No, that would be redundant. Moreover, it's a journalist's job to qualify their sources (in this case, official crime statistics), so implying some sort of discrepancy in that data without cause would itself be a form of gaslighting.
"A New York Police Department whistleblower's report that his precinct was systematically underreporting crime - an act that resulted in a suspension and time in a psychiatric ward - has been validated by an internal department investigation."
And even if your NYC anecdote could somehow be applied to all national crime statistics, it still wouldn't change the truth of the article, which is that crime has decreased relative to before. If crime were underreported previously, and continues to be underreported now, then the fact of the relative decrease in rates remains true.