Ben,

Why on earth does this story not reference the actual -rate- of homicide, which is the only meaningful way to describe changes in crime over time? This is Criminology 101 stuff yet, almost uniformly, I see journalists (and their editors), who should be aware of it if they regularly report on crime issues, constantly drop the ball.

To my mind, journalism is about informing people of facts so their positions and choices can be rational and fully informed. How does leaving out the only truly meaningful way to judge variations in crime over time further that goal?

This click-baitey half-reporting is intellectually insulting and counter-productive to developing an informed citizenry.