sponsors, citizens of Baltimore, benefiting charities and city agencies that have made this event a city tradition.
The word "Baltimore" is in the name of your paper. Whose side are you on, anyway?
Lee Corrigan, Baltimore
Comments
Corrigan misses an opportunity to do an even greater service to the marathon and the city itself. Some great examples of what makes this a great city are the posts from runners who enjoy running through those crime ridden areas. This event tells everyone "this is who we are, for better or worse." Corrigan should state that he's proud to include areas that other organizers might work to avoid. That's because we are proud of a lot of the things that happen there. No, we're not proud of the drugs and violence, but we're proud of all of the work that people are doing to fix it. And when members of a community stand up to fight back, we'll recognize and support them, not hide them from view.
Posted by: Dan Hogan | October 16, 2009 12:18 PM
Typical. If it bleeds, it leads.
The Medic in General looks for crime and fear when writing, on the (probably correct) assumption that the readers don't WANT to hear boring accuracy. They would much rather see bogymen under their beds, or in their parks, or in their streets.
No airplanes have fallen on the route, but there are place in the route where airplanes might fall. I expect t see an article about it yet,
Posted by: Ted Rosenberg | October 16, 2009 12:59 PM
You're a lot more patient dealing with these people than I would have been. They have no clue at all what they are talking about and are doing a very bad PR job of keeping a story alive that would have died.
The Sun has a lot of faults, but over-reporting the number 1 issue for people who live in this city (crime) certainly is not one of them.
I'm sure you hear it often, but as someone who lives and works in Baltimore and reads the paper daily your peices are informative and engaging. Keep up the good work.
Posted by: Rob | October 16, 2009 1:02 PM
The SUN was right-on to mention crime in any context. Objections over the mention of the marathon only prove that City leaders fail to understand how crime affects residents every-day quality-of-life. Guess what? In my neighborhood, I can't train for a marathon because it's too dangerous. Going to an event downtown? Of course I think about safety when planning -- you have to in Baltimore! The Mayor and others consistently act as if, if we have certain things, then the City is doing o.k., regardless of crime. Have a marathon? City must be healthy! Have a convention center? City must be safe! Hogwash. Open your eyes, leaders!!!
Posted by: pbj1875 | October 16, 2009 1:08 PM
I'm both a crime reporter for a newspaper and a marathon runner, and here is my question about the issue: What time of day did the crimes happen? Comparing a midnight shooting to a 7 a.m. run isn't quite accurate, because most criminals are sleeping at that hour.
The fact that there was a shooting less than two hours after runners passed the location is certainly newsworthy, in part because I would guess that was an uncommon incident (due to the time of day). However, I'm sure the barricades and spectators were long gone by then.
Posted by: Layla Bohm | October 16, 2009 3:14 PM
I agree with Rob that it's interesting how the people who didn't want you to talk about crime and the marathon continue to bring up your talking about crime and the marathon.
As a resident of the city, I only want the Sun to cover various sides of the story. I don't want the Sun to become the propaganda arm of the City government. To ask whose side the paper is on is absurd and shows the warped view people have of the press's role in society.
But it's hardly surprising that the city government and their private sector partners flinch when residents mention a money-making event and crime in the same sentence, no matter how reasonable the discussion. Everyone has an interest in keeping the happy stories on the front page.
Finally, not sure what was not accurate in your article since you can't really argue about the locations of the shootings and the path of the marathon route. "Boring accuracy" looks to be exactly what was in the article.
Posted by: Bioshock | October 16, 2009 4:56 PM
Many appreciate your efforts in bringing a great marathon to the city. But many also appreciate the Sun for its efforts to provide readers a balanced view of the sad truth behind the same. That is the beauty of America. People have the right to highlight the positive and expose the wretched. The marathon, like the soccer match at M & T was a tremendously positive experience for Baltimore. However, citizens living in the trenches of a violent city hidden behind a post card along the Patapsco silently applaud the sun for giving them a voice when nobody else would.
Posted by: James | October 16, 2009 8:25 PM