Monday, September 21, 2009, 9:41 PM
News, Opinion, Politics
By Stephanie Ramage

THE AJC'S TRULY OFFENSIVE EFFORT TO WHITEWASH THE CRIME PROBLEM

Where to begin regarding the Atlanta Journal-Constitution's attempt to explain Atlanta's crime and police issues?

The problem goes far beyond the AJC's failure to properly credit The Sunday Paper with dubbing Atlanta "City Under Seige"--that's the name we gave it in our August 31, 2008 cover story, well before any local TV stations had appropriated it. http://www.sundaypaper.com/More/Archives/tabid/98/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/2953/City-Under-Siege.as

Although, with that in the intro, the outlook for the article wasn't great. 

The problem is also that the AJC used its considerable resources to completely ignore Atlanta's crime problem. It's not the numbers--though I have my doubts about their veracity, the fact is that numbers mean nothing to crime victims--it is the nature of Atlanta's crime that has changed. Today in Atlanta, people are shot while bringing in their groceries (Jason Lee in the Edgewood area) and while mowing their grass (Ken Hagen, Kirkwood). Their homes are invaded. not merely burgled. There is a new brazeness to the crime, something we noticed a year ago.

I had high hopes for the AJC's first installment of its "Atlanta Project" (in keeping with the theme of ripped-off names, the AJC ripped this one from Jimmy Carter's initiative 15 years ago). This one was to be about crime. It underwhelmed.

But blogger and occassional SP guest columnist Tina Trent has much more to say about that:
http://crimevictimsmediareport.com/?p=1683

you couldn't be more right, stephanie. everyone knows that the ajc is a conservative, mostly racist paper. they've been ignoring crimes against black people and covering up for the apd for years. THAT'S WHY THEY DONT REPORT ON CRIME.

other candidates for mayor are only going to better fund the racists at the apd. i can't wait until kasim comes in and puts an end to the ajc, apd, and city hall conspiracy against black atlanta.

Mikal
Tuesday, September 22, 2009 at 9:34 AM

Mikal,

You couldn't be more wrong. The City of Atlanta has been run by blacks for many years: Look at our mayors since the 1970s, look at the majority of City Council, look at the majority of our police officers. They are black.

You also couldn't be more wrong about Kasim Reed. He's extremely supportive of the APD. He's the only candidate who has said publically that the existing officers' needs have to be addressed before the city pursues increasing the size of the police force. He is the only one who's publically said that he will plug the leak of attrition before pouring more new officers into the bottomless bucket that is the APD.

He is the only candidate who has made officer benefits and educational scholarships a key factor in his platform.

So, if you want to vote for someone who wants to undermine the police, you need to vote for someone else, not Kasim Reed. He's all about them. He's the only candidate who has said stridently, on the record, that Atlanta has a crime problem, not a perception of crime problem. He has zero tolerance for thugs and criminals. He wants programs to help keep kids out of gangs, but he also wants a police department that is more supportive of the cops, that backs them in their crime-fighting and that supports better relationships between the police and the neighborhoods.

So, looks like you'll need to vote for someone else.

-- Stephanie Ramage

Stephanie
Tuesday, September 22, 2009 at 10:44 AM

::Fade to black on the commercial::

Lazarus,

Kasim knows all about combating crime, alright. He was on the committee that handpicked Chief Pennington. If Kasim thinks that there's a crime problem, maybe his bad judgment had a hand in starting it. And concerning other overly zealous Kasim supporters, maybe if your misinformation was more specific, people wouldn't turn to crap to explain your half-cocked accusations. You never have mentioned what the AJC's motives would be in ignoring crime, by the way.

Incompetent birds of a feather flock together:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/kasimreed/2615360257/

Nina
Tuesday, September 22, 2009 at 2:14 PM

You're sitting in a glass house, Nina.
There are MANY more photos of Lisa Borders with Mayor Franklin than there are of Reed with Franklin, and those with Borders are not from six years ago like the one you posted of Reed.

The fact is that out of all the mayoral candidates who participated in the Leadership Atlanta forum, only Borders gave Franklin an "A" when asked to rate her performance. Only Borders has made excuse after excuse for the Franklin administration in every single mayoral forum right up until the present. As recently as last week at the forum at Puritan Mill, Borders praised the Franklin administration for its accountability, which would be a joke except that the impact of Franklin's lack of accountability, particularly where it concerns the police department, has cost lives.

http://www.wnba.com/dream/inman_park_080428.html


If you're looking for the Shirley clone in this race you need look no further than Lisa Borders.

Stephanie
Tuesday, September 22, 2009 at 2:56 PM

Things that you failed to address:

1.) Kasim handpicked Chief Pennington, showing bad judgment.
2.) Your your half-cocked accusations incite half-cocked theories from extremists.
3.) You never have mentioned what the AJC's motives would be in ignoring crime.

Lets set you favorite target of attack, Lisa Borders, aside for a moment. The point is that Kasim Reed has to reconcile, for the voters, how he can support, help to elect, and hire individuals that he believes are incompetent.

You have to reconcile, for your readers, how you can endorse someone who has a history of making bad decisions for a job where he'll be asked to decide the same things. Especially if you and he are going to decry current public safety measures.

Nina
Tuesday, September 22, 2009 at 3:15 PM

In a way, I suppose I should be flattered that I'm your only news source, but if you'd bothered to do even minimal research you'd already know about Reed's critical comments regarding the current administration and particularly Pennington.

At the time that Pennington was picked, he was the most raved-about police chief in America. If you'd done your research, you'd know that at that time everyone from the New York Times to Time magazine were taking notice of Pennington as a "reformer." They praised him for "turning the tide against New Orleans' crime" and nobody knew any differently until Pennington was already in charge of the APD.

So, as I have said before, please ask Liz Flowers to do a better job of briefing you before you clock in to blog for the Borders campaign everyday on my blog.

Here, I'll help you out, since apparently she can't, or won't.

Go to the following link and see for yourself what all the candidates have had to say about the Franklin administration.
You'll learn that Borders is this administration's biggest cheerleader.

http://www.campaignforatlanta.org/videos.php

Stephanie
Tuesday, September 22, 2009 at 3:26 PM

And, Nina, stop cutting and pasting comments from other blogs.

This one came straight from CNN (unless, of course, you're "FannyBoy182"): "Your your half-cocked accusations incite half-cocked theories from extremists."

Stephanie
Tuesday, September 22, 2009 at 3:32 PM

Things that you still fail to address:

1.) Your your half-cocked accusations incite half-cocked theories from extremists.
2.) You never have mentioned what the AJC's motives would be in ignoring crime.

All that I can gather from Reed's statement about Pennington is that, he feels that for whatever reason, Pennington waited to come to Atlanta to perform poorly. Does that make Reed less responsible for picking him? That still constitutes a bad decision. He was supposed to vet Pennington, right?

You certainly did. In response to a comment on your article "Chief Pennington and Atlanta's crime reports", you said:

"If you think Pennington, given his history, which the Times-Picayune did a fine job of explaining--is on the level about crime, then I have a vacant lot in Vine City I'd like to sell you."

Is that vacant lot still for sale? Kasim Reed might be your buyer (the lot that is.)

http://www.thesundaypaper.com/More/Archives/tabid/98/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/4401/Chief-Pennington-and-Atlantas-crime-reports.aspx

Nina
Tuesday, September 22, 2009 at 3:49 PM

Nina,

You're holding up the entire class. Let's go through this one more time:

The entire country thought that Pennington was a great police chief in New Orleans. Do you think the NYT and other major newspapers didn't vet him? Of course they did. Reed did, too.

Look at the date on the Times-Picayune article. What is it? That's right, it's after Pennington had already come to Atlanta, that's the people of New Orleans noticed something squirrelly with their crime numbers, after Pennington had left.

So, yes, I did answer your questions. But, you work for Borders, so nothing I say will satisfy you. You clock in everyday and begin spouting your uninformed, wildly thrown, cut and pasted garbage. Good luck with that. I'm sure it will serve you well in that particular campaign.

Stephanie
Tuesday, September 22, 2009 at 4:04 PM

All of my thoughts are my own. I am paid by no one. It doesn't take working for a mayoral candidate to disagree with you, just indignation at your attempts to deceive the public. Please also note that I don't have to cut and paste that you are a libelous hack. I came up with that myself with a little help from your writing.

It's painfully clear that Reed did not perform his due diligence in vetting Pennington. Maybe had he interviewed officers, investigated the COBRA meetings or taken a closer look at the reports (all the things that the Times-Picayune did,) Atlantan's would be better off. I think our safety deserves that at least.
If Pennington, in his 8 year tenure in NOLA was as bad as you and the Times-Picayune suggest. There was evidence of it. This means that Reed overlooked it or didn't look at all.

Kinda like you claim the AJC is doing in ATL...

Nina
Tuesday, September 22, 2009 at 4:29 PM

Kasim's criticism of Franklin seems to be a large part of the reason you're backing him. Just curious, how are you going to react when Franklin endorses him as most people expect her to do in the coming weeks?

George
Tuesday, September 22, 2009 at 4:31 PM

Nina,

Clearly you lack the mental capacity to grasp chronological references, nontheless, I will explain for the last time that the Times-Picayune did its investigation after Pennington was already in Atlanta because no officers came forward until he was safely someone else's problem.
If you think that police officers will go out of their way to contact another city's search committee to rat out their boss, not knowing how closely that activity might be scrutinized, you're even less capable than I thought. Which is saying something.

George,

A much more interesting comment, and I thank you for it.
Mayor Franklin will endorse the candidate whom she thinks is most likely to win. She will do it to protect her own ego. Keep in mind, I've taken huge, clawed swipes at Franklin and I know a thing or two about her ego.
Rather than be hurt by seeing the candidate she chooses lose--which would be an indication of what her endorsement is worth--she'll pick the one she thinks will win. A lot of political watchers are concerned that Norwood won't survive a runoff, and Franklin's tense past with Norwood makes that an uncomfortable pick anyway. I'm certainly not counting out Norwood--I think she's been a juggernaut so far, but for Franklin that leaves a choice of Reed or Borders.
Now, if Franklin really wants to protect her ego, she'll pick the fourth runner, that way the move will look chivalrous, smell sweet and will in no way reveal anything about how her political clout has dwindled over the past five years.
So, what will I do, if she picks Kasim Reed? I will be optimistic that I was right about her ego and that she picked the winner (which is the case for most endorsements--most endorsers, particularly at the municipal level, pick who they think will win rather than base their picks on what a candidate stands for), I will also be concerned about how that endorsement will negatively affect Reed, which I think is reasonable.

-- Stephanie Ramage

Stephanie
Tuesday, September 22, 2009 at 4:53 PM

I think you're wrong about Franklin. I believe she will endorse Reed whether he is in first or last. She's his mentor. I think she's been helping him behind the scenes already. Most of her top fundraisers and strategists are involved in Reed's campaign already. I'm undecided, but if Franklin endorses Reed then I'm voting for Borders.

George
Tuesday, September 22, 2009 at 8:24 PM

Yeah, that's the problem with that endorsement, which is why I can't figure out why Borders is knocking herself out to get it.
Don't forget how Borders came into office and who took Borders under her wing and showed her the ropes. Borders only took a very short break from being Franklin's right hand. I think she's in position again.
But, I stand by my previous statement, Franklin will back who she thinks will win.

Stephanie
Tuesday, September 22, 2009 at 9:04 PM

Ah, watch the hubris, Stephanie. I'm no fan of the AJC, but the idea that they snitched your "City Under Siege" phrase from a year ago is laughable. And I think that - what is it? 5, 10 years? since the Atlanta Project folded? - it's fine to recycle that perfectly good phrase.

I also don't get your problem with Alan Judd's piece. Just because it's late doesn't make it wrong. Frankly, I was thrilled. Especially by this: "Residential burglaries are a key component of the property crime category. BUT WHILE ALL PROPERTY CRIME DECREASED, REPORTS OF RESIDENTIAL BREAK-INS GREW BY 65 PERCENT FROM 2004 TO 2008. THIS YEAR ALONE, HOME BURGLARIES IN SOUTHEAST ATLANTA ARE UP 52 PERCENT.
And this:
Larcenies have steadily decreased, as well.
BUT THEFTS FROM AUTOMOBILES, A FREQUENT GRIEVANCE OF IN-TOWN RESIDENTS, ROSE 30 PERCENT IN FIVE YEARS."
What numbers are you questioning, exactly?

Anna
Wednesday, September 23, 2009 at 4:58 AM

PS - I'm a Kasim supporter, but I don't think he's infallible.
1) I knew people who lived in NOLA under Spinnington and they all said the same thing: HE'S WORTHLESS. I loved a sign I saw at one of Kyle's rallies: Different Cities, Same Results.
2) Kasim ran Shirley's campaigns, so don't try to pretend that Lisa's a bigger pal.
3) If Shirley endorses Kasim, she'll kill his campaign. I hope she keeps her mouth shut.
4) Lisa is intensely corporate. And corporate people never dog out their superiors unless under subpoena, and often not even then. She's not going to bad-mouth Shirley. It's not done.
5) And finally, I have seen Kasim Reed speak on many, many occasions and have never, ever seen him "strident." That's about as un-Kasim as you can get.

Anna
Wednesday, September 23, 2009 at 5:13 AM

Watch the "hubriis"? Show me where it is.

For a "Kasim supporter" you sound incredibly like a Lisa Borders supporter.

If you've never heard Kasim speak stridently, then you've never attended any event where he has spoken. I would direct you to the Campaign for Atlanta video in which Lou Arcangeli states that people in the neighborhoods have expressed dissatisfaction with Pennington, and Reed interrupts to say "Yes, I have heard that"--with emphasis on "have." Reed then goes on to say that the police chief's performance is a direct reflection on the mayor.

Then he goes futher. Reed says that the fact that Atlanta neighborhoods have hired so many of their own private security patrols is also a reflection on the mayor. And he was strident as anybody there can tell you.

That was equally the case at the Atlanta Police Foundation debate when Reed questioned why Borders, faced with a $70 million budget shortfalll in 2008 (and aware of a $7 million lawsuit the police union had just won against the city--Reed didn't say that, but Borders would have had to have been aware of the suit and the award) didn't express interest in how that might affect the city's largest expenditure--public safety.

Public safety accounts for 70 percent of the city's budget. While $7 million can be glossed over in a budget of more than $500 million, $70 million, on the other hand, presents quite a hole in the ledger. So the question remains: Faced with that kind of inevitability, why didn't Borders at least raise the concern about police and fire paychecks being affected?

She didn't. She says now that she suggested the city's pensions be re-amortized and the city's CFO rejected the idea. But, if you know that your budget is in such straits that its biggest expenditure--and its most important, public safety--will likely face some kind of cuts and you are a public official who not only is privy to that information but who has the power to raise a public stink and avert the furloughs, then wouldn't you look for a plan B? Wouldn't you make the public aware of what is about to come down? Wouldn't you use your office to stand up in a City Council meeting to say something?

Or was she too busy down at the Capitol to be bothered?

As for the AJC article, I'm glad you're thrilled, but I'm not sure how any Atlantan can be thrilled about an article in which Alan Judd states his premise at the very beginning through a quote from the ever socially apologetic Robbie Friedman. He says there are only three ways to quantify crime: Numbers, numbers and perception.

Then, Judd spends the rest of the article excusing the AJC's "Atlanta's crime problem is only a problem of perception" stance.

So, if you're thrilled, I kind of wonder about whether you understood the article, if maybe you felt comforted by it--which is what the AJC intended, so that everyone could take a powder about crime--or if you're a police officer who liked the part about special details.

Judd did some good work about cop details, but the whole article was planned and prosecuted to prop up and justify the paper's "crime as perception" position.

Why do you think they brought in their special projects guy to to do the crime and police reporting that any other daily paper does anyway as a matter of course?

--Stephanie Ramage

Stephanie
Wednesday, September 23, 2009 at 7:03 AM

Oh, and as for the title of the article, the fact that they ripped it off simply shows how arrogant the AJC is.
Atlanta's prblem with brazen crime started a year ago or more. That article, "City Under Seige" was when the Sunday Paper started covering the city's concerns about crime in an in-depth way. We listened.

Alan Judd--and I know this because he sent me an email saying it--doesn't believe there was any kind of uproar over crime until "this July."

So, you can think what you want about him, but if he believes that then he's badly, dangerously misinformed. Did he not see the ATAC rallies beginning last winter? Did he not listen to the outrage and worry from the community that hit powderkeg proportions with the murder of John Henderson in January?

Of course not. Did you not notice that the AJC framed the Henderson murder as an accident in that very same article?

What does the AJC have to gain? Everything. That paper is dying and mostly because its credibility is suspect. The editors believe that they have a solemn duty to cling to their "crime as perception" position like a drowning man clings to a raft.

That's why the AJC insists on the lie that there was no uproar abotu crime until they started reporting on it in July.

In their arrogant heads, nothing happens until they report on it. They could have deluded themselves 10 or 15 years ago (at about the time the original "Atlanta Project" got its name), but they can't do that anymore. All it takes to see how badly their lying about that is to do a Google search in "crime" and "Atlanta" to see that they are out of touch and using their resources to cover their asses.

So, if you were thrilled, god help you.

Stephanie
Wednesday, September 23, 2009 at 7:13 AM

Alan Judd at the AJC has requested that I publish the following clarification on his behalf. It comes straight from the horse's keyboard:

The CBS affiliate was playing up "city under siege" during the whole frenzy in the days leading up to the Franklin/Pennington press conference. In the lead of the story, I was merely trying to capture the sense of anxiety over crime -- as well as what seemed to be fear-mongering in the media -- at that particular moment. I did not mean in any way to imply that there had not been fear or anxiety at any other time. But the anecdote reflects July 30, 2009 -- one moment in time.

--Alan Judd, AJC

Stephanie
Wednesday, September 23, 2009 at 11:54 AM

I doubt there is a whole lot of mentoring going on between the existing Mayor and the campaign manager that got her there.

Its also probably a little naive to think that a former successful campaign manager hasn't anticipated a possible endorsement and developed a strategy for either scenario. Kasim doesn't need to be coached for a reaction either, he can shoot from the hip.

I think Lisa is the only one who would benefit from an endorsement.

Let's not forget there is a large portion of this city who thinks the mayor has done a great job. The same can be said about Pennington.

I think an endorsement from Kyle Keyser on the other hand would swing this election in any candidates favor. That's a fact. He alone could decide this election. What will he do with his wild card?

Think he is going to call his own number?

Think you are going to know before the first week in November?

Don't bet on it.

Turner
Thursday, September 24, 2009 at 7:02 AM

I just recently found this blog while Googling something else. Some of the opinions and statements are incredibly entertaining. Keyser's endorsement swinging an election??? LMAO. I just fell on the floor when I read that one. Funny. Very Funny.

George
Thursday, September 24, 2009 at 5:09 PM

Norwood/Borders......they both claim that somehow they will make a difference in this city as mayor.....track records would lead most to believe otherwise. Kasim, well he helped Franklin get here, and also Pennington, not great notches on his belt either. For too long this city has turned it's back on crime, allowed it's police department to be run into the ground and demoralised to such a point that there is no true leadership or anyone to point the course. Atlanta is said to be the drug center for the entire southeast, and remind me again, how many narcotics officers are there working for the APD? Certainly hundreds right? Anyone with a hand in allowing this city to be brought to this low point should be held accountable..... And to laugh at the thought that someone who is trying to bring attention to the sad reality that is crime in Atlanta might make a difference is just plain ignorant. But it explains a lot of why the city is where it is.

rob
Friday, September 25, 2009 at 1:27 PM

Rob, I'm definitely not laughing at Kyle. What he has done is admirable and I respect it. I was talking about straight politics. I would say Kyle is unknown to the vast majority (90%-95) of the population. While he may be a hit among the young/middle-aged intown crowd, his endorsement is not likely to decide the outcome of this election. His presence may force a runoff, but I don't believe the endorsement will matter that much. That being said, more power to the dude. He's obviously a good community organizer.

George
Friday, September 25, 2009 at 2:13 PM

That depends on what population you are talking about George. The 4.5 Million in Metro Atlanta. You are probably right but they don't decide this election.

There are only 500,000 residents in Atlanta.

Out of that 50,000 voted.

So according to you less than 10,000 voters even know who he is.

As of January ATAC had a membership of 10,000 Young Middle aged "intowners".

Since then he has done rallys all over town and been featured in all the print publications and on local news. Anybody who either reads a paper, goes on the internet or watches the news to find out what is going on in Atlanta knows who Kyle is.

In a tight race with 3 legitimate candidates how much of the vote does each need to win?

34% Would probably do it. Agreed?

That's 17,000 votes.

Let's say only half of ATAC votes and I won't even change the number for the exposure he has had since January. Let's go with 5,000 votes that Kyle 'influences'.

That's 10% of the electorate and a candidate only needs 34% to win.

Har Har.


David Walker was able to garner 3,000 votes in 2005 without the assistance of the news media. You probably have no idea who he is.

Turner
Friday, September 25, 2009 at 10:48 PM

When I said only 50,000 voted I was talking about in the 2005 election.

Results here:

http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/metro/election05/charts/atlraceschart.html

Turner
Friday, September 25, 2009 at 11:09 PM

2005 was an off year because there wasn't a contested mayoral race. Close to 90,000 people voted in the 2001 mayoral race. Over 120,000 voted in the last two federal cycle races. Most "experts" think about 100,000 votes will be cast in this election.

I don't believe ATAC's 10,000 member claims. And don't tell me about their Facebook page. Just because some joins a group on Facebook doesn't mean they will vote for you. That being said, I think Kyle will get 2,000 - 4,000 votes, which is not enough to "swing" an election. Just my opinion though. I'm no expert.

George
Saturday, September 26, 2009 at 12:02 PM

Also, a candidate needs 50% plus one vote to win without a runoff.

George
Saturday, September 26, 2009 at 12:04 PM

How many votes would you say it takes to swing THIS election to the point where it isn't laughable George?

If you do want to speak in general terms how would you define a swing? I've always thought just enough of the vote to change the outcome but hey what do I know.

I'm also suggesting that Kyle could influence the election if he 'endorses' a candidate, meaning he wouldn't get the votes. They would go to one of the candidates.

I personally think it's silly if you don't think 2 to 4% of the vote (using your numbers) could be the deciding factor in an election that has 3 legitimate candidates.

Not falling off my chair silly but knee-jerk somebody hasn't really thought about it silly.

Turner
Saturday, September 26, 2009 at 2:39 PM

Maynard Jackson could "swing" and election. Sorry, I don't think Kyle can. Maynard could get you 15%-25% percent of the vote by himself.

Like I said before, I think his 2% - 4% can force a runoff by taking voters from Norwood. I'm not even sure his endorsement
will get his voters back out for a runoff.

George
Saturday, September 26, 2009 at 7:42 PM

"Strident," as defined by Merriam-Webster, is "characterized by harsh, insistent, and discordant sound." I watched the CFA video you cited. I'd say Kasim's delivery is committed, yes. Determined, you bet. But "strident"? Never.

"Hubris" is from thinking that the AJC would remember a Sunday Paper headline from a year ago:
The problem goes far beyond *the AJC's failure to properly credit The Sunday Paper with dubbing Atlanta "City Under Seige"--that's the name we gave it in our August 31, 2008 cover story*, well before any local TV stations had appropriated it.

Please. How many times in ordinary conversations have I heard people talk about the city being under siege? Countless. And they didn't steal it from you, either.

And in my original post, I cited the reasons I was happy with the AJC article. After the numbers, numbers and perception comment, Judd tackles those numbers and - in doing so - acknowledges that the there is good reason for the neighborhoods' concern: 'But while all property crime decreased, reports of residential break-ins grew by 65 percent from 2004 to 2008. This year alone, home burglaries in southeast Atlanta are up 52 percent.
'Larcenies have steadily decreased, as well. But thefts from automobiles, a frequent grievance of in-town residents, rose 30 percent in five years. '

You wrote: 'The problem is also that the AJC used its considerable resources to completely ignore Atlanta's crime problem. It's not the numbers--though I have my doubts about their veracity, the fact is that numbers mean nothing to crime victims--it is the nature of Atlanta's crime that has changed.'

Are you talking about for the last year, or in this article? And if you are talking about this article, why are you questioning those numbers? Those numbers SUPPORT the neighborhoods' contentions. Care to share why you're questioning those numbers that actually SAY what the neighborhoods have been saying for the past 18 months or so??

Anna
Sunday, September 27, 2009 at 8:19 PM