Heh. I'm the reporter who did the analysis and I absolutely assure you the data was not incomplete. Where in the article was that said? Maybe I'm missing something, but I've spent many hours looking at the arrests in those early days and I can't recall anything that I'd call "incomplete".
The reporting we did at Chicago Reporter was effectively in response to what was said in past reporting (like the one you link), which solely relied on the narratives given by the police, rather than actual thorough analysis. Our analysis found CPD's narrative about the number of people arrested for looting vs protesters to be completely false. CPD agreed that their original narrative was wrong.
Mind you, whenever you see anything about the protests from David Brown, remember: he said he's seen no evidence of kettling of protesters in August 2020[1], despite overwhelming information pointing otherwise, including video of CPD surrounding protesters. I'm not sure I'd trust anything quoted from Brown in that article.
Edit: if you want to look at the data yourself, here [2] you go. They remove the address info in this data, but journalists/students/nonprofits have access to an "authorize-only" version that has address info.
> The Reporter does not have access to the arrest narratives, so our analysis includes crimes that could be considered looting in the context of a protest, but may also be everyday crimes like burglary.
This becomes particularly interesting because only two paragraphs further up, it is pointed out that police was able to - and likely did - arrest groups of people based on the same narrative.
> Edit: if you want to look at the data yourself, here [2] you go. They remove the address info in this data, but journalists/students/nonprofits have access to an "authorize-only" version that has address info.
I wish journalists would give that information - link to sources of their articles - with the articles, especially when working for clearly opinionated media. It increases trust and reliability imho.
It feels like you're just searching for things to dislike.
I'm not sure what your point about the narratives is or how that makes the analysis "limited". The charge is clear enough. Funny enough, the reason that CPD failed to accurately count the number of looters is because they basically did a grep of "protester" in their narrative logs, rather than looking at the charge itself. And again -- CPD agreed with us that their numbers were wrong and ours were correct.
> I wish journalists would give that information
heh. The actual source was an API that we had access to. What I linked wasn't the original source. The API isn't something we could link to. In fact, after we published that article, they shut it down so that we nor other journalists could access it!
And dude. You're preaching to the choir about the reliability shit. Your feelings towards journalists should be directed towards editors, not journalists.
The reporting we did at Chicago Reporter was effectively in response to what was said in past reporting (like the one you link), which solely relied on the narratives given by the police, rather than actual thorough analysis. Our analysis found CPD's narrative about the number of people arrested for looting vs protesters to be completely false. CPD agreed that their original narrative was wrong.
Mind you, whenever you see anything about the protests from David Brown, remember: he said he's seen no evidence of kettling of protesters in August 2020[1], despite overwhelming information pointing otherwise, including video of CPD surrounding protesters. I'm not sure I'd trust anything quoted from Brown in that article.
Edit: if you want to look at the data yourself, here [2] you go. They remove the address info in this data, but journalists/students/nonprofits have access to an "authorize-only" version that has address info.
[1] https://twitter.com/heathercherone/status/129538805366677913... [2] https://data.cityofchicago.org/Public-Safety/Arrests/dpt3-jr...