(No caption)

Government population reports stand on a firm foundation of solid data, not a squishy base of maybe this-maybe that.

But just as a rock-hard wall can be painted bright orange or gloomy gray, facts can be framed differently. Interpretations aren't necessarily "right" or "wrong," any more than paint choices are.

We have a stark new example in Detroit of how one federal report can be seen from two perspectives. The city's daily papers present distinctly divergent views of the same facts as they cover population estimates released Thursday by the U.S. Census Bureau.

The headlines:

Detroit population rank is lowest since 1850 -- The Detroit News

Duggan sees positive in Detroit population loss -- Detroit Free Press

Those labels reflect realist and idealist choices that differentiate each article, as the opening sentences show:

► News: For the first time since before the Civil War, Detroit is not among the nation’s 20 most populous cities.

Detroit’s population was 677,116 as of last summer, a loss of 3,107 residents from the previous year. . . . That’s the smallest decline in decades, but it was enough to drop the city to 21st in the nation.

► Freep: Detroit's long population decline slowed to its lowest pace in decades last year and some experts say next year's numbers could show the first signs of growth since the 1950s.
The Census Bureau's estimate from July 1, 2015, listed the city’s population at 677,116, a 0.5% decrease, or a loss of 3,107 residents from the same date the previous year. The decline between 2013 and 2014 was 1.4% — a loss of 9,727 residents.
Mayor Mike Duggan cheered the news and noted that positive trends have continued but aren't yet included in Census estimates. . . . Duggan said his goal of reversing population declines by the end of his first term is within reach.

Each is factually correct. They just look through different lenses -- one seeing bright light on the horizon, the other looking at where Detroit has been rather than where it might go.

An afternoon column by Freep editorial page columnist Nancy Kaffer addresses the issue:

So is Detroit, right now, a story of growth or of decline? 

It's both. And to reduce this complex city . . . to just one story is a reductionist impulse that does Detroit, and Detroiters, a disservice. . . .

Telling Detroit's story requires us to look beyond easy narratives, to understand the depth of the story.

From the other paper, a reporter's tweet notes "the differing sensibilities of News and Freep." The News writer, who's not identified here at his request, adds:

"One leads with how far we've fallen compared to our grand history, the other is digestible to the 'Detroit is back' crowd."

In response to Washington reporter Ron Fournier, who asks which approach "is right," the Detroiter tweets:

Definitely the former. Decline is the story in Detroit, even if hope peeks through the clouds now and again.

Our take: This is a value of having two daily newspapers and the case for looking at both -- while we still can.