zlacker

>>colinp+(OP)
It's a bit frustrating that a large portion of articles just refer to "police" as a singular group. This article is about the Memphis Police Department.

If a ring of doctors were caught illegally selling organs, we wouldn't title an article "Doctors have been selling organs for years". If bank tellers in a specific city were taking some money off the top of deposits, we wouldn't write "Bank tellers have been stealing money for years".

I'm sure there are some national issues with policing in the United States, but most police organizations are local. It's very unlikely that every local organization is bad, and even if they were, it would be very unlikely that every local organization is bad in quite the same way.

I don't think headlines like this help us balance the discourse. There's no concerted effort by police nationwide to spy on black reporters and activists. This is about a problem in Memphis, Tennessee. The content of the article doesn't imply anything beyond that. The title is extremely sensationalized, and many people will only read that far.

>>rdgthr+yd
Personally, I find it a bit frustrating that a large portion of people refer to the 'Politicians' as a single group. Sure some politicians are corrupt, but you shouldn't simply call all politicians corrupt. I'm sure some, at least, are somewhat good.

The problem I find with arguments such as yours is that you're looking at the few exceptions to the norm and not the trend of policing in America. Yes, there are likely a few good police organizations just like there are likely a few good cops or a few good politicians. But the point is that when the institution as a greater whole is corrupt, then it calls into question even the few good people that remain complicit in its existence. You should be demanding answers from even the good apples and making sure they stay good, not give them a pass because they haven't gone bad yet.

>>fzeror+Ei
I expected this response, but I'm not defending or attacking police. This article mischaracterizes it's own contents and implies something more sinister and objectively false in the title.

This article is not about the institution as a greater whole. It's not about the bigger picture. It's about the Memphis PD. That's what's on the table here, and that's what the title should make clear.

Sensationalism is the concern, not criticism of police.

>>rdgthr+Zj
You're missing the greater picture because you seem to be ignoring the context in which the article itself was published. Which is that we're seeing a large amount of violence being committed by police across the US, including other instances of police tracking down people who record them on social media in cities like Seattle.

The article is about her experience with the local PD, yes. The context of the title relates to the here and now which is a data point in the greater picture of how the police in general behave. It's only sensationalism if you ignore everything else going on around us.

>>fzeror+0l
I don't agree that it's fair to imply that all police have been spying on black reporters and activists for years without providing any evidence for that claim because of the here and now.

I think I understand what you're aiming at. I think I would agree with you if the title wasn't so rigid, but it feels to me like a significant claim that extends beyond the here and now reality.