The Boston Globe has been covering debates over Cambridge’s use of ShotSpotter, which is marketed as gunshot detection technology. The Politics and Policy Research Lab that I direct at Boston University just published an open letter arguing that its coverage amounts to copaganda.
Here’s an executive summary of what we sent to the Globe.
Factual error: the erroneous claim that ShotSpotter “does not record conversations.”
To the contrary, prosecutors have sought to introduce multiple conversations recorded by ShotSpotter as evidence in criminal legal trials.
Misrepresentations of academic studies about ShotSpotter.
Academic studies have found that ShotSpotter does not prevent gun violence, is rife with false alerts, fails to detect gunshots on many occasions, may reduce police response times (findings are mixed) and disproportionately surveils Black and brown neighborhoods.
Rather than referring to any of these findings, the Globe, across its many articles, discusses only a single study by a New York University Policing Project that has attracted controversy by accepting money from the very companies that produce the surveillance technology it studies, including ShotSpotter. Indeed, Vice reports that “ShotSpotter has been providing the Policing Project unrestricted funding since 2018, that ShotSpotter’s CEO sits on the Policing Project’s advisory board and that ShotSpotter has previously compensated Policing Project researchers.” This conflict of interest was not acknowledged by the Globe.
Misleading statements about the proceedings of the Cambridge City Council.
The Globe has on multiple occasions portrayed the Cambridge City Council’s decision to deactivate ShotSpotter as one that was made without consulting academic experts on the subject. In fact, across multiple meetings over two years, the council heard testimony from experts in law, political science and acoustic engineering. These experts discussed a wide range of academic studies about ShotSpotter.
Misrepresentations of public opinion about ShotSpotter.
The Globe refers routinely to Black support for ShotSpotter while ignoring Black opposition to ShotSpotter that was voiced in public comment across multiple council meetings. The Globe also has yet to mention The Black Response, a Black-led organization made up of Cambridge residents that leads the campaign against ShotSpotter.
Platforming police officials and city officials but not community members.
The Globe’s coverage at times borders on stenography for police departments and police unions, reproducing their statements uncritically.
The full open letter is here.
Spencer Piston
The writer is an associate professor of political science and director of the Politics and Policy Research Laboratory at Boston University.
