One for the anti-Taser brigade.

[spudchucka]

I have explained incidents to the media using words of only two sylables yet they still have details like the vehicles were travelling in the opposite direction, the wrong car crossing the centr-line and the wrong drivers for each car, the list is so long you would find it hard to comprehend how they do it.

You can even give it to them in writing and they still screw up.

[Lou Girardin]

Dissregarding this matter, you have a number of cops on this forum who regularly offer up the truth regarding police related issues and yet you and others of a similar mindset simply choose to dismiss our explanations as if we are just brainwashed employees towing the company line. Nothing could be further from the truth!

Why aren't we believed? Because the truth we provide doesn't match the preconcieved notions you hold about the police, you simply don't want to face up to the truth.

The trouble with this spud, is that many of you also do not know the truth. Just because your bosses say something is true, does not mean it is. (Unless you have direct access to research, that is)

[spudchucka]

The trouble with this spud, is that many of you also do not know the truth. Just because your bosses say something is true, does not mean it is. (Unless you have direct access to research, that is)

Did you ever stop to think that we might be speaking from experience? You seem to just expect that anything we say in defence of the police is due to brainwashing.

[Skyryder]

Did you ever stop to think that we might be speaking from experience? You seem to just expect that anything we say in defence of the police is due to brainwashing.

No one is claiming that you should not defend yourselves. But defend your arguements with some kind some kind of evidence. I quoted from a paper that may or may not have been true. I asked for some kind kind of evidence to support your claims that there was 'doubt etc' from what the Heald reported. None was forthcoming. All that came was opinions. This thread has shown that where no counter arguement can be given, generalisations and inuendo suffice.

Skyryder

[scumdog]

This thread has shown that where no counter arguement can be given, generalisations and inuendo suffice.

Skyryder

See, that's the difference between 'them' and 'us' - we would only counter any claims with facts, if we can't get any then we will only (at worst) offer opinion - rather than attack with generalisation, inuendo and outright fabrication

[Littleman]

No one is claiming that you should not defend yourselves. But defend your arguements with some kind some kind of evidence. I quoted from a paper that may or may not have been true. I asked for some kind kind of evidence to support your claims that there was 'doubt etc' from what the Heald reported. None was forthcoming. All that came was opinions. This thread has shown that where no counter arguement can be given, generalisations and inuendo suffice.

Skyryder

Skyryder, in law when one makes an allegation the onus is on them is to prove it. You raised this issue and expect/demand everyone else to do the homework to 'disprove it'.

A bit like me saying I've travelled to the moon and then saying...."well you guys prove that I didn't".

Your housewife-like piece of homework journalism/talkback rhetoric doesn't really cut the mustard on this one.

hey and remember guys.....Safer Communities Together

[spudchucka]

No one is claiming that you should not defend yourselves. But defend your arguements with some kind some kind of evidence. I quoted from a paper that may or may not have been true. I asked for some kind kind of evidence to support your claims that there was 'doubt etc' from what the Heald reported. None was forthcoming. All that came was opinions. This thread has shown that where no counter arguement can be given, generalisations and inuendo suffice.

Skyryder

I'm not saying whether the event happened or not, I wasn't there. What I am saying is that media reports are notoriously unreliable and for that reason you should take these reports on face value only, accepting that there will be a lot more to the true account of the event and that relying solely on the media as a source of information will ensure that you never know the full story. Therefore, basing your opinions on media reports makes you a fool with a big mouth.

[mangell6]

The media is about selling, how can I "create" a headline that will cause people to read the article. Its about "conning people" think about FOX in the US.
Most people only read the first few paragraphs of an article which is why the "facts"and "quotes" are placed in the articles bottom half. I read two reports by the same media organisation about a motorcycle accident, they both read differently and they did contain "some" of the facts albeit different ones.
Media and a pound of salt always go hand in hand.
BTW There are lots of dodgy people and some of tem are our friends.

[crash harry]

My opinion after reading the article is that the Herald staff have knowingly manipulated the facts to purposely make the story sound more interesting and left the reader making assumptions.

The New Zealand Herald is an collaboration of spin doctors, not intelligent journalist.

Damn straight. I have more contempt for the press in this country than I have even for the polliticians. And that's a lot.

[McJim]

Buwahahaha - instead of a cop bashing thread it's turned into a media bashing thread - I love it!

Why do the media sensationalise something?

Coz the public won't buy it otherwise ergo - it's the genaral public's fault for not paying attention to the mundane truth.

Fuck - I really hate that general public - what a bunch of wankers.


Hahahahah