I think the reason there are so many cop shows is because cop shows are easy to write and the same goes for the related genre of detective and lawyer shows. They are a no brainer. It would take a really creative and knowledgeable writer to portray steelworkers, autoworkers or utility workers etc.
For example, I'll bet Doug could write a really gripping tele-drama about New York City utility workers. I mean its got to be a jungle down there. The fellows at the Baffler, I'm sure could write some knock your socks off stuff about steelworkers or autoworkers. So could Mike Davis.
In laymans language, it would take real talent.
Your email pal,
Tom L.
Charles Brown wrote:
> I wouldn't want anybody to think that I agree with Paul that I am not basing my theory of cop shows on material evidence. In this case, my evidence is from many, many years of watching television, unfortunately. But that misfortune has the sideeffect of accumulating mountains of data. That there might be two or three shows today that are exceptions to this generalization does not detract from the observation that the main effect of cop shows is not to foster
> critique of the role of police in our society. Even Paul's description of the shows he refers to is not convincing to me that these are exceptions to the general pattern.
>
> On empirical evidence, Prof. Frithjof Bergman once pointed out in a class on philosophy of science, that social sciences are sometimes plagued by a tendency to make statements that tell us less than we know already. Most of us have enormous (and sufficiently random) samples of what is on television in general. We don't need a sociological data survey to tell us what we already know at least in some dimensions. Social scientists should be resourceful in using facts we already have from our experience.
>
> Another fact I feel sure in is that there are a disproportionate number of cop shows relative to other occupations. I haven't seen any shows based on auto or steelworkers lives. There are very few or none on busdrivers, etc. , etc.
>
> Charles Brown
>
> >>> Paul Henry Rosenberg <rad at gte.net> 01/26 6:08 PM >>>
> Well, I went WAY over-limit yesterday, so today I*m trying to make
> amends. So I offer one response to all comers on the variously-named
> cops thread.
>
> Where to begin?
>
> How about the beginning: It all began with Charles Brown writing
>
> > Don't you think that
> > cops as heroes/oppressors is Judy's subjection of us ?
> > Television, which I call Big Brother that we watch instead
> > of BB watching us, is a main site of subjection. Think of
> > how many cop shows there are, where they make cops such
> > lovable people ?
>
> and me questioning this lumping together of all TV cop shows.
>
> My point here is that it*s quite wrong to make generalizations about ALL
> cop shows which are only true about the major thrust of MOST of them.
> It misses all the interesting complexity and contradictions, as well as
> distracting attention from what really IS true about all of them. This
> seems elementary to me.
>
> In the middle of his long response to me today, Charles says:
>
> > Paul
> > I'm not talking about "the television shows", I'm talking
> > about SPECIFIC shows: "Homicide" and "Law & Order." Your
> > statement is objectively false when applied to these two
> > shows. BOTH of them have dealt with police violence &
> > corruption, as well as with the repressive nature of
> > the law itself.
> >
> > Charles: Those shows, if they are as you say, are exceptions.
> > Most television shows are not subtle critiques of the police
> > and the legal system.
>
> In other words, Charles provisionally AGREES with me--they ARE
> exceptions, which was, after all, my point all along: *cop shows* are
> not a unitary thing.
>
> Now, why and how can he go on and on attacking me with no idea in hell
> what I*m talking about, since he hasn*t seen the shows???
>
> What I*m all het up about is the contempt for empirical evidence that
> this betrays, and which I think permeates a hell of a lot of left
> thought, much to our detriment.
>
> Doug, of course, is a shining example to the contrary, and since we*re
> all here under his auspices, it seems like as good a place as any to
> make a stand on the side of evidence.
>
> Now, Charles and I have both had our fun saying nasty little things
> about each others cognitive abilities and such, and it*s mighty tempting
> to continue a bit longer in that vein. But, as Dylan Thomas famously
> asked, *Is Your Ernie Really Necessary?* Alas, no.
>
> Charles egreggiously misrepresents me numerous times and I could have my
> jollies having back at him, but for many of this list all this would
> amount to would be some kind of male identity performance. Yawn.
>
> The deeper question is why does this happen?
>
> Charles and I undoubtedly have lots of other points on which we agree,
> and we could have disagreed about this in a much more productive way, so
> why did this happen? Why does it (not ALWAYS, but SEEMINGLY) ALWAYS
> happen?
>
> Part of it, I*m sure, is learned helplessness, and part of it is Freud*s
> *narcissism of small differences.* We can probably build quite a
> catalog of explanations. How do we understand their relative
> importance, and more importantly, how do we actually DO something about
> it? This seems to me part of what motivated Doug to start this list in
> the first place.
>
> I do think that part of the problem HAS to trace back to the kinds of
> ideas we cultivate and how well they relate to material conditions.
>
> Dipping back into the realm of content, I think that the kind of
> cultural studies developed in England--Stuart Hall & such--was much more
> respectful of the empirical, and that this had a number of beneficial
> effects, not just ideologically, but also in a day-to-day sense.
> Arguing over facts of necessity brings you together in a way, while
> arguing over theories CAN allow you--and in the wrong circumstances
> wildly over-reward you--to diverge.
>
> I believe that this has been part of the influence of French Theory in
> America over the past 20 years or so, and I think it is pretty much of a
> Bad Thing. But I hardly think that that explains everything. It
> doesn*t even begin to explain *Why Theory?* In the long run, I think
> that Theory is just one manifestation of more fundamental underlying
> problems, and so I don*t want to reify and demonize it excessively. I*d
> like to cultivate a measured critique of it, even if it is much more fun
> to just satirize the hell out of it.
>
> One thing*s for sure--there*s something very alluring about Theory.
> It*s mind candy for grad students. But that does not a balanced diet
> make. If old-fashioned Marxism seems dull as meat-and-potatoes, who can
> be surprised at the rise of Theory. But there are other options. Mike
> Davis shows that, and the recent attacks on him should tell us
> something. He*s seen as a threat. This should catch our attention.
> Lani Guinier is another figure under attack who should have caught our
> attention more. George Lakoff is another who hasn*t been attacked, but
> whose ideas about understanding and confronting rightwing moral
> discourse deserve our attention in the face of such attacks.
>
> There are ways of thinking closely connected to the real world that can
> excite, can reach everyday people, and can challenge the smartest of us
> to get smarter in response, ways that, unlike Theory in general, are not
> so ignorant of history that they labor mightily to reinvent the wheel.
> (Someone smart recently pointed out that Butler just seems to be saying
> that people make history, but not under conditions of their own
> choosing.)
>
> I don*t think that Theory is the goblin here. I think the tendency to
> undervalue history, undervalue stubborn, specific facts is far broader
> than that. I*m not talking about dull fact-mongering. I love the
> struggle to make facts stand forth in shining significance so that they
> may inspire the larger struggle.
>
> So I talk about *Buffy, The Vampire Slayer* and *Law & Order* a whole
> lot more than I talk about television.
>
> Blake spoke about *minute particulars* and he was onto something,
> believe you me.
>
> Context is everything. It gives specific meaning. It allows us to know
> what we*re talking about. That grain of sand contains the universe in
> just this way...
>
> --
> Paul Rosenberg
> Reason and Democracy
> rad at gte.net
> --
> Paul Rosenberg
> Reason and Democracy
> rad at gte.net
>
> "Let's put the information BACK into the information age!"