The Politics Of TV Torture Shown On '24'; Shame On You For Your Lies, Joel Surnow

[rebel with a cause]

"Here's the best evidence for a TV show boycott I've seen recently. Because, way too often, that medium's producers and writers forget the very real consequences their shows have on the perception of America both abroad and at home. So, in “Whatever It Takes” in the new issue of The New Yorker, journalist Jane Mayer looks at the effect of those prevalent torture scenes in Fox TV's 24 orchestrated by its self-professed "right-wing nut job", co-creator and executive Joel Surnow. I've just read the article, and I gotta say that Surnow comes off as one of Hollywood's biggest assholes. He told Mayer, “We’ve had all of these torture experts come by recently, and they say, ‘You don’t realize how many people are affected by this. Be careful.’ They say torture doesn’t work. But I don’t believe that." But the facts are clear: 24’s regular depiction of torture as an interrogation method has touched off a culture clash between its producers and top military / law-enforcement officials over its effectiveness. Mayer reports: “This past November, U.S. Army Brigadier General Patrick Finnegan, the dean of the United States Military Academy at West Point, flew to Southern California to meet with the creative team behind ’24.” Finnegan…was accompanied by three of the most experienced military and F.B.I. interrogators in the country. had come to voice their concern that the show’s central political premise—that the letter of American law must be sacrificed for the country’s security—was having a toxic effect. In their view, the show promoted unethical and illegal behavior and had adversely affected the training and performance of real American soldiers.” According to Finnegan, misperceptions spread by 24 had made it “increasingly hard to convince some cadets that America had to respect the rule of law and human rights, even when terrorists did not.” The experts told 24’s producers that contrary to the impression offered by their show, torture is not just illegal, but also unreliable. Of the show, Joel Surnow says, “Our only politics are that terrorists are bad.” But Mayer points out that “many prominent conservatives speak of 24 as if it were real.” A friend of Surnow’s joked that the conservative writers at 24 have become “like a Hollywood television annex to the White House. It’s like an auxiliary wing.” (Surnow and several others from the show even attended a private luncheon at the White House.) How tragic for TV audiences that, just like that White House crowd, here's another right-winger who won't let the facts get in the way of his ideology. There's only one recourse: stop watching 24."

http://www.deadlinehollywooddaily.com/the-politics-of-torture-scenes-on-24-shame-on-you-for-your-lies-joel-surnow/

I use to watch "24" but no longer, not even to study how they were portraying the terrorist. Twenty minutes into this season and I flicked it off. It has become too clear to me that this is a propaganda tool for the neo war hawks in this country. Kieffer had better do something quick, or he may become known as a war profiter. Don't tell me about his grandfather being a socialist, my father was a baptist minister and you don't see me in church.

[Skittles]

1. I figured that out in the first season

yup

[6000eliot]

2. I've always thought the show is nuts,

but it IS just a TV show in the end. If US soldiers get their information on torture from a fictional TV show, then we are all in trouble, and not just from terrorists or RW nutjobs.

[ixion]

5. TV Show, Broadcast News = same information source

neither should be considered reliable sources for information, IMO.

[Cerridwen]

9. Then "we are all in trouble." At least according to another article

about this posted last night in which some big-wigs from the military went and talked with the people at '24'. I'll go see if I can find the link and some snippets in which the military guys are discussing the effect this program is having on their recruits.

edit for links and snips

from this DU thread http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=175285&mesg_id=175285 which linked to these 2 articles

http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/496341p-418187c.html

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/070219fa_fact_mayer

From the second article/link above

<snip>

Finnegan, who is a lawyer, has for a number of years taught a course on the laws of war to West Point seniors—cadets who would soon be commanders in the battlefields of Iraq and Afghanistan. He always tries, he said, to get his students to sort out not just what is legal but what is right. However, it had become increasingly hard to convince some cadets that America had to respect the rule of law and human rights, even when terrorists did not. One reason for the growing resistance, he suggested, was misperceptions spread by “24,” which was exceptionally popular with his students. As he told me, “The kids see it, and say, ‘If torture is wrong, what about “24”?’ ” He continued, “The disturbing thing is that although torture may cause Jack Bauer some angst, it is always the patriotic thing to do.”

Gary Solis, a retired law professor who designed and taught the Law of War for Commanders curriculum at West Point, told me that he had similar arguments with his students. He said that, under both U.S. and international law, “Jack Bauer is a criminal. In real life, he would be prosecuted.” Yet the motto of many of his students was identical to Jack Bauer’s: “Whatever it takes.” His students were particularly impressed by a scene in which Bauer barges into a room where a stubborn suspect is being held, shoots him in one leg, and threatens to shoot the other if he doesn’t talk. In less than ten seconds, the suspect reveals that his associates plan to assassinate the Secretary of Defense. Solis told me, “I tried to impress on them that this technique would open the wrong doors, but it was like trying to stomp out an anthill.”

<snip>

The third expert at the meeting was Tony Lagouranis, a former Army interrogator in the war in Iraq. He told the show’s staff that DVDs of shows such as “24” circulate widely among soldiers stationed in Iraq. Lagouranis said to me, “People watch the shows, and then walk into the interrogation booths and do the same things they’ve just seen.” He recalled that some men he had worked with in Iraq watched a television program in which a suspect was forced to hear tortured screams from a neighboring cell; the men later tried to persuade their Iraqi translator to act the part of a torture “victim,” in a similar intimidation ploy. Lagouranis intervened: such scenarios constitute psychological torture.

<snip>

(much more at links)

[rebel with a cause]

12. I think this may be the article that

my author was talking about. Makes you think, huh.

It makes me remember that in the past the government used battle cries/songs to get soldiers to carry out missions with zeal. "Remember the Alamo". "Remember the Maine", "Remember Pearl Harbor", "Battle Hymn of the Republic", "Over There", and some songs from WWII that I won't even post because they are just too racist. There were also movies that were pretty biased in their stories. So now they have tv shows to glorify torture and targeting of certain groups.

[Cerridwen]

13. Yes, I thought that's what I read, too.

It makes me think that we damned well better start teaching our children and each other about critical thinking and how to use it.

As you said, rallying cries have existed for milenia - I'm trying to remember what the Roman soldiers used as they invaded each country and created, er 'peace.' Now we have the technology to rally the civilians along with the troops. Oh, yeah, propaganda's great! /sarcasm

[EST]

3. Please, please, please-

try to break up your valued communication into smaller chunks for us slow readers.

Think of writing as you speak; with a break to draw your breath and to see if your audience is keeping up.

I am sure you have some good poop here, but trying to glom all the way through in one breath is dizzying and difficult in the extreme.

Thank you for your work.

[rebel with a cause]

7. It is an article/posting that I cut and pasted.

My stuff is usually broken into paragraphs, list, and so on, because I too don't like reading a long run on paragraph. Sorry about this, I didn't think it would be quite that much and it was late at night/early morning when I posted it. :7

[ixion]

4. having never been interested in '24', I won't be watching, I can assure you.

I watched a few minutes of it during the first season, and that was all I needed. The politics of the show are very clear -- black and white, if you will. It works under the assumption that the US is always on the right, no matter who it decides to torture.

Oh, and Sutherland is a hack actor, at best.

[aikoaiko]

6. I suppose you want me to give up Dirty Harry and Deathwish movies too.

:shrug:

[rebel with a cause]

8. It's a free country. do what you like.

I have to admit that I liked "24" that first season, but then I had rented it on tape and watched the whole season in two days. My kids liked it also, but they decided at the end of season 2 that is was all propaganda. They didn't like it when I pointed out that "Alias" presented the same message. I continued to watch "24" because of my interest in how the government was being portrayed in contrast with other groups. I liked Tony and Michelle's characters more than anyone else. This year, I said no more, especially since I knew about the retreat and that Mary Lynn Rajskub (Chloe) was dating Rush Limbaugh.


Edited for grammer.

[LizW]

10. There was a scene in an earlier season

where Bauer set up a video hookup and showed it to a suspect that showed his child apparently being killed when the suspect wouldn't talk. It portrayed the suspect as evil and crazy because he "allowed" his child to be killed. Bauer was portrayed as the good guy because it was not actually real. (The child actually WAS snatched and tied up, crying hysterically, with guns pointed at him. He wasn't killed, though.)

I never watched another episode. That was enough for me.

[rebel with a cause]

11. If you remember the suspect broke down and talked to keep

them from killing anyone else, so the suspect was not so evil in my mind. I didn't get the feeling that anyone (characters) on the show thought Jack was the good guy when it appeared he had killed the boy. But that was good compared to other seasons where the killing was for real and not just a mind game.

The only good thing they did was when they had the president as the top terrorist. Now that was believable. :evilgrin:

[Mike Daniels]

14. I find in interesting that the entertainment industry continues to bestow awards upon the sh

Apparently, the actual practitioners of the craft (actors, writers, etc..) see it simply as a well-crafted show.

Until you change their minds the show is going to continue to be successful.