What Motivates Hatred of Cops?

[ClosedCaption]

What is it about the COPS reality series you find "ridiculous."

Lawsuit: Officer Planted Drugs on Woman on "COPS" Episode

Lawsuit Says Officer Planted Drugs On Woman For Episode Of “COPS”

 

[Pogo]

That would have to work both ways though. There may be negative reports today, particularly in the blogosphere and YouTube, but there's a lot more (and always has been) a great deal of TV media splash, appropriately enough called "programming" (a synonym would be 'propaganda'), from Dragnet and Adam-12 through that ridiculous "COPS" show all making the case subtly that such overbearing power trips are actually "normal".

So there's media distortion both ways, and neither extreme represents the whole, but such distortion used to be all one way. And in the mainstream still is.

What is it about the COPS reality series you find "ridiculous."

While I'm sure the individual episodes are selected to present the most favorable examples to the host agencies there is no question that each episode is real. What must be kept in mind while watching these episodes is the individual cops are aware their actions and behavior is being filmed for public presentation.

Watching one or two episodes of COPS is not enough to form any solid impressions. But if one has sufficient interest in the current controversy over police performance the more time one spends watching these episodes the more substantive his/her awareness and understanding of police attitudes and practices on a nationwide basis will be.

Mostly I was trying to articulate that I meant the sensationalist TV show, and not just a generic body of "cops". A proper name.

That show is full of police abuse of their authority. But the way it's presented, particularly the intro theme and the narration, makes abundantly clear that the propaganda voice will brook no dissent on their point that police power is and must be Absolute. And that's a dynamic I see as strongly enabling the "Warrior" mentality.

They do it to sell commercial time of course, but the effect is not a positive either for the police themselves nor for their enemies, we citizens. To the extent it is authentic, though that extent is exaggerated, it polarizes the two sides even more than they are. So my issue with that show is not the cops in it -- it's the ethically-bereft producers.

I've met that guy (the producer -- John somebody). He's actually a very nice and congenial man (and he's blind as a bat). But he appears to have no ethics.


I mean Joe Friday was no prize either, but that show wasn't anywhere near as over-the-top about it.

 

[MikeK]

You seem to be in the minority. 9 out of 10 residents that have had contact with the police said they were treated fairly. Actually only about 16 to 17% have any contact with the police and half those are with traffic stops and accidents. Yet according to a Gallup poll only 52% of the people said they lacked confidence in the police. I think it's pretty clear that the vast majority of the people form their opinion of the police based on media reports, not personal contact. The most followed media stories about the police generally portrays the police as either just doing their job or grossly violating public confidence.
http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/cpp08.pdf
.In U.S., Confidence in Police Lowest in 22 Years

Looking back twenty years, public disposition toward the police was generally favorable. Today's impression has changed, not drastically but significantly, and the reason for the diminished disposition is clearly attributable to increasing presence and use of video recording capability.

Twenty years ago no one saw the examples of police misconduct we are seeing today, so for all intents and purposes it didn't exist. But today we are witnessing behaviors on the part of our police officers which we disapprove of for a number of reasons, mainly the retributive protests, riots and police assassinations. Another less dynamic reason for public disapproval of police misconduct and excess is the simple fact that the popular idea of what a law-enforcement officer should be is something other than a violence-prone goon for whom the job is a convenient outlet for his latent sadistic tendencies.

While existing statistics hold that a relatively small percentage of police officers behave in opposition to intended procedure it is not likely that each and every example of misconduct is observed or reliably reported. So the statistically posed percentage of misconduct remains questionable at best.

 

[MikeK]

Lawsuit Says Officer Planted Drugs On Woman For Episode Of “COPS”

This is an aspect of the drug war which is subject to extreme ongoing controversy, mainly because it has proven to be riddled with lies on both sides of the bar. Drug users and dealers are known to deny possession of narcotics while cops have been convicted of planting drugs on innocent subjects, which is why this specific area of law-enforcement is known as the lying contest. In fact, it is the common presumption of all experienced criminal offenders that, whether guilty or not, one who does not behave patronizingly toward some police officers will be subjected to planted evidence, usually narcotics. And planted evidence is known to be an effective defense against false arrest charges.

 

[Flopper]

I think it's pretty clear that the vast majority of the people form their opinion of the police based on media reports, not personal contact.

That would have to work both ways though. There may be negative reports today, particularly in the blogosphere and YouTube, but there's a lot more (and always has been) a great deal of TV media splash, appropriately enough called "programming" (a synonym would be 'propaganda'), from Dragnet and Adam-12 through that ridiculous "COPS" show all making the case subtly that such overbearing power trips are actually "normal".

So there's media distortion both ways, and neither extreme represents the whole, but such distortion used to be all one way. And in the mainstream still is.

It is the sensation stories that people see the most, cop shoots man with hands up 9 times in the back, police officers beats teen with clubs as he tries to protect himself, etc. These stories of police brutality and misuse of authority are run over and over, day after day, then repeated over and over with every new development in the story. As any propagandist knows, repeat something often enough and people will believe it. Show a dozen or so brutal attacks by police officers enough times on TV and Internet, people will assume that this behavior is representative of a million law enforcement officers in the country.

 

[westwall]

What in your opinion drives someone to randomly assassinate cops?

Do you think it is simply a pathological hatred of authority? Or is it the result of cumulative resentment based on experience(s) and/or observation(s) of abusive and/or brutal police misconduct?

The majority is based on the actions of a small percentage of the police community. They are corrupt and will perjure themselves at the drop of a hat to screw someone over or to hide a mistake that they made. This has been going on for so long that now there is widespread distrust of the law enforcement community.

 

[MikeK]

It is the sensation stories that people see the most, cop shoots man with hands up 9 times in the back, police officers beats teen with clubs as he tries to protect himself, etc. These stories of police brutality and misuse of authority are run over and over, day after day, then repeated over and over with every new development in the story. As any propagandist knows, repeat something often enough and people will believe it. Show a dozen or so brutal attacks by police officers enough times on TV and Internet, people will assume that this behavior is representative of a million law enforcement officers in the country.

Far more than the volume of reports of police misconduct it is the absence of condemnation by other police of this type of behavior which influences public opinion.

 

[MikeK]

I mean Joe Friday was no prize either, but that show wasn't anywhere near as over-the-top about it.

It's interesting that you mention Joe Friday, who, for the benefit of our younger participants, was the LAPD detective sergeant in the popular 1960s tv series, Dragnet, because the progression from that single police-oriented drama into what today is the dominant tv theme occurs as an accurate cultural reflection of the increasingly authoritarian nature of American society.

It would be even more interesting to see a list of police-oriented tv shows that individual participants can recall. I'm sure the volume will be surprising to those who try to remember them all.

Try it.

 

[Pogo]

I think it's pretty clear that the vast majority of the people form their opinion of the police based on media reports, not personal contact.

That would have to work both ways though. There may be negative reports today, particularly in the blogosphere and YouTube, but there's a lot more (and always has been) a great deal of TV media splash, appropriately enough called "programming" (a synonym would be 'propaganda'), from Dragnet and Adam-12 through that ridiculous "COPS" show all making the case subtly that such overbearing power trips are actually "normal".

So there's media distortion both ways, and neither extreme represents the whole, but such distortion used to be all one way. And in the mainstream still is.

It is the sensation stories that people see the most, cop shoots man with hands up 9 times in the back, police officers beats teen with clubs as he tries to protect himself, etc. These stories of police brutality and misuse of authority are run over and over, day after day, then repeated over and over with every new development in the story. As any propagandist knows, repeat something often enough and people will believe it. Show a dozen or so brutal attacks by police officers enough times on TV and Internet, people will assume that this behavior is representative of a million law enforcement officers in the country.

,

I don't know that a conclusion of degree logically follows ("a million") but certainly the events exist, so regardless how many times that guy shot in the back gets replayed/viewed/talked about, it doesn't make it any less true.

Naturally the sensational, the extreme, the outrageous, are going to get the most splash, by definition. There's no particular reason to report the everyday mundane; that's not news. But these extremes DO happen, and they happen frequently, and after a number of samples from far-flung areas and settings, the observer can indeed establish that it's a pattern and it's endemic to the concept of policing, at least as it manifests in these United States -- which is, tellingly, markedly different from how it manifests outside them.

Personally I'll never feel relaxed in the presence of police, and while that suspicion may be informed by such reports, it's based direct experience. There's a fatal dynamic created when we combine (a) an authoritarian-worshiping culture of "might makes right" obsessed with guns and violence, and (b) what is effectively an autonomous martial law force, armed to the teeth with military paraphernalia and military mindsets. Its natural result is to create conflict, an "us vs. them" mentality. It can hardly go any other way.

 

[Pogo]

I mean Joe Friday was no prize either, but that show wasn't anywhere near as over-the-top about it.

It's interesting that you mention Joe Friday, who, for the benefit of our younger participants, was the LAPD detective sergeant in the popular 1960s tv series, Dragnet, because the progression from that single police-oriented drama into what today is the dominant tv theme occurs as an accurate cultural reflection of the increasingly authoritarian nature of American society.

It would be even more interesting to see a list of police-oriented tv shows that individual participants can recall. I'm sure the volume will be surprising to those who try to remember them all.

Try it.

I haven't been much of a TV watcher since early kidhood (had I been I might have come up with a better example than COPS), though I can recall a few like Matlock, even though I never watched it. These, going back to Joe Friday and presumably before, all use the medium of the most effective propaganda device ever invented -- television -- to infuse certain cultural mindsets:

• The policeman is always right, so don't argue;
• The policeman always wins, so don't even bother resisting

and its less direct messages tagging along:

• Every confrontation can be settled with bullets or at the least, fisticuffs;
• People may be divided into "good citizens" and "bad criminals", and the latter are inhuman and may be disposed of and forgotten.

That was the thrust of my reference to TV propaganda.

 

[MikeK]

I haven't been much of a TV watcher since early kidhood (had I been I might have come up with a better example than COPS), though I can recall a few like Matlock, even though I never watched it. These, going back to Joe Friday and presumably before, all use the medium of the most effective propaganda device ever invented -- television -- to infuse certain cultural mindsets:

[...]

Pogo,

COPS is a "ride-along" reality tv production in which various police agencies across the Nation allow a tv cameraman to ride in a police car and film incidents the cops become involved in. As would be expected, only those sequences which are approved by the host agencies are released for presentation. But even under those selective circumstances there is plenty of material from which to form useful impressions about police behavior, the police mentality in general, and the dynamics which are responsible for generating the increasing level of public resentment of police.

While casually watching one or two episodes of COPS might be moderately entertaining it will not be productive in terms of forming useful impressions. But anyone who has a serious sociological interest in the changes which are taking place in the character of American law-enforcement and the universal police mentality will find this tv production to be an invaluable source of raw comparative data from which substantive conclusions may be drawn.

I believe this series, which consists of hundreds of episodes derived from police agencies all over America, should be available as source material for consulting sociologists who are involved in establishing performance standards for police agencies.

 

[Pogo]

I haven't been much of a TV watcher since early kidhood (had I been I might have come up with a better example than COPS), though I can recall a few like Matlock, even though I never watched it. These, going back to Joe Friday and presumably before, all use the medium of the most effective propaganda device ever invented -- television -- to infuse certain cultural mindsets:

[...]

Pogo,

COPS is a "ride-along" reality tv production in which various police agencies across the Nation allow a tv cameraman to ride in a police car and film incidents the cops become involved in. As would be expected, only those sequences which are approved by the host agencies are released for presentation. But even under those selective circumstances there is plenty of material from which to form useful impressions about police behavior, the police mentality in general, and the dynamics which are responsible for generating the increasing level of public resentment of police.

While casually watching one or two episodes of COPS might be moderately entertaining it will not be productive in terms of forming useful impressions. But anyone who has a serious sociological interest in the changes which are taking place in the character of American law-enforcement and the universal police mentality will find this tv production to be an invaluable source of raw comparative data from which substantive conclusions may be drawn.

I believe this series, which consists of hundreds of episodes derived from police agencies all over America, should be available as source material for consulting sociologists who are involved in establishing performance standards for police agencies.

OK, not sure how to read this, as your second paragraph seems to contradict your first.

I do agree that whatever makes the cut for air is carefully screened to fit the agenda. But I don't believe for a second that anything valuable or informative can be gleaned from television, which as you might gather I despise for its inherent dishonesty. Especially after it's been massaged by the corporate media into the properly approved establishment shape.

That's why I contend that the only content on the boob tube that has even a shred of honesty is live sports.

 

[Flopper]

I think it's pretty clear that the vast majority of the people form their opinion of the police based on media reports, not personal contact.

That would have to work both ways though. There may be negative reports today, particularly in the blogosphere and YouTube, but there's a lot more (and always has been) a great deal of TV media splash, appropriately enough called "programming" (a synonym would be 'propaganda'), from Dragnet and Adam-12 through that ridiculous "COPS" show all making the case subtly that such overbearing power trips are actually "normal".

So there's media distortion both ways, and neither extreme represents the whole, but such distortion used to be all one way. And in the mainstream still is.

It is the sensation stories that people see the most, cop shoots man with hands up 9 times in the back, police officers beats teen with clubs as he tries to protect himself, etc. These stories of police brutality and misuse of authority are run over and over, day after day, then repeated over and over with every new development in the story. As any propagandist knows, repeat something often enough and people will believe it. Show a dozen or so brutal attacks by police officers enough times on TV and Internet, people will assume that this behavior is representative of a million law enforcement officers in the country.

,

I don't know that a conclusion of degree logically follows ("a million") but certainly the events exist, so regardless how many times that guy shot in the back gets replayed/viewed/talked about, it doesn't make it any less true.

Naturally the sensational, the extreme, the outrageous, are going to get the most splash, by definition. There's no particular reason to report the everyday mundane; that's not news. But these extremes DO happen, and they happen frequently, and after a number of samples from far-flung areas and settings, the observer can indeed establish that it's a pattern and it's endemic to the concept of policing, at least as it manifests in these United States -- which is, tellingly, markedly different from how it manifests outside them.

Personally I'll never feel relaxed in the presence of police, and while that suspicion may be informed by such reports, it's based direct experience. There's a fatal dynamic created when we combine (a) an authoritarian-worshiping culture of "might makes right" obsessed with guns and violence, and (b) what is effectively an autonomous martial law force, armed to the teeth with military paraphernalia and military mindsets. Its natural result is to create conflict, an "us vs. them" mentality. It can hardly go any other way.

The problem with news reporting is that it is often totally out of context. A tornado hit's a town and TV news shows a block or so of a dozen homes damaged and leads the public to believe that this is representative of the town which makes it much more important story than saying 20 out of 10,000 homes in xxx was damaged by a tornado. The only way to get the real story is to research it yourself which very people few do.

 

[Flopper]

I haven't been much of a TV watcher since early kidhood (had I been I might have come up with a better example than COPS), though I can recall a few like Matlock, even though I never watched it. These, going back to Joe Friday and presumably before, all use the medium of the most effective propaganda device ever invented -- television -- to infuse certain cultural mindsets:

[...]

Pogo,

COPS is a "ride-along" reality tv production in which various police agencies across the Nation allow a tv cameraman to ride in a police car and film incidents the cops become involved in. As would be expected, only those sequences which are approved by the host agencies are released for presentation. But even under those selective circumstances there is plenty of material from which to form useful impressions about police behavior, the police mentality in general, and the dynamics which are responsible for generating the increasing level of public resentment of police.

While casually watching one or two episodes of COPS might be moderately entertaining it will not be productive in terms of forming useful impressions. But anyone who has a serious sociological interest in the changes which are taking place in the character of American law-enforcement and the universal police mentality will find this tv production to be an invaluable source of raw comparative data from which substantive conclusions may be drawn.

I believe this series, which consists of hundreds of episodes derived from police agencies all over America, should be available as source material for consulting sociologists who are involved in establishing performance standards for police agencies.

OK, not sure how to read this, as your second paragraph seems to contradict your first.

I do agree that whatever makes the cut for air is carefully screened to fit the agenda. But I don't believe for a second that anything valuable or informative can be gleaned from television, which as you might gather I despise for its inherent dishonesty. Especially after it's been massaged by the corporate media into the properly approved establishment shape.

That's why I contend that the only content on the boob tube that has even a shred of honesty is live sports.

And 55% of Americans say TV is their main source of news followed by the Internet at 21%, newspapers at 9%, radio at 6%.

 

[Pogo]

I think it's pretty clear that the vast majority of the people form their opinion of the police based on media reports, not personal contact.

That would have to work both ways though. There may be negative reports today, particularly in the blogosphere and YouTube, but there's a lot more (and always has been) a great deal of TV media splash, appropriately enough called "programming" (a synonym would be 'propaganda'), from Dragnet and Adam-12 through that ridiculous "COPS" show all making the case subtly that such overbearing power trips are actually "normal".

So there's media distortion both ways, and neither extreme represents the whole, but such distortion used to be all one way. And in the mainstream still is.

It is the sensation stories that people see the most, cop shoots man with hands up 9 times in the back, police officers beats teen with clubs as he tries to protect himself, etc. These stories of police brutality and misuse of authority are run over and over, day after day, then repeated over and over with every new development in the story. As any propagandist knows, repeat something often enough and people will believe it. Show a dozen or so brutal attacks by police officers enough times on TV and Internet, people will assume that this behavior is representative of a million law enforcement officers in the country.

,

I don't know that a conclusion of degree logically follows ("a million") but certainly the events exist, so regardless how many times that guy shot in the back gets replayed/viewed/talked about, it doesn't make it any less true.

Naturally the sensational, the extreme, the outrageous, are going to get the most splash, by definition. There's no particular reason to report the everyday mundane; that's not news. But these extremes DO happen, and they happen frequently, and after a number of samples from far-flung areas and settings, the observer can indeed establish that it's a pattern and it's endemic to the concept of policing, at least as it manifests in these United States -- which is, tellingly, markedly different from how it manifests outside them.

Personally I'll never feel relaxed in the presence of police, and while that suspicion may be informed by such reports, it's based direct experience. There's a fatal dynamic created when we combine (a) an authoritarian-worshiping culture of "might makes right" obsessed with guns and violence, and (b) what is effectively an autonomous martial law force, armed to the teeth with military paraphernalia and military mindsets. Its natural result is to create conflict, an "us vs. them" mentality. It can hardly go any other way.

The problem with news reporting is that it is often totally out of context. A tornado hit's a town and TV news shows a block or so of a dozen homes damaged and leads the public to believe that this is representative of the town which makes it much more important story than saying 20 out of 10,000 homes in xxx was damaged by a tornado. The only way to get the real story is to research it yourself which very people few do.

So true. The medium is inherently superficial. Due to the way it commandeers the sensory inputs of the viewer who's forced to completely stand down cerebrally, much like turning one's computer over to a remote technician, it can only hold attention with high-voltage sensuality, which means drama and conflict and fear and loathing and devastation. Soon as it tries to delve into "here's the context" it falls flat, because that's not keeping the sensory pipeline fed. And the commercial PTB who run the telescreen industry aren't gonna stand for fading attention. They're gonna show what sells, whether it's actually newsworthy or not, so when the story doesn't write itself (e.g. 9/11), the professional massagers take over and we get the latest who-cares celebrity drunk driving incident or the next missing white girl.

And 55% of Americans say TV is their main source of news followed by the Internet at 21%, newspapers at 9%, radio at 6%.

--- and that's a problem, born no doubt of the instant gratification fixation. We want our news, but we don't want the time investment it takes to actually grok it. And the results are inevitably detrimental.

George Orwell saw it coming; whether it's run by a manipulative national government or a manipulative corporate oligarchy is a distinction without a difference.

(/offtopic)

 

[Flopper]

I think it's pretty clear that the vast majority of the people form their opinion of the police based on media reports, not personal contact.

That would have to work both ways though. There may be negative reports today, particularly in the blogosphere and YouTube, but there's a lot more (and always has been) a great deal of TV media splash, appropriately enough called "programming" (a synonym would be 'propaganda'), from Dragnet and Adam-12 through that ridiculous "COPS" show all making the case subtly that such overbearing power trips are actually "normal".

So there's media distortion both ways, and neither extreme represents the whole, but such distortion used to be all one way. And in the mainstream still is.

It is the sensation stories that people see the most, cop shoots man with hands up 9 times in the back, police officers beats teen with clubs as he tries to protect himself, etc. These stories of police brutality and misuse of authority are run over and over, day after day, then repeated over and over with every new development in the story. As any propagandist knows, repeat something often enough and people will believe it. Show a dozen or so brutal attacks by police officers enough times on TV and Internet, people will assume that this behavior is representative of a million law enforcement officers in the country.

,

I don't know that a conclusion of degree logically follows ("a million") but certainly the events exist, so regardless how many times that guy shot in the back gets replayed/viewed/talked about, it doesn't make it any less true.

Naturally the sensational, the extreme, the outrageous, are going to get the most splash, by definition. There's no particular reason to report the everyday mundane; that's not news. But these extremes DO happen, and they happen frequently, and after a number of samples from far-flung areas and settings, the observer can indeed establish that it's a pattern and it's endemic to the concept of policing, at least as it manifests in these United States -- which is, tellingly, markedly different from how it manifests outside them.

Personally I'll never feel relaxed in the presence of police, and while that suspicion may be informed by such reports, it's based direct experience. There's a fatal dynamic created when we combine (a) an authoritarian-worshiping culture of "might makes right" obsessed with guns and violence, and (b) what is effectively an autonomous martial law force, armed to the teeth with military paraphernalia and military mindsets. Its natural result is to create conflict, an "us vs. them" mentality. It can hardly go any other way.

The problem with news reporting is that it is often totally out of context. A tornado hit's a town and TV news shows a block or so of a dozen homes damaged and leads the public to believe that this is representative of the town which makes it much more important story than saying 20 out of 10,000 homes in xxx was damaged by a tornado. The only way to get the real story is to research it yourself which very people few do.

So true. The medium is inherently superficial. Due to the way it commandeers the sensory inputs of the viewer who's forced to completely stand down cerebrally, much like turning one's computer over to a remote technician, it can only hold attention with high-voltage sensuality, which means drama and conflict and fear and loathing and devastation. Soon as it tries to delve into "here's the context" it falls flat, because that's not keeping the sensory pipeline fed. And the commercial PTB who run the telescreen industry aren't gonna stand for fading attention. They're gonna show what sells, whether it's actually newsworthy or not, so when the story doesn't write itself (e.g. 9/11), the professional massagers take over and we get the latest who-cares celebrity drunk driving incident or the next missing white girl.

And 55% of Americans say TV is their main source of news followed by the Internet at 21%, newspapers at 9%, radio at 6%.

--- and that's a problem, born no doubt of the instant gratification fixation. We want our news, but we don't want the time investment it takes to actually grok it. And the results are inevitably detrimental.

George Orwell saw it coming; whether it's run by a manipulative national government or a manipulative corporate oligarchy is a distinction without a difference.

(/offtopic)

If one must us TV for their main news source then IMHO, PBS and the BBC are the best of a bad lot. The best alternative is researching Internet news sites, however few people have the time to do that.

Years ago, there was a newspaper in my hometown that did a good job of presenting news. I knew the editor personally. What he put on the front page was what he considered the most important local, state, and national news, not necessarily the most sensational or interesting. That was long ago. He's gone. The newspaper was merged into the other newspaper in town and later sold to a syndicate. Today the paper is published out of town weekly and is mostly ads, and a few articles about school board and city council meetings.

 

[MikeK]

If one must us TV for their main news source then IMHO, PBS and the BBC are the best of a bad lot. The best alternative is researching Internet news sites, however few people have the time to do that.

Years ago, there was a newspaper in my hometown that did a good job of presenting news. I knew the editor personally. What he put on the front page was what he considered the most important local, state, and national news, not necessarily the most sensational or interesting. That was long ago. He's gone. The newspaper was merged into the other newspaper in town and later sold to a syndicate. Today the paper is published out of town weekly and is mostly ads, and a few articles about school board and city council meetings.

Another good source is RT (Russia Today).

Those who still associate Russia with communism, oppression and anti-U.S. sentiment, check it out before drawing any conclusions. You might be surprised to find more free speech and truth there than on most corporate-controlled American "news" channels.

Just Google RT.

 

[Meathead]

If one must us TV for their main news source then IMHO, PBS and the BBC are the best of a bad lot. The best alternative is researching Internet news sites, however few people have the time to do that.

Years ago, there was a newspaper in my hometown that did a good job of presenting news. I knew the editor personally. What he put on the front page was what he considered the most important local, state, and national news, not necessarily the most sensational or interesting. That was long ago. He's gone. The newspaper was merged into the other newspaper in town and later sold to a syndicate. Today the paper is published out of town weekly and is mostly ads, and a few articles about school board and city council meetings.

Another good source is RT (Russia Today).

Those who still associate Russia with communism, oppression and anti-U.S. sentiment, check it out before drawing any conclusions. You might be surprised to find more free speech and truth there than on most corporate-controlled American "news" channels.

Just Google RT.

These foreign news networks, like anyone else, have an agenda. RT is funded by the Russian state and attempts to present news in a way fit for Western audiences. However, they do give a pro-Russian government slant to news and editorial opinions. To think otherwise is extremely naive, as is your last observation regarding 'more free speech'. That is simply utter nonsense.

 

[Flopper]

If one must us TV for their main news source then IMHO, PBS and the BBC are the best of a bad lot. The best alternative is researching Internet news sites, however few people have the time to do that.

Years ago, there was a newspaper in my hometown that did a good job of presenting news. I knew the editor personally. What he put on the front page was what he considered the most important local, state, and national news, not necessarily the most sensational or interesting. That was long ago. He's gone. The newspaper was merged into the other newspaper in town and later sold to a syndicate. Today the paper is published out of town weekly and is mostly ads, and a few articles about school board and city council meetings.

Another good source is RT (Russia Today).

Those who still associate Russia with communism, oppression and anti-U.S. sentiment, check it out before drawing any conclusions. You might be surprised to find more free speech and truth there than on most corporate-controlled American "news" channels.

Just Google RT.

These foreign news networks, like anyone else, have an agenda. RT is funded by the Russian state and attempts to present news in a way fit for Western audiences. However, they do give a pro-Russian government slant to news and editorial opinions. To think otherwise is extremely naive, as is your last observation regarding 'more free speech'. That is simply utter nonsense.

Most foreign news networks have the same agenda as US networks, attract viewers. They will say and do whatever is needed to keep up their ratings. The only question is how far will they twist the truth to do that. Some media outlets do try to maintain a reputation for honest reporting, many just don't care.

 

[Jarlaxle]

What in your opinion drives someone to randomly assassinate cops?

Do you think it is simply a pathological hatred of authority? Or is it the result of cumulative resentment based on experience(s) and/or observation(s) of abusive and/or brutal police misconduct?

The majority is based on the actions of a small percentage of the police community. They are corrupt and will perjure themselves at the drop of a hat to screw someone over or to hide a mistake that they made. This has been going on for so long that now there is widespread distrust of the law enforcement community.

It is like lawyers, politicians, and used-car salesmen: the 90% that are thugs ruin it for the good ones.