So why not add a rating for bad police?
The post-George Floyd era presents an excellent opportunity to discuss how entertainment can create a space for dialogue and education. Audiences could use some help in understanding the concept of qualified immunity as they debate police behaviors. “Qualified immunity” is a legal term that has been bandied around a great deal in policing conversations with a limited explanation of legal ramifications to citizens. We could also use some tools to help us identify and respond to “Copaganda”.
Copaganda is not a new phenomenon; however, the current times indicate the need for greater awareness and understanding of its power to shape political and cultural discourse. Copaganda can be applied to media narratives that operate almost entirely from the perspective of law enforcement, such as programs like “Cops,” “The Shield,” “Miami Vice,” and movies like “Dirty Harry,” “Bad Boys,” and “Beverly Hill Cop.”
These narratives offer no space for critiquing policing while presenting numerous examples of “bad policing.” Not only do these narratives privilege the perspective of law enforcement, but they also often present communities as crime-ridden hellscapes that need a strong police presence, thus justifying “bad policing.” Media critic George Gerbner coined the term “scary world syndrome” for those who begin seeing the world outside their home as dangerous and hostile. This “scary world syndrome” can make citizens more accepting and less critical of police behaviors, allowing “Copaganda” to have a significant influence on public debates around policing. Giving the audience tools to critique media should be seen as a positive.
Film and television narratives play an important role in how the public engages with important political and cultural conversations. Content creators’ willingness to address the role of smoking has had a noticeable impact, with fewer people, particularly young people, taking up the habit. Perhaps a greater awareness of “bad policing” would lead those who create entertainment to think carefully about how it is used in the narrative.
Creators would have to provide the audience with more context around policing decisions and spend some screen time on the consequences of decisions.
Perhaps it is time for the normalization of “bad policing” to receive a bit more scrutiny from content creators. Greater scrutiny and labeling of “bad policing” present the audience with tools to engage the content, and we should welcome the prospect of a more nuanced policing conversation. Or maybe the audience will always be comfortable with “bad policing” if it’s restricted to the bad guys who “deserve” it, and it scratches our escapist itch.