I think a much simpler test is to ask if the police body camera footage is "missing", and if it is to assume they're probably lying.

There is no reason to withhold it or turn off cameras in a situation like this.

> My litmus test for what sources to believe has narrowed to ones which declare both good and bad actions by any parties.

Doesn't pass the sniff test. There's no guarantee that any relevant impropriety took place on the part of both parties and even if it exists there is no requirement that it justifies the other's actions. This false balance just serves to blame victims and excuse abusers.

Consider: Is it important to note that a robbery victim also received a parking ticket in her past?

> Cops can abuse surveillance authorities and protestors can be violent. There's no requirement that only one party does bad things.

Ok but where is the evidence that both parties did something bad? And that the response of the cops was justified and appropriate?

The real problem here is that this is bad policing. They aren't improving public safety, they're harassing their political opponents.

Didn't write anything about justification.

Just wrote that typically anyone with power abuses it. And that includes both sides.

I've seen too many movements convinced of their own righteousness and neglect keeping their house in order.

Or have you never seen a group who tolerates problematic individuals (and keeps silence about them) because they're "one of the group"?

This still sounds like faulty logic. The existence of bias in one case doesn't prove it in all cases. Sometimes there really is just an innocent victim. Further, there's no reason to believe there are two sides to any issue. Reality is messy. Your test is too simplistic and fails basic validation.

> The existence of bias in one case doesn't prove it in all cases.

It proves a source has an editorial department that is either fine with the piece as written or didn't do due diligence.

Rarely is there really just an innocent victim. Reality is messy.

For that to work you have to prove the bias for each publication. You can't just assume that it exists in all cases.

Per source, yes.

> It's statistically unlikely that any one side has a monopoly on righteousness and good ideas

It's statistically very likely that a "side" with power (economic, monopolies on violence, etc) is more likely to abuse power than a "side" without power...

Would you look at the Stanford Prison Experiment and say that the prisoners are just as likely to be doing "the bad stuff" as the guards?

Maybe both sides have an even distribution of shitty people, but that's not what matters. What matters is the shitty things that are being done. Its statistically much more likely that a side that has more power is doing more of the shitty things

> It's statistically very likely that a "side" with power (economic, monopolies on violence, etc) is more likely to abuse power than a "side" without power...

Isn't this tautology? Only the side with power can act on its abusive impulses.

In an actual prison where gangs and alliances are allowed to form, you'd damn well better bet shitty people on the inmate side would still abuse their power.

That's human nature, and there's power everywhere.

They still don't have as much power as the guards. Therefore they don't have as much power to abuse