> I often wonder about the agenda of these journalists/news outlets
Headlines sell.
> That does not mean that these reports aren't exaggerated.
Out of the 300 million people living here in the US, half on the edge, I'd say if the sentiment you're trying to protect was even remotely true, every other person would know someone that's been affected by the police state.
> but it does neither mean you're anecdotal experience is un-biased in measuring the situation.
If my lack of terrorist friends makes me anecdotal, then you've already formed a seriously biased view of the US.
Similarly, I don't know any poor people. Or any people with serious mental problems. Or people living off of welfare. Or religious people. Yet there are a lot of those. Does that mean that all the reports on these groups and their problems are exaggerated?
Which is exactly why we should be concerned about the removal of longstanding checks and balances designed to catch such mistakes before they do damage.
Judges aren't perfect either, but requiring the government to have to convince a judge of its case before shutting down someone's business is still a very important piece of due process.
That does not mean that these reports aren't exaggerated -- I often wonder about the agenda of these journalists/news outlets--, but it does neither mean you're anecdotal experience is un-biased in measuring the situation.