5 thoughts on “Blue Bloods Handles Police Controversies in the Most Cowardly Way Possible

  1. “BLUE BLOODS” has always bothered me in part due to it being so merrily honest about how it has “NYPD consultants” as part of the crew for “accuracy.” While on the surface, I am sure this aids with technical things like weapons procedure or various bureaucratic quirks few in Hollywood would know. But beneath, it always makes the show seem like propaganda, or “copaganda” as some people call it now. Many, many articles by various journalists and critics have talked about not only the influx of cop shows on networks, as well as the increased violence, but the cosy relationship the production crews usually have with local cops and how that public image feeds into how cops act in “real life.”

    “BLUE BLOODS” happens to air on CBS, which is at least moderately conservative as a network. Their audience skews older, and older people usually are conservative. Their former CEO literally bragged on tape about how they were helping bolster Donald Trump’s political profile during the 2016 election for ratings and how it, to paraphrase, “may not be good for the country, but [darn] good for CBS.” They’re far from the worst or only mainstream network like this, but they have a bias, is what I am saying. A cynic might say “BLUE BLOODS” is one of the most expensive and star studded police recruitment videos ever. But most cop shows on TV teach the “lessons” that: the police are never wrong, only a few “bad apples” are bad and ALWAYS get caught and purged, good cops break rules and brutalize suspects for the greater good, the court system and investigation system are always fair, and the majority of the worst criminals are people of color or youngsters. It is, frankly, a bigger fantasy than “THE FLASH,” and arguably more destructive to society.

    I suppose that could dovetail into how many superheroes have a cosy relationship with the police and/or the military, and in many instances just act as an extra-legal wing of them (on top of usual fictional cops who are “heroes” no matter how many suspects they brutalize, innocent witnesses they terrorize, or bodies they pile up). Just watch a cop show from the 60s or 70s and then watch “BLUE BLOODS” or “CHICAGO P.D.” or “LAW & ORDER: [PICK ONE]” and the shift in violence and the stuff even heroic, sympathetic law enforcers are expected to get away with is staggering.

    So mentioning that “BLUE BLOODS” handles police controversies in “cowardly,” wishy washy, “acknowledge it but never fix it” ways, is almost par for the course. A shame, but not a surprise.

  2. The treatment of the media in a lot of cop films (Dirty Harry, Predator 2, Die Hard) bugs me for similar reasons. When they criticize the police it’s never for legit problems, it’s because they’re sleazy tabloid journalists ginning up controversy for ratings.

  3. That’s gross, but that’s what gets me about Blue Bloods. It’s not even bold enough to BE GROSS and take a “The media is always wrong, cops are always right” position. Just a “Oh, no, we get that cops are often wrong, and we definitely need police reform. We just won’t ever show you instances of said reform being needed, and only the cases where the media is wrong. But we agree, police reform is definitely needed!” It’s just totally chicken.

  4. Blue Bloods basically wants to appeal to its core audience of mostly conservative boomers, while still trying to maintain a veneer of respectability with wider audiences that they also want to tune in.

  5. “BLUE BLOODS” has always bothered me in part due to it being so merrily honest about how it has “NYPD consultants” as part of the crew for “accuracy.”

    Hope that means they they have storylines based on the things the NYPD does, like raping immigrant women to take advantage of the language and legal barriers.

    Fuck Copaganda.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *