Eight months into a reduced crime show diet

[rockymtnhigh]

Last fall I made a conscious decision to stop watching crime shows/cop shows. Primarily for personal reasons -- I teach constitutional criminal procedure, and rail on constitutional violations all day long; yet, I would come home and watch shows which blatantly ignored the constitution on a daily basis. So, I just went cold turkey. Deleted every timer I had that involved cops. It resulted in a much "lighter" diet of tv. Survivor, The Voice (new this spring for me), sitcoms: Big Bang Theory, Rules of Engagement, New Girl, HIMYM, 2.5 Dweebs, and much more usage of Netflix (with a steady helping of Stargate SG-1 and Atlantis). While I started watching Awake, I even dropped that one fairly quickly. The ONLY shows with cops that I watch regularly does not count -- Eureka and Haven.

Now, as I look back, I don't miss any of them -- yeah, I occasionally miss the "sights" of 5-0, but the show itself was one of the things that sparked my decision to bail. I am perfectly content with a diet rich in science fiction, comedy, and two weekly helpings of reality (Survivor/Voice), but I wish Survivor was better.

 

[Peter Parker]

If a show bothers you for any reason you are right to stop watching it. After all it is all supposed to be entertainment. But remember that these shows are intended as drama not reality. Shows about the legal system are likely no more or less accurate than shows about medicine, journalism, the old west, or space flight.

 

[rockymtnhigh]

The reality is these shows impact public opinion; as a teacher, I deal with the imagery created by them on a daily basis. I am quite capable of distinguishing drama from reality - but regardless, these shows "teach" ideas. I am always struck by Justice Douglas' dissent in a case in 1959 -- YES, 1959...

Decisions under the Fourth Amendment, taken in the long view, have not given the protection to the citizen which the letter and spirit of the Amendment would seem to require. One reason, I think, is that wherever a culprit is caught red-handed, as in leading Fourth Amendment cases, it is difficult to adopt and enforce a rule that would turn him loose. A rule protective of law-abiding citizens is not apt to flourish where its advocates are usually criminals. Yet the rule we fashion is for the innocent and guilty alike. If the word of the informer on which the present arrest was made is sufficient to make the arrest legal, his word would also protect the police who, acting on it, hauled the innocent citizen off to jail.

Of course, the education we receive from mystery stories and television shows teaches that what happened in this case is efficient police work. The police are tipped off that a man carrying narcotics will step off the morning train. A man meeting the precise description does alight from the train. No warrant for his arrest has been-or, as I see it, could then be-obtained. Yet he is arrest; and narcotics are found in his pocket and a syringe in the bag he carried. This is the familiar pattern of crime detection which has been dinned into public consciousness as the correct and efficient one. It is, however, a distorted reflection of the constitutional system under which we are supposed to live.

With all due deference, the arrest made here on the mere word of an informer violated the spirit of the Fourth Amendment and the requirement of the law, 26 U.S.C. (Supp. V) § 7607, 26 U.S.C.A. § 7607, governing arrests in narcotics cases. If an arrest is made without a warrant, the offense must be committed in the presence of the officer or the officer must have "reasonable grounds to believe that the person to be arrested has committed or is committing" a violation of the narcotics law. The arresting officers did not have a bit of evidence, known to them and as to which they could take an oath had they gone to a magistrate for a warrant, that petitioner had committed any crime. The arresting officers did not know the grounds on which the informer based his conclusion; nor did they seek to find out what they were. They acted solely on the informer's word. In my view that was not enough.

He could have written that today, yet, it was in 1959.

I simply decided I had enough and would not entertain myself with these dramas anymore. And all in all, I don't miss them at all.

I am not trying to argue for people not to watch them, just commenting on the choice I made for myself.

 

[lparsons21]

I can understand your position. But yet, even though the police dramas do stretch a constitutional point, they don't have to stretch it very far as our Congress critters, Administration and Supreme Court keep allowing for daily violations to occur under cover of the ill implemented Patriot Act and other straight up unconstitutional actions.

 

[rockymtnhigh]

I am not disagreeing. Just musing about how eight months after making a decision, I am pretty content with it.

 

[KE4EST]

I do the same with different genres of shows. I kicked sit-coms to the curb years ago, when they just got plain stupid, IMO. I always give a new one a shot, but just can't really watch, they seem to get worse every year. Again just my opinion.

 

[riffjim4069]

Yep, I can be a bit of a nitnoid when it comes to shows like Criminal Minds, CSI, etc. Perhaps nitnoid is a poor choice of words since most television series are glaringly unrealistic. In my case, I was overseas and didn't watch any television for around 6-years (95-01). When I met my wife, she couldn't stand watching certain shows with me since I would complain about how unbelievable and unrealistic the network shows had become. Anyway, I discovered that if I suspect belief for 60-minutes and treat these shows as theatrical fiction...well, then I'm fine with 'em. Offhand, I cannot watch reality shows since there is nothing "real" about them; the talent shows (e.g., The Voice, American Idol) are annoyingly terrible; and I find most Sci-Fi to be Stink-Hi.

As a Cybersecurity guy, I have to bite my tongue watching people (such as Penelope on Criminal Minds) gain access to secure systems (i.e., cut through multiple layers of physical and logical security), bypass mandatory two-factor authentication (access and identity mangement) systems, crack complex cryptographic algorithms in mere seconds---just like she were sitting down for a morning bowl of cereal--in order to access records that probably didn't even existing in electronic form back in the 1960s...records nobody would maintain...and, if they did, would require her to commit a crime by ignoring all known federal and state security and privacy laws on the books. But hey! These are the "good guys" so they are permitted to violate constitutional law in order to apprehend the bad guys. ;0

To be honest, I am dropping some of the crime-drama shows from my schedule simply because they are all so similar these days. Maybe that's why people watch shows like Storage Wars, Pawn Stars and Hoarders.

 

[rockymtnhigh]

I gave up on CSI years ago. That one was easy -- so ridiculous in terms of a distortion of reality - but it was more about the silly idea of the crime tech collecting data, analyzing it, interviewing suspects, and making arrests. Not to mention instant DNA analysis

 

[rockymtnhigh]

I do the same with different genres of shows. I kicked sit-coms to the curb years ago, when they just got plain stupid, IMO. I always give a new one a shot, but just can't really watch, they seem to get worse every year. Again just my opinion.

I love Big Bang Theory, but it seems like a show like it comes around once in a great while today. My wife and I also enjoy Rules of Engagement. I tried Rob! but it did not capture me; and at this point I just want to know who the damn mother is on HIMYM. Half of the episodes this season were hard to get through, and the other half, I haven't watched!

 

[Ramy]

I applaud you Mike. I have cut back on shows in general just because there is too much crap and reality shows, plus I just spend too much time in front of the boob tube.

 

[dfergie]

I've been drawn back to CSI this year with the addition of Sam / Ted and Elizebeth Shue and love Unforgettable... and the now dead Prime Suspect.

 

[jayn_j]

I tend to agree, Mike. We have also dropped all cop shows. We took it a step further, and dropped cable service and are attempting to make a go of it strictly on OTA and internet. That way we pretty much get to choose from a wider variety of content.

 

[TNGTony]

CSI and their "infinite resolution cameras" always make me groan!

 

[riffjim4069]

I gave up on CSI years ago. That one was easy -- so ridiculous in terms of a distortion of reality - but it was more about the silly idea of the crime tech collecting data, analyzing it, interviewing suspects, and making arrests. Not to mention instant DNA analysis

...don't forget to throw in drawing weapons each week, gun play every month or two, and working/traveling with the FBI and CIA to arrest a gang of International Terrorists or thugs involved with Human Trafficking.

 

[riffjim4069]

I tend to agree, Mike. We have also dropped all cop shows. We took it a step further, and dropped cable service and are attempting to make a go of it strictly on OTA and internet. That way we pretty much get to choose from a wider variety of content.

Yep, we could survive nice without a pay TV subscription...if only I could access live sports without having to subscribe to ESPN, NBCSN, etc. Plus, I just love how the Cable companies charge an addition $15-$20 for Internet only customers. Ugh!

 

[rockymtnhigh]

Yep, we could survive nice without a pay TV subscription...if only I could access live sports without having to subscribe to ESPN, NBCSN, etc. Plus, I just love how the Cable companies charge an addition $15-$20 for Internet only customers. Ugh!

I pay $15 for "basic" cable just because it is the same cost as internet without cable; its only value is as a "lifeline" if the dish goes out. But really? Its just an obnoxious surcharge.

I eliminated most movie channels, and went from America's Everything, to Top 200, and not sure I need that.

 

[Peter Parker]

I think we all probably pay for more than we want and certainly more than we need. As Jim pointed out though it is hard to avoid doing so if there area few channels we want in the upper packages. i have a somewhat different standard fro entertainment shows tthan the OP but if the way events are presented on cop shows bothers him more than it entertains him he is doing the right thing.

 

[KE4EST]

.....and went from America's Everything, to Top 200, and not sure I need that.

From my experience, excluding sports, the Top 120 has what 90% of people watch.

 

[riffjim4069]

From my experience, excluding sports, the Top 120 has what 90% of people watch.

In our case, 75% of everything we watch is obtained using free over-the-air antennas. Although my wife and I have programming we enjoy on Cable (TBS, TNT, Lifetime, FNC) we can do without and save $100+ per month...if it weren't for freaking Sports! Sure, I guess there are always the subscription sports packages to get around paying the ESPNs, TNTs, NBCSNs, and Regional Sports Networks. However, the ESPNs counter by obtaining rights to major Golf events, NBCSN broadcasts NHL Playoff games on CNBS, and the BTN ensures that you can only watch certain games on their sports channel. Moreover, when you add up subscribing to MLB Extra Innings, NFL Sunday Ticker (DirectTV), NBA League Pass, NHL Center Ice, ESPN Full Court, ESPN GamPlan...it's cost prohibitive. Plus, who wants to watch 30 or more teams plan when you only have time (and care about) one or two. Why can't I sign-up for a Detroiter package, for example, if that's the only team I follow? I'm no fan of legislation, but I think all the sports networks need to be offered al a carte.

 

[rockymtnhigh]

In our case, 75% of everything we watch is obtained using free over-the-air antennas. Although my wife and I have programming we enjoy on Cable (TBS, TNT, Lifetime, FNC) we can do without and save $100+ per month...if it weren't for freaking Sports! Sure, I guess there are always the subscription sports packages to get around paying the ESPNs, TNTs, NBCSNs, and Regional Sports Networks. However, the ESPNs counter by obtaining rights to major Golf events, NBCSN broadcasts NHL Playoff games on CNBS, and the BTN ensures that you can only watch certain games on their sports channel. Moreover, when you add up subscribing to MLB Extra Innings, NFL Sunday Ticker (DirectTV), NBA League Pass, NHL Center Ice, ESPN Full Court, ESPN GamPlan...it's cost prohibitive. Plus, who wants to watch 30 or more teams plan when you only have time (and care about) one or two. Why can't I sign-up for a Detroiter package, for example, if that's the only team I follow? I'm no fan of legislation, but I think all the sports networks need to be offered al a carte.

Amen, brother. Can I hear an Amen?

Sent from my iPad using SatelliteGuys