1. Sharks in NC: saw lots of phone camera videos of sharks trolling through knee-deep water. This is the sea-change that people were reporting: eyes on sharks. A girl not thirty minutes from me got her leg bit off. More shallow-swimming sharks or more phone cameras? I'll vote for the former since people here were comparing this summer to last summer not a summer three decades ago. 2. The data on police killings I saw does not indicate any kind of 180-degree dramatic reversal. As I reported, if extrapolated through the full calendar year, the reduction in deaths would be less than 10% which could easily be attributed to factors other than new-found respect for the thin blue line. We know, in fact, that there are active elements which promote hostility towards police. I would like to see the deaths by gunshot differentiated: shoot-outs with bank robbers vs assasinations in squad cars or while tanking up the cruiser. I know these numbers are low but aren't these kind of evens heretofore unheard?
War on police vs. trend actually going down = 180 degrees, up vs. down But you are just pimping. So tell me how FAUX used this story to inform people, since that should be the point of news, veresus scaring people with the wrong information, which only serves advertisers and alarmist candidates.
A reference to a 180 degree change means something else besides going from 130 KIA to approximately 120.... c'mon. A 180 degree change would require an almost complete overturning not a slight reduction. A condition of war is not just conditional on grotesque stats. It begins with a declaration... which some of the activities of BLM members have proffered up and continues with a couple of execution-style killings of cops right on the heels.
The truth of of actual cop killings and attacks is 180 different from the story created by FOX. On the x-axis of cop killings, the FOX story says there are more, the truth is there are less- which is in the opposite direction. 180. To use top-billing "WAR ON ____!" status, you're declaring something massive, something drastic. If you're reporting on a "war on cops", then the obvious assumption is that there is far more violence and deliberate targeting of cops than before. To pretend otherwise is to be disingenuous. Indeed. We wouldn't want facts to get in the way of a narrative. You're twisting yourself into a pretzel trying to justify something that can't be justified. c'mon. To push a "news" story, you should at least be informing people. You should at least have the facts on your side if you're gong to push a story. If we were on track to have the same number of police deaths this year as last, this story is totally innacurate. But since we're on track for FEWER this year, this story is a blatant lie. Just admit it and move on.
giddy, if you approve of the kind of journalism that calls a reduction in the killing and attacks of police officers a war on cops, then that's your loss. You can sit at home and be pleased as pie with that kind of journalism and hyping something that isn't true. But don't expect anyone else to follow you in that belief.
So are you criticizing me for back-tracking or not back-tracking or either or both or just whatever the hell you want to do?! The facts are that cop deaths are slightly down from last year-- WITH ZERO ANALYSIS on those deaths. Fewer auto accidents? Fewer assassinations? I have not seen one iota of that kind of breakdown. And, IN FACT, we have ALL heard more violence articulated towards cops than anytime in recollection. You guys deliriously gulp down a 10% reduction on whole and declare a non-issue. How about that WAR on Women that the Dems so happily announce? As far as I know a steady grumbling about Abortion is the only volley fired there. Is that really a war? No one, unlike cops, is dying there-- except the dear babies. Sorry but in what world is a 10% reduction a 180 degree turnaround? The most recent 180 was executed by Bruce Jenner... Keep flailing. Common sense will rule the day.
Not only are deaths down, but attacks on cops are also down. There have been fewer people attacking police. Not more, but fewer. For you to justify calling that a war on cops is silly to everyone but you, but you are welcome to keep doing it.
I once heard from a Fox News producer how woefully underfunded and unsupported when it comes to running operations. It was his response to my claims over the lack of fact checking and pushing an agenda. In some sense, one could see it as culpable deniability rather than negligence and a lack of journalistic integrity or standards. Even if profits are relatively high, they seem to grasp how thin the margins can be given the competition.
What's really silly is to make a proclamation based upon one unexamined statistic. Any degree of confidence must first come with some kind of analysis of that data which I've searched for and asked for without satisfaction. Even that may not be conclusive because there are too many factors that may be contributory. Beyond that, I'm more concerned about what cops say than what keyboard warriors say. A climate of war is not just measured by deaths. There are street-level moods and hostilities that are dangerous but stop short of an untimely death. However that does not mean it's not potentially a dangerous precursor for the safety of our police. As I said there are no dead women in the "Republican" War on Women which your ilk will so readily proclaim-- just dead babies. Hell, I'm not interested in defending FOX NEWS; I don't even watch FOX NEWS. I am, however, interested in the safety and effectiveness of police and our citizenry.
The war on women is a legislative war, and Republican positions do provide evidence to back up the claim, at least somewhat. It deals with not only dead babies, but insurance covering birth control, access to birth control, rape kits, equal pay amendment, etc. As for the police, I too am interested in their safety which is why I'm glad that there isn't actually a war on police and the attacks against them are fewer now than they have been in decades.
So you are saying that the War on police doesn't just have to mean a final death toll but that there are other means and measures to indicate a "war" just as there is on women... as I earlier indicated... so we agree? I'm not sure how folks can so easily dismiss what these police captains and chiefs are saying just because some FOX NEWS talking head chimes in with a similar or identical conclusion. I have a couple of friends from church who are police and they post updates on FB all the time about hostility towards police and little or none of it comes from FOX NEWS. It's mostly police news sites or support pages for police and their families. You guys just have an agenda against FOX NEWS (someone started a thread) and I don't entirely blame you for that... Hey, I don't invest in ANY of these news organizations because all they want is ratings. I prefer public news sources but those aren't biased, are they?
Ill never forget Faux's "expert" on terrorism with regards to sharia law communities in England not too long about. Or the Hasselback interview with a research scientist about Ebola... Now that I think about it, pretty much every week is a brilliant example of Faux's genius in putting out factually incorrect material that can still cater to a large audience. Gotta respect them for that, considering how hard uber conservatives will go to defend the garbage they put out.
This piece seems to show that the 2015 "felonious killings" of police are right at the average of the previous TEN YEARS. There is a decided downward trend over the decades from 1970 forwar-- peaking in 1980 and beginning a slow decline that has shallowed. And, hey, it's an NPR story that decries the tale that it is more dangerous and must conclude that it is only as dangerous in recent years but less dangerous than other decades as you claim. http://www.npr.org/2015/09/17/441196546/is-there-a-war-on-police-the-statistics-say-no Causes? I don't think it is due to a greater respect for the thin blue line because that is not in the ether. I say better training and equipment. But it's not just about a body count. It's about a loss of respect for authority on the street.
People tend to gravitate towards things that agrees with their own views, News is not an exception to this rule. If someone is going to sit and watch TV, they want to listen to opinions and "facts" that align with theirs. I really don't see the big deal about this, the information is out there in more than one outlet these days, the people that want the most objective news will get it else where. The core viewer base of fox or NBC are satisfied with what they hear and won't listen to anything else anytime soon.
The bid deal is that democracy depends on the integrity of the fourth estate. People cannot make good decisions with bad information. In this piece FAUX takes a false assertion, reiterates until it appears to be a shocking truth and then associates blame with race, a party and a President. It creates dissent for political and monetary effect, under the protection reserved for journalist. What needs to be recognized is that this is how people and nations are led into atrocious actions and polices. History is very clear on this.
Just curious giddyup. Is there a situation where loss of respect for law enforcement is merited in your eyes and if yes, what would law enforcement have to do to reach that point?
