International Journal on Criminology Volume 1, Number 1, Fall 2013 | Page 53

International Journal on Criminology
one is encouraged to educate themselves, and give an opinion on information which is
likely to have social, economic consequences, etc. Among these debate locations there
are areas of the press, audio visual media, information sites online and more recently,
blogs or even social network sites.
Statistical information made public does not necessarily become a debate subject. In
order to be questioned in this manner, it must, at least, spark the interest of journalists so
that they focus on it, and then transform it into a debate. We can therefore consider
journalist as those who have a share of control in organizing public debate (Bardoel
1996).
A lack of comments does not always mean that a piece of statistical data is forgotten.
Sometimes, one single report by a journalist can lead to significant media attention which
places statistical information at the heart of numerous exchanges. However, a subject can
be reported on a wide scale, without necessarily provoking veritable public debate. This
happens when, for example, the article written is brief without comments.
Journalists thus play a role in regulating public debate by determining the degree to
which they demonstrate statistical information which they receive from organisms
“emitting/producing data” then they order the first sentence of the debate by choosing
people they invite to take part in order to share their reactions. These guests may be
political representatives, trade unions, association members, or experts in crime and in
particular, in statistics.
When Gérard Mauger queries the participation of sociologists in public debate
regarding insecurity, it thus accompanies his demonstration of reflection about the role of
the media as “contributors to the construction of one of society’s problems, imposing
above all a wide repertoire of interpretation” (Mauger 2011).
Apart from journalists, we can share out those involved in public debate about
figures on crime according to their position: as those emitting data, commenting on it, or
prescribing it.
A producer of statistics on criminality and crime is only involved in public debate
when he/she intervenes for one of these three purposes. Furthermore, including within the
state, the producer of data is not always in charge of distributing it. Thus, the status of the
organism producing the data is important as “all studies, all reports, all reviews, that is to
say any type of document, can contain useable data, so long as the researcher can
understand the conditions for data production.” (Weil 2006). This does not only apply to
individual researchers but also to all of those concerned by data.
If the model “producing/emitting” is the most common one in the administration, it
may occur that the task of production and distribution of statistics can be attributed to
distinctive organisms. This can relate to a case in which the service emitting data
centralized statistical production of different entities.
Framework of distribution of official statistics: institutional communication or
public statistics?
Statistics produced and distributed by the state can be described as “official” in that
they constitute “an essential element of a system of information in democratic society,
providing public administrations, the economic sector and the public with data relating to
the economic, demographic, social and environmental situation” (UN 1992). In France,
in the field of public statistics, the state played a central role in the production of
statistics, since it is at the heart of it even, via INSEE in particular (Delarue 2006).
The fact that statistics are official is not just dependent on the conditions in which
they are distributed, but also on the fact that this contest for official figures is one of the
most significant sources of tension between political authorities and statisticians (Delarue
52!