Denver to encrypt police radio traffic, blocking the public — but not news organizations

Checkerboard Strangler said:

“Today television news is watched more often than people read newspapers, than people listen to the radio, than people read or gather any other form of communication. The reason: People are lazy. With television you just sit—watch—listen. The thinking is done for you.”
---Roger Ailes


Despite your belief that people aren't dumb, there is a "whole helluva lot of evidence to the contrary" that people are conditioned.
Conditioning doesn't know any intellectual boundaries. Conditioning is a paid endeavor, and the folks paying the bills are not the news people, they're SPONSORS.
What you call "curating", that's hyperbole and theatrics because the reasoning is a lot simpler than that.
If you know what happened to radio and TV news in the late 1980's then you SHOULD know why it's a very simple reason.
You say you've "never looked to the Press to be the government's watchdog in the exclusive" - NEWS FLASH, no one ever said it was exclusive, but the Fourth Estate is the Fourth Estate and as a constitutionally protected entity, it is incumbent upon it to BE a watchdog.



This is a local matter and only local pressure is going to change it, so don't count on the Federal Communications Commission, or Congress, to change the issue. I already stated my own view, that at least the main dispatch channel should be left open and unencrypted.
If they need to exercise more op-sec on their comms, they can move it to sub-channels which can be encrypted.

But unless and until either Congress takes it up directly, or the FCC tackles the matter, individual police departments are going to continue to try to do encryption if they don't have any opposition from the elected officials that they report to.
The place you will get the most response from is government at the local level and in case you don't realize it, the press is in your corner on this issue.

Last but not least, I believe you are confusing news coverage with news analysis programming. The latter will never go away as long as someone can sell soap, breakfast cereal, prescriptions and cars with it. The bias in news analysis is determined by consumer focus groups that seek to determine who the demographic is for each channel.
It is pure free market capitalism applied to public affairs.
That should make a light bulb go off in your head.

Click to expand...

You're backsliding, but we shall proceed nonetheless... I've never seen 'Broadcast News' -- 'Network' was good. Though I have to say the only redeeming moments of 'The Newsroom' where when Olivia Munn was on-screen, and that wasn't due to her skills as a thespian, if you know what I mean...:wink2:

Funny, when something bad happens because of a bad guy with a gun, you guys always blame the gun, but when the case is you are the gun, then finally you get it, it sinks in, and you blame the bad guy.

"Curated" is your guys word, not mine...

Where the hell have you been? There are people trying to make the 4th Estate exclusive. Did you forget about McCain wanting to register "legitimate" journalists in his crusade against bloggers? (After a search to provide a link, it sure seems Google did, WOW! 1984 like a mofo...) What was that other GOP dip**** -- Lucas? Do you think that Trump is the only one spouting "Fake News! Fake News!!"? Jesus H., that was Reason #456 of why Hillary Clinton lost the election! Has there not been calls to delegitimize certain individuals and organizations to favor other, in many cases more established News Media? You say it is incumbent on the Press to be a watchdog, but yet all I see are a bunch of lapdogs...Lapdogs heeling to their masters...This my fault? (and yes, you're still a lapdog regardless if master has you biting at the ankles of Trump like a rabid Chihuahua in heat...)

If I thought the Press was in "my" corner we wouldn't be having this conversation. They should be, traditionally, they would be, in a romantic-comedy or maybe perhaps, a Robert Redford sort of way, but the trust is gone. I'm not happy about it, I don't like it, revel in it -- I wish it weren't so.

I'm not confusing anything, I think it's the Press who are the one's confused. They seem incapable of delivering the news without the color commentary. We're not talking good old fashion slant here, we are talking purposeful commingling.

I'm all for making a buck, and please, your attempted condescension didn't go unnoticed, ( it was really good actually, just enough but not too much, although it really is confusing the hell out of me where you think it appropriate or justifiable, lol, a defensive mechanism perhaps?) but when trying to earn a buck comes at the expense of the truth, open government, and accountability that's where a line needs to be drawn.

ChezC3 said:

You're backsliding, but we shall proceed nonetheless... I've never seen 'Broadcast News' -- 'Network' was good. Though I have to say the only redeeming moments of 'The Newsroom' where when Olivia Munn was on-screen, and that wasn't due to her skills as a thespian, if you know what I mean...:wink2:

Click to expand...

Your homework assignment.
No, I am not being condescending.
I am giving you a recommendation.
I don't know what year you were born in, but if you graduated high school after 1986, chances are fairly reasonable that you're not aware of what the role of the press was in days prior, or how it did the job.

ChezC3 said:

"Curated" is your guys word, not mine...

Where the hell have you been? There are people trying to make the 4th Estate exclusive. Did you forget about McCain wanting to register "legitimate" journalists in his crusade against bloggers? (After a search to provide a link, it sure seems Google did, WOW! 1984 like a mofo...) What was that other GOP dip**** -- Lucas? Do you think that Trump is the only one spouting "Fake News! Fake News!!"?

Click to expand...

I don't get it, because it sounds like you think that the press is party to this, and that it's happening with their approval.

ChezC3 said:

Has there not been calls to delegitimize certain individuals and organizations to favor other, in many cases more established News Media? You say it is incumbent on the Press to be a watchdog, but yet all I see are a bunch of lapdogs...Lapdogs heeling to their masters...This my fault? (and yes, you're still a lapdog regardless if master has you biting at the ankles of Trump like a rabid Chihuahua in heat...)

If I thought the Press was in "my" corner we wouldn't be having this conversation.
I'm not confusing anything, I think it's the Press who are the one's confused. They seem incapable of delivering the news without the color commentary. We're not talking good old fashion slant here, we are talking purposeful commingling.

Click to expand...

Again...the changes that took place in the news industry starting around 1987 or thereabouts changed everything.
News programming is now a consumer product. It is no different than a gallon of ice cream or a washer dryer set or a set of golf clubs.

ChezC3 said:

I'm all for making a buck, and please, your attempted condescension didn't go unnoticed, ( it was really good actually, just enough but not too much, although it really is confusing the hell out of me where you think it appropriate or justifiable, lol, a defensive mechanism perhaps?) but when trying to earn a buck comes at the expense of the truth, open government, and accountability that's where a line needs to be drawn.

Click to expand...

And as long as you insist I am being condescending, you're never going to understand the central point I am trying to make, namely that news is now a consumer product and it has been for a very long time. And when it comes to consumer products, appealing to the demographic is the most important thing, it is the only thing. If they don't make the viewer demographic feel satisfied, that demographic TUNES OUT and they lose ratings, which means that they cease to exist. This is especially true of CABLE NEWS networks whose only programming is "news product".

But you go ahead and continue to think I am being condescending. It means that you probably won't bother watching that film I recommended, which was a teachable moment to America more than anything else. Some folks "got the message" and others just thought it was Holly Hunter and William Hurt having an affair in the newsroom. (or almost having an affair)

Anyway, this is an impasse. My very first "teachers" were Willard Scott and John Chancellor at an internship program at WRC-TV Channel 4 in DC.
Cronkite came to speak at CBS Brown Institute at our graduation in 1979. My other hero and inspiration was Ed Murrow.

So, not sure where you think the condescension and defensiveness is coming from. You might be the one backsliding, but I choose not to put much stock into terms like that in the first place. It isn't helpful or constructive.

By the way, in reference to "delegitimizing", let's try talking about standards of professionalism first, then we can have a conversation about legitimacy. Just crowing about "we the people" and thinking that is enough to make EVERYBODY a "journalist" is flat out dishonest, and it cheapens the profession and the credibility of the press as a whole.
Everything in life must meet some kind of a standard. That does not mean it is government's job to determine that standard, far from it.
But the AP might be a good place to start. The Associated Press has been an important institution since the Civil War.
It does in many ways SET a STANDARD.

Checkerboard Strangler said:

Your homework assignment.
No, I am not being condescending.
I am giving you a recommendation.
I don't know what year you were born in, but if you graduated high school after 1986, chances are fairly reasonable that you're not aware of what the role of the press was in days prior, or how it did the job.

I don't get it, because it sounds like you think that the press is party to this, and that it's happening with their approval.

Again...the changes that took place in the news industry starting around 1987 or thereabouts changed everything.
News programming is now a consumer product. It is no different than a gallon of ice cream or a washer dryer set or a set of golf clubs.

And as long as you insist I am being condescending, you're never going to understand the central point I am trying to make, namely that news is now a consumer product and it has been for a very long time.

But you go ahead and continue to think I am being condescending. It means that you probably won't bother watching that film I recommended, which was a teachable moment to America more than anything else.


So, not sure where you think the condescension and defensiveness is coming from. You might be the one backsliding, but I choose not to put much stock into terms like that in the first place. It isn't helpful or constructive.

By the way, in reference to "delegitimizing", let's try talking about standards of professionalism first, then we can have a conversation about legitimacy. Just crowing about "we the people" and thinking that is enough to make EVERYBODY a "journalist" is flat out dishonest, and it cheapens the profession and the credibility of the press as a whole.
Everything in life must meet some kind of a standard. That does not mean it is government's job to determine that standard, far from it.
But the AP might be a good place to start. The Associated Press has been an important institution since the Civil War.
It does in many ways SET a STANDARD.

Click to expand...

It seems as long as you make my offhand comments the thesis of your rebuttal, you will continue to think you're the only one that "gets it". I would love to hear more about the back of the house dealings in your world, truly, but when you insist upon thinking you're providing a teaching moment, that you're passing along some gnostic secret when all you've done is confirm already held suspicions and validated the distrust I've stated people have with the industry, well, that is simply too disagreeable. I mean, you've provided your bona fides and what say holds weight as you're seemingly confirming many people's darkest suspicions.

Problem is, and I thought my previous attempt was rather spot on, you're attempting to absolve yourself and others of your trade -- do you like the term trade or craft? As a gastronomer I prefer craft, and as a writer I choose that term as well, but you're a cameraman, so I'm not sure where you put yourself...Trade? Craft? No matter, any way, now I feel I must be heavy-handed with you to hammer home my point. The guards at Auschwitz weren't absolved of their sins because they were simply following orders. Savvy?

I don't think everyone should be a journalist, nor is everyone capable, I mean in my twenties, sure, I could drink enough Jack Daniels to kill a team of clydesdales, but let's be honest, not everyone has that sort of constitution. Thing is I'm not asking for everyone to be a journalist, I'm asking for open and accountable government without the filters. As I thought I made pretty clear in my previous post, I understand the commodification of the industry, but when I speak on it, and all subjects here, I speak mostly not of what "is" but what "ought." Nothing interesting comes from these chat boards by people simply passing back and forth information about the way things are, all that equates to is a pissing match to determine who can regurgitate what they've heard or seen. Fun? Not my idea of it. No the interesting part of these sites is reading and sharing the possibilities of what can be, the ideas of how to go about making those changes, and the willingness or unwillingness of the people to do so. To see who agrees or disagrees...

A discussion on journalistic standards would be marvelous, how though can we have that without honesty? The industry in my ever humble opinion needs to be honest about their own biases, they need a clear cut separation from the commodifying influences, and they need to take an honest look at the responsibility they have and their carelessness in its regard.


(I'm a fan of William Hurt, so when I get around to it, I more than likely will watch your recommendation, but, seriously -- homework assignment? LOL Far tougher beasts than you have tried to and failed in getting me to complete one of those...)

ChezC3 said:

A discussion on journalistic standards would be marvelous, how though can we have that without honesty? The industry in my ever humble opinion needs to be honest about their own biases, they need a clear cut separation from the commodifying influences, and they need to take an honest look at the responsibility they have and their carelessness in its regard.

Click to expand...

That speaks to the consolidation of media ownership, almost exclusively, and here's why:
When media ownership becomes consolidated into the hands of one, or two, or even a half dozen major conglomerate corporations, as it is now, they exercise a type of controlling trust which is pretty much a monopoly.

ChezC3 said:

you're attempting to absolve yourself and others of your trade...

Click to expand...

I cordially invite you to take on the controlling trust, but no, you're too fond of comparing journalists with guards at Auschwitz.
Once you've taken that leap into hyperbole, you're bound to land on "knee jerk reactionary". It is unavoidable.

ChezC3 said:

(I'm a fan of William Hurt, so when I get around to it, I more than likely will watch your recommendation, but, seriously -- homework assignment? LOL Far tougher beasts than you have tried to and failed in getting me to complete one of those...)

Click to expand...

Watch it or don't watch it, no skin off my back. It appears that you're not serious about this discussion, and now you're having daddy issues which aren't germaine to the debate. This isn't about whether you bristle at me using a term like "homework assignment".

But as you said earlier, it's your thread.
I find your hyperbole and hysterics to be a barrier to any kind of collective or mutual understanding of the issues, and I think I have made the points I tried to make, both here in this thread and elsewhere.

I'll continue to stand behind them with confidence, while you are certainly free to go and hold your Nuremburg Trials on journalists, who are, in your estimation: "the enemy of the people."

Checkerboard Strangler said:

That speaks to the consolidation of media ownership, almost exclusively, and here's why:
When media ownership becomes consolidated into the hands of one, or two, or even a half dozen major conglomerate corporations, as it is now, they exercise a type of controlling trust which is pretty much a monopoly.



I cordially invite you to take on the controlling trust, but no, you're too fond of comparing journalists with guards at Auschwitz.
Once you've taken that leap into hyperbole, you're bound to land on "knee jerk reactionary". It is unavoidable.



Watch it or don't watch it, no skin off my back. It appears that you're not serious about this discussion, and now you're having daddy issues which aren't germaine to the debate. This isn't about whether you bristle at me using a term like "homework assignment".

But as you said earlier, it's your thread.
I find your hyperbole and hysterics to be a barrier to any kind of collective or mutual understanding of the issues, and I think I have made the points I tried to make, both here in this thread and elsewhere.

I'll continue to stand behind them with confidence, while you are certainly free to go and hold your Nuremburg Trials on journalists, who are, in your estimation: "the enemy of the people."

Click to expand...

Well, then we've got to do something about that...

Daddy issues?

:lol:

I'm daddy... impdaddy: (you obviously haven't been paying attention.)

f'n guy uses terms like "homework assignment" and then can't imagine where people come off thinking he's being condescending....:lamo

It's this lack of self awareness and introspection that gets the Press comparisons like the one's I've made...WAKE UP!

(psst...the only one being hysterical here is, you, I'm calm as a hindu calf, baby...) :2wave: