For about 12 minutes db and I tried to watch "24." We like spy-type shows (too bad "24" isn't produced by the BBC; then I'd probably watch it), and it'd been recommended countless times by many folks, so we tuned in. Good lord, that is a load of tripe! Firstly, it's completely nonsensical, which can be OK in a mind-numbing teevee kind of way--but if that's all it is, it needs to be a lot funnier for me to stick w/ it.
"24" is not so funny--not intentionally anyway--it's superficial and posturing and underwritten and had, for the short time we watched it, this odd macho, right-wingish thing working, and I simply have no time for fictionalized versions of that when our current gubmint is replete with multiple redundant examples of disastrous macho posturing.
We cannot see the backs of these criminals fast enough. If there is any
justice on earth, they will have to answer for their crimes. And I
don't just mean the Bush madministration. Journalists, j'accuse!
How Hollywood Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the (Ticking) Bomb
I discovered that when I gave interviews to major media on this
subject, any time I used the word “torture” with reference to these
techniques, the interview passage would not be used. At one point I was
informed by a cable news network that “we put this on international,
because we can’t use that word
on the domestic feed.” “That word” was torture. I was coached or told
that the words “coercive interrogation technique” were fine, but
“torture” was a red light. Why? The Administration objected vehemently
to the use of this word. After all, President Bush has gone before the
cameras and stated more than three dozen times “We do not torture.” By
using the T-word, I was told, I was challenging the honesty of the
president. You just couldn’t do that.
In
early 2005, I took a bit of time to go through one newspaper—The New
York Times—to examine its use of the word “torture”. I found that the
word “torture” was regularly used to described a neighbor who played
his stereo too loud, or some similar minor nuisance. Also the word
“torture” could be used routinely to describe techniques used by
foreign powers which were hostile to the United States. But the style
rule seemed very clear: it could not be used in reporting associated
with anything the Bush Administration was doing.
So yeah, Scott Horton found that what used to be the tool of the
enemy--that is, torture--is now the tool of Jack Bauer. This he finds
troubling, as do I.
We should start with a frank question: has “24” been created with an
overtly political agenda, namely, to create a more receptive public
audience for the Bush Administration’s torture policies? I think the
answer to that question is now very clear. The answer is “yes.” In
“Whatever It Takes,” Jane Mayer has waded through the sheaf of contacts
between the show’s producer, Joel Surnow, and Vice President Cheney and
figures right around him. There is little ambiguity about this point,
namely, if the torture system introduced after 9/11 can be traced back
to a single person, it is Vice President Cheney. He pushed relentlessly
for use of the tools of the “dark side,” and he ruthlessly took out
everyone who stood in his way. He also worked feverishly to disguise or
cloak his intimate involvement in the entire process. I take it as a
given that Surnow is working to develop public attitudes which are more
accepting of torture; to overturn centuries-old prejudices against
torture. He is a torture-enabler.
Jeebus H.