Sure, it is the first sentence in the "Takeaways" section, at the very top of the article.
"The rate of murders in the US has gone up at an alarming rate. But, despite a media narrative to the contrary, this is a problem that afflicts Republican-run cities and states as much or more than the Democratic bastions."
The comment you are referring to ("No person in their right mind would want to go wandering around the south side of Chicago. That is not a falsehood.") is evidence that the "media narrative" mentioned and referenced in the article has indeed taken hold. Chicago was even one of the examples the article used. Any form of research would quickly identify that the entire South Side of Chicago is not a wasteland where nobody willingly walks around (let alone live). That the commenter felt it was so obviously true speaks to the level of validation.
It seems that many people would move out of high crime neighborhoods if it was feasible. We did see a large exodus from the cities in general around this time frame, although it's hard to say how much was this or covid as it's likely a combination of many factors.
It appears the commenter's statement was simply not granular enough since they grouped the whole Southside together (as the article groups entire cities together, then maybe the article was not granular enough?). They still have a valid point. A rate of 28 is substantially higher to most places in the US. Even the article mentions Chicago as having a real and persistent homicide problem and describes the murder rate as alarming. The commenter didn't say the issue only exists there and admits that it's not just politics, and it would be hard to argue that it's not a blatantly one of the highest rates in the country. If it's a good example of a general area where people wouldn't want to walk around because of a high murder rate, then why not use it?
