Contra Costa County District Attorney’s Office establishes presence in Pittsburg. 

Detected Manipulations & Suggested Changes

Unbalanced reporting

Presenting only one side of an issue or overwhelmingly favoring one perspective without including reasonable alternative views.

The article exclusively quotes and paraphrases individuals who support the new office: District Attorney Diana Becton, Supervisor Shanelle Scales-Preston, Pittsburg Mayor Dionne Adams, Pittsburg Police Chief Steve Albanese, and a mental health advocacy leader. All statements frame the office as beneficial: - “In an effort to bring justice closer to the people, East County residents now have access to an array of services…” - “It also sends a message that East County matters, and the people who live and work here deserve accessible and responsive justice.” - “Access to justice should not depend on geography,” said Scales-Preston. - “The opening of this office shows that the county government is keeping pace…” - “These efficiencies support stronger investigations, better case outcomes, and a justice process that is both fair and effective,” said Albanese. No space is given to possible concerns (e.g., cost, civil liberties, prosecutorial priorities, whether resources might be better spent on public defenders or social services, or residents who may be skeptical of law enforcement expansion). This makes the piece function more like a positive announcement or press release than a fully balanced news report.

3 suggestions

Include perspectives from residents or community groups who may have concerns about the new office, such as worries about over-policing, budget allocation, or priorities of the DA’s office.

Add comments from independent experts (e.g., criminal justice scholars, public defender representatives, civil rights organizations) who can contextualize both benefits and potential drawbacks of expanding prosecutorial presence.

Clarify that the article is covering a ceremonial opening event and explicitly note that the views presented are those of officials at the event, and that other perspectives exist but were not available or will be covered in future reporting.

Omission of key information

Leaving out relevant facts or context that would help readers fully evaluate the claims being made.

The article highlights benefits but omits several pieces of context that would help readers assess the significance and trade-offs: - No information on the cost of opening and operating the new office, funding source, or impact on the county budget. - No mention of whether there were debates or votes at the county level, and if so, whether there was opposition. - No data on current access-to-justice problems (e.g., average travel times before vs. after, caseloads, victim wait times) to substantiate claims like “bring justice closer to the people” or that the office will “improve efficiency” and “support stronger investigations, better case outcomes.” - No mention of how this expansion interacts with other justice system components (e.g., public defender access, court capacity, diversion programs), which could affect whether the change is uniformly positive. These omissions do not make the article false, but they limit readers’ ability to critically evaluate the officials’ claims.

4 suggestions

Provide basic budget and staffing details beyond headcount, including cost estimates, funding sources, and any trade-offs or reallocation of resources.

Describe any public meetings, votes, or debates that preceded the decision, including whether any supervisors or community members opposed or questioned the project.

Include relevant data or metrics (e.g., average distance or travel time residents previously faced, number of cases expected to be handled at the new office, victim service usage projections) to support or contextualize claims about improved access and efficiency.

Note any known concerns or open questions (e.g., whether public defender services will be similarly expanded, or whether courts in the area can handle increased case flow).

Biased language / positive framing

Using value-laden or promotional language that implicitly endorses one side, especially when not clearly attributed or not balanced with neutral or critical framing.

Most of the strongly positive language is in quotes from officials, which is appropriate, but the article’s framing and lack of counterbalance can still create an overall promotional tone: - Lead sentence: “In an effort to bring justice closer to the people, East County residents now have access to an array of services…” This adopts the officials’ framing (“bring justice closer to the people”) as fact rather than as a claim. - Repeated positive phrases from officials are presented without scrutiny: “simple but powerful,” “accessible and responsive justice,” “keeping pace,” “meets the moment,” “fair and effective,” “strengthen… relationships with survivors and victims who deserve care and dignity.” Because there is no contrasting evidence or questioning, these phrases collectively create a one-directional positive frame, even though individually they are attributed quotes.

3 suggestions

Rephrase the opening sentence in more neutral terms, e.g., “East County residents will now be able to access services from the Contra Costa County District Attorney’s Office at a new location in Pittsburg, according to county officials.”

Explicitly signal that claims about benefits are assertions by officials, not established outcomes, e.g., “Officials say the office will improve efficiency and access to justice, though data on its impact are not yet available.”

Balance positive quotes with neutral or contextual information (e.g., noting that it is too early to measure outcomes, or that some residents have questions about costs or priorities, even if detailed criticism is not yet available).

Appeal to emotion

Using emotionally charged concepts or imagery to persuade rather than relying on neutral evidence or balanced reasoning.

Several quotes use emotionally resonant themes—victims, families, dignity, and community worth—to frame the office as unquestionably positive: - “It will allow us to respond to the needs of victims and families in real time right here.” - “It also sends a message that East County matters, and the people who live and work here deserve accessible and responsive justice.” - “Survivors and victims who deserve care and dignity…” These are understandable sentiments, but the article does not pair them with concrete evidence or discussion of potential trade-offs, which can nudge readers toward an emotional acceptance of the initiative without critical evaluation.

3 suggestions

Complement emotional appeals with specific, verifiable information (e.g., current wait times for victim services, projected improvements, or examples of how proximity has helped in similar jurisdictions).

Add neutral context that acknowledges that while supporting victims is a widely shared goal, there can be debate about the best ways to achieve it and how to allocate limited resources.

Clarify that these are value-based statements from officials and advocates, and, where possible, include data or independent assessments to support or nuance them.

Unsubstantiated claims

Presenting claims about outcomes or benefits without providing evidence, data, or clear basis for those claims.

Several statements predict or assert positive outcomes without supporting evidence: - “It improves our efficiency, our casework and court operations…” - “It will allow us to respond to the needs of victims and families in real time right here…” - “These efficiencies support stronger investigations, better case outcomes, and a justice process that is both fair and effective.” - “The opening of this office shows that the county government is keeping pace, investing in infrastructure that meets the moment and supports our residents where they are.” All of these are plausible but are presented as expected results without data, benchmarks, or references to studies or prior experience. The article does not question or contextualize these claims.

3 suggestions

Ask officials for and include specific metrics or evidence supporting these claims (e.g., projected reduction in case processing time, historical data from similar satellite offices in other counties).

Qualify the language to reflect that these are goals or expectations, not yet demonstrated outcomes, e.g., “Officials hope the office will improve efficiency…” or “They expect the office to help support stronger investigations.”

Include a note that it is too early to measure the actual impact and, if possible, indicate whether the county plans to track and publicly report on these outcomes.