• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Caught on camera, police explode in rage and violence across the US

SouthernDemocrat said:
The problem is:

1. Allegations of police misconduct should be investigated by U.S. Attorneys rather than the local prosecutors' office that those police departments work closely with on a daily basis.

2. Settlements resulting from police misconduct currently are paid by taxpayers. Thus there is a moral hazard for police as they can conduct themselves how they want, and they pass the costs to the local taxpayers. Instead, they should be required to carry an insurance policy and settlements that a department has to pay out for police misconduct can be paid by that. That way, there is a financial incentive for them to get rid of bad cops and bad cops would result in their insurance premiums going up.

I would also point out that sometimes police departments are not accountable to city hall. For example, here in KC, its state law that the police department is independent from the local government.
Click to expand...

Another idea is that civil suits can be paid directly from the officer’s pension.
 
Logophile said:
Have to agree with most of your post, although I think media outlets are driven more by competition and bias than "making the situation worse." Certainly that is the outcome of inflammatory and biased reporting. I remember when PBS offered reliable reporting. Now, it seems that even what used to be our most level news sources have descended into biased "news." When I compare the Newshours's Woodruff - for example - to the former anchors, I shake my head. She's terribly transparent and her dislike of Trump is palpable. David Brooks - who used to be a respectable commentator as was his cohort, Shields - have both descended into name calling and bitter analysis that's more akin to hell, fire and brimstone than policy opinions. I really miss the old days when the measure of a journalist was his or her integrity and his or her ability to report as objectively as humanly possible. Oh well. I get most of my news from English sources like Reuters. Not perfect but drier and more succinct. Thanks!!
Click to expand...

Excellent observations and post!

Having reviewed journalism as a hobby for years, also having a little education to guide my curiosity, I have been astonished at the sewer level integrity of the folks who pretend to be journalists.

Seeing their bias and outright lies exposed EVERY DAY, I now am suspecting that every word ever printed or broadcast during my lifetime was filled with inaccuracy and narrative.

ANY bit of news that happened to be contained therein was probably included only as the "hook" from which to hang the narrative that they intended to create free of any further connection to the real world.

Of course, this is obvious as look at the narratives presented over the years.

LBJ was a corrupt arm breaker who was portrayed as the politically savvy completer of JFK's vision. Sure, he's a crook said the narrative, but his outcomes are SOOOOO good and needed.

Nixon was portrayed as the crook. Sure he's done some good things said the narrative, but his crimes are SOOOOO bad and unforgivable.

If the thought is relayed to us through our media, it is slanted, biased and very likely more dishonest than reliable.

If the facts undermine with the narrative, the narrative remains while the facts are discarded.
 
code1211 said:
Excellent observations and post!

Having reviewed journalism as a hobby for years, also having a little education to guide my curiosity, I have been astonished at the sewer level integrity of the folks who pretend to be journalists.

Seeing their bias and outright lies exposed EVERY DAY, I now am suspecting that every word ever printed or broadcast during my lifetime was filled with inaccuracy and narrative.

ANY bit of news that happened to be contained therein was probably included only as the "hook" from which to hang the narrative that they intended to create free of any further connection to the real world.

Of course, this is obvious as look at the narratives presented over the years.

LBJ was a corrupt arm breaker who was portrayed as the politically savvy completer of JFK's vision. Sure, he's a crook said the narrative, but his outcomes are SOOOOO good and needed.

Nixon was portrayed as the crook. Sure he's done some good things said the narrative, but his crimes are SOOOOO bad and unforgivable.

If the thought is relayed to us through our media, it is slanted, biased and very likely more dishonest than reliable.

If the facts undermine with the narrative, the narrative remains while the facts are discarded.
Click to expand...

Your post is a valuable read. The trouble I have with so much of the media is its insistence on assigning motives. It's annoying to watch news "purveyors" become pseudo psychiatrists, declaring that this person or that person acted in such a way because "they wanted to do such and such." As if these self-declared psychiatrists have the "inside scoop" on what a person is really thinking. It's absurd. They even do it with the stock market. "The market surged on the remarks of blah, blah, blah. It's ridiculous. The stock market is so computer driven now that I doubt anybody's remarks have much impact,and it's certainly not that simplistic. Right now the stock market's behavior is so baffling that I would so respect any reporter if he or she just said "we don't know why it's doing such and such but enjoy the ride." Sorry, I digress.

Any individual will inject his or her own truth into a personal dialog, but that's not the job of a reporter. A reporter's job is to report objectively to the best of his or her ability. The rest is just blogging. With regard to history and the facts, methinks it's all a matter of convenience: perspectives fitting the trend. Just as Shakespeare much maligned poor Richard, "the narrative remains." You expressed that very well. But if we accept that we are all flawed, then we will have a more mature perspective of both the faults and the gifts of our current system, of history, of leaders and certainly of each other. if our expectations continue to be unrealistic, we will probably pay the price of deep disappointment and damaging conflict. I'm hoping that we can guide our way to a brighter future by being more discerning and more accepting!! Thanks!!
 
Logophile said:
Your post is a valuable read. The trouble I have with so much of the media is its insistence on assigning motives. It's annoying to watch news "purveyors" become pseudo psychiatrists, declaring that this person or that person acted in such a way because "they wanted to do such and such." As if these self-declared psychiatrists have the "inside scoop" on what a person is really thinking. It's absurd. They even do it with the stock market. "The market surged on the remarks of blah, blah, blah. It's ridiculous. The stock market is so computer driven now that I doubt anybody's remarks have much impact,and it's certainly not that simplistic. Right now the stock market's behavior is so baffling that I would so respect any reporter if he or she just said "we don't know why it's doing such and such but enjoy the ride." Sorry, I digress.

Any individual will inject his or her own truth into a personal dialog, but that's not the job of a reporter. A reporter's job is to report objectively to the best of his or her ability. The rest is just blogging. With regard to history and the facts, methinks it's all a matter of convenience: perspectives fitting the trend. Just as Shakespeare much maligned poor Richard, "the narrative remains." You expressed that very well. But if we accept that we are all flawed, then we will have a more mature perspective of both the faults and the gifts of our current system, of history, of leaders and certainly of each other. if our expectations continue to be unrealistic, we will probably pay the price of deep disappointment and damaging conflict. I'm hoping that we can guide our way to a brighter future by being more discerning and more accepting!! Thanks!!
Click to expand...

Agreed! Especially the part about the Stock Market indices. When the market was pronounced DEAD in all ways last March with the American Economy withering in death throes, that's when I jumped back in.

All of the gravely subdued experts were bemoaning the end of our civilization. I saw companies that had prospered across that last century and said, "Let's do it!".

So far, I'm up about 40% and rising with a bullet. So much for the experts.

Other experts, such as Dr. Anthony Fauci, issue opinions that are blasted to all when they disagree with the President and are oddly muted when they agree with the President.

Our "News" organizations are nothing more than fictionalized propagandists campaigning for their own causes.

The "Market Place of ideas", which they continuously campaign to stamp out, is our only protection from their biased, propagandistic narratives of deceit.

To help with perspective, though, this is exactly what they were when the First Amendment was ratified. Sewer rats then. Sewer rats now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom