Ezra Klein: Of Bauer and Broder

March 25, 2007

Of Bauer and Broder

Kevin Drum chronicles the schizophrenic political personality of 24. This seems to be another case where mass media ventures seeking the widest audiences find it best not to display clear partisan loyalties. Assuming a bell-shaped distribution of political ideologies among possible viewers, some kind of ambiguous middle position will turn off the least number of people and allow you to hook the biggest audience.

This sort of market-driven nonpartisanship is okay when it's going on in the construction of fictional works, which aren't under the same responsibilities to represent the truth, though it'd be much better if they did. (I haven't watched the show much -- I unplugged my TV when Buffy went off the air -- but I'd be happy if they gave some nod to the fact that torture gives you terribly unreliable information. Has this point ever been made on 24?) In any case, the real problem is when it infects political reporting and commentary, which are supposed to be grounded in reality. If mass media outlets see that the least risky route to profit involves appeasing the pre-existing political views of their audience, they'll likely get it wrong when truth lies mostly on one side of the debate or the other.

March 25, 2007 | Permalink

Comments

In any case, the real problem is when it infects political reporting and commentary, which are supposed to be grounded in reality.

Says who? The extent to which people understand the healthcare crisis, it's framed by Grey's Anatomy and ER; the left likes to present the White House as if it's The West Wing; what we know of the mob has as much to do with The Godfather, Goodfellas, and The Sopranos as it does anything factual. Hell, we've long asserted that the problem with Ronald Reagan was that he governed not the real America, but the one he saw in the movies. Fictional presentations in movies and film (and to a lesser extent, now anyway, books and plays) have served as metaphors and examples practically since they came into existence. Indeed, as a nation, we wanted to believe in that screen-size America presented to us by Reagan and others. Is it healthy? Of course not. It's dangerous to put so much credibility into the purely fictional. But 24 is only one example out of many, maybe not the worst (nor, I think, the best). And as much as some people use it as their proof or their metaphor, I don't think 24 alone is why people have become less resistant to the idea of torture, nor do I think it has convinced a large swath of the public that torture is okay (or that it works). The problem isn't where the truth lies... it's believing that fiction will provide us with the whole truth.

Posted by: weboy | Mar 25, 2007 3:46:36 PM

"but I'd be happy if they gave some nod
to the fact that torture gives you terribly
unreliable information. Has this point ever
been made on 24?)"

One of the brilliant accomplishments of 24
has been to *frame* the issue of torture
with the question of whether or not torture
is an effective way to gather information.
But if you look at history, that has rarely
been the reason for using torture, instead
it is used (very effectively) to intimidate
opponents ("if we decide to go after you,
we'll make sure you'll be to be point of
begging us for death"). It has also been
used extensively to get false confessions.

The Bush administration has shown over and
over again that it is not interested in
accurate information. So why (even if they
believed that tortured worked to get accurate
information) have they worked so hard to get
the legal cover to torture? The reason is that
they understand the power of torture to
increase their power.

"In any case, the real problem is when it
infects political reporting and commentary,
which are supposed to be grounded in reality."

There are a number of real problems:

This show, has helped make the American public
apathetic about torture, and less likely for
troops to speak out again torture such as
Joseph Darby (a real American hero).

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/02/19/070219fa_fact_mayer

http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/us_law/etn/primetime/

Posted by: Terry | Mar 25, 2007 5:58:04 PM

I've never seen torture produce bad information on 24 that I can recall. But the good guys on Lost have tortured bad guys a couple times, and it's never worked. In a recent episode, one of the good guys (a former torturer in the Iraqi Republican Guard) was kidnapped by the husband of one of his former victims and tortured until he confessed. He did confess, but the show left it ambiguous whether he was telling the truth.

Posted by: Greg | Mar 25, 2007 6:05:24 PM

My guess: the makers of Lost oppose Bush's policy; the makers of 24 agree with it.

Posted by: Sanpete | Mar 25, 2007 6:41:47 PM

Yeah, we unpllugged after buffy, too. Now its nothing but dvds for us.

aimai

Posted by: aimai | Mar 25, 2007 7:22:28 PM

I can't come up with specific examples, but it's definitely been the case that Bauer has tortured the wrong people on occasion -- people without the information he thought they had. At least I think that's happened. This season, he tortured his brother (!) and got inaccurate information.

I agree with Drum. I'd say the show is mostly conservative, but it has these weird dimensions of liberalism as well.

Posted by: Ankush | Mar 25, 2007 10:00:15 PM

"fictional works, which aren't under the same responsibilities to represent the truth, though it'd be much better if they did. "

Much better? Fiction would be much better if it were not permitted to be . . .fictional?

C'mon. Did Alice in Wonderland represent the truth? Did Paradise Lost? Did Star Wars? Did An Inconvenient Truth?

Cheese, even Pontius Pilate was reported to have asked, "What is truth?"

So why should anyone accept only YOUR version?

Posted by: Stella Baskomb | Mar 25, 2007 10:59:27 PM

"I'd be happy if they gave some nod to the fact that torture gives you terribly unreliable information. Has this point ever been made on 24?"

I haven't watched the show for a while, but in season 4 at least 3 characters who were tortured were completely innocent and had no information to provide (the SecDef's son and son-in-law and a CTU agent).

They all seemed to get over it pretty quickly, though.

Posted by: Mikef | Mar 26, 2007 1:28:33 AM

Here's my Washinton Montly comment that doesn't seem to be going through:

"So this is yet more fodder for the fire: is 24 an inherently
conservative show because of its message that torture is necessary,
torture works, and only weak-kneed liberals object to it? Jane Mayer
reignited the debate last month with a piece in the New Yorker that
investigated 24's conservative roots."

Here is the link to the New Yorker article:

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/02/19/070219fa_fact_mayer

Jane Mayer's article was about much more than whether or not 24
is conservative. The main point was that Patrick Finnegan (dean
of West Point) and 3 professional interrogators met with the
producers of 24 and asked them to please stop glamorizing torture.
General Finnegan had found that 24 was having a toxic effect on
his students. To quote from the article:

Finnegan "... 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.”

You can bet that 24 is not only having a toxic effects on
these students, but also on all it's viewers. I'm well aware
that there are many, many 24 viewers who are against torture,
but 24 does a very good job of making them more desensitized
to torture, and more sympathetic to the angst of the torturer.
Also 24 brilliantly *frames* the issue of torture around the
question of whether or not torture is an effective way to
gather information. But if you look at history, that has rarely
been the reason for using torture, instead it is used (very
effectively) to intimidate opponents of the government (these
opponents, will not only be killed they will be tortued into
begging for death). Torture has also been used extensively
by repressive governments to get false confessions.

So officers and troops are more likely now to support torture
than in the past thanks to the corrosive influence of 24. What
this means, is that thanks to 24 prisoners are now more
likely to be tortured than in previous wars, and those officers
and troops unwilling to actually torture are more likely to
"see where the torturer is coming from" and thus less
likely to turn them in for torturing.

See Joe Darby:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/12/07/60minutes/main2238188_page4.shtml

So where does that leave the liberal anti-torture fan of 24?
Well you can continue to support a show that has lead to more
prisoners being tortured.That is you can put your own right to
be entertained above all else.

Or you can do the right thing and boycott 24.

Posted by: Terry | Mar 26, 2007 2:14:02 AM

The idea that 24 has made torture significantly more likely (other than to those watching the show) is pretty questionable. It's possible, but not all that probable. I think it's a good reason to take issue with the show, but the policies of the Pentagon and CIA are much more important.

A personal boycott of a TV show doesn't do much unless you happen to be a Nielsen family.

You know, I think there was a quite a bit of torture on Buffy too, and not always by the bad guys. And sometimes it worked. Good thing that show went off the air. That, and so Gellar could do important film work.

Posted by: Sanpete | Mar 26, 2007 3:09:22 AM

Unplugged after Buffy?! But there were seasons of Angel left to be aired! Admittedly, Season 4 took a bit of a downturn in quality, though I still think there was some good stuff in there, but Season 5 was back to form. Ah well, at least I've got my Buffy Season 8 comics now.

Posted by: Ben | Mar 26, 2007 11:08:41 AM

Yeah, season 2 was my favorite, followed by 3.

Posted by: Neil the Ethical Werewolf | Mar 26, 2007 2:20:33 PM

In any case, the real problem is when it infects political reporting and commentary, which are supposed to be grounded in reality.

One of the most priceless moments of last year was when Laura Ingraham said something to the effect of "since 24 is so popular, and the protagonist is a ruthless practitioner of torture, I think it's obvious that an American referendum on the wisdom of torture is unnecessary. We're all for it."

Talk about self-mockery.

Posted by: Epsilon | Mar 26, 2007 4:47:32 PM

Sanpete:

"The idea that 24 has made torture significantly more likely
(other than to those watching the show) is pretty questionable.
It's possible, but not all that probable.

I agree with you, I'm sure 24 has not made non-viewers more
likely to torture. That was Mr. Finnegan's point, that a large
number of his students (studying to become officers in the
military) were huge fans of 24. And that more and more of these
fans had taken Jack Bauer's motto to heart "whatever it takes",
and now felt that torture was not only ok, but the morally
correct action "if that's what it takes".

Considering that millions of people watch 24 every week,
Keifer Sutherland has been very successful in his product placement
for torture. He's helped make torture seem sexy, glamorous and
heroic, that's quite an accomplishment.

"I think it's a good reason to take issue with the show, but
the policies of the Pentagon and CIA are much more important."

Again I agree that the Pentagon and CIA policies are very
important. But there is a reason that (at least up until now)
military recruiters reject white supremacist group members.
The concern is that they will act like psychopathic thugs.
Now we have a show that is enormously popular in the military
that teaches that acting like a psychopathic thug is actually
necessary, sexy, glamorous and heroic.

"A personal boycott of a TV show doesn't do much unless you
happen to be a Nielsen family."

Well a lot more people shop at Walmart every week than watch 24.
I guess those calling for a boycott of Walmart are just being
silly.

"You know, I think there was a quite a bit of torture on Buffy
too, and not always by the bad guys. And sometimes it worked.
Good thing that show went off the air."

Before 24 there was a real taboo against showing torture as
heroic, but with the success of 24 all that has changed.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0823/p13s02-altv.html

This article blames the huge increase in torture on TV on
911. But torture did not become fashionable in the U.S. after
Pearl Harbor. It makes more sense that it was the success of
24 that opened the flood-gates (that and a jaded audience).

P.S. Here is a very well written right-wing defense of Jack Bauer.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2006/01/jack_bauer_a_perfect_post_911.htm

Posted by: Terry | Mar 27, 2007 2:40:11 AM

Terry, I think you misread my parenthetical comment about torture and viewers of 24, which was just a little joke that probably the only victims of torture would be the viewers. You know, from watching the show. Anyway, I was serious about the low probability that the show has led to real torture.

There is a very important difference between a person not shopping at Wal-Mart, which actually does have a real, if small effect on their bottom line, and not watching a TV show, which has no effect on the income the show earns, because there's no way for advertisers to know you don't watch (unless, as I said, you're a Nielsen family). If there were a mass boycott of the show that might be different.

Buffy was before 24, and I'm pretty sure it showed torture as both practiced by heroes and as effective, so I don't know about the taboo. But Buffy was an obvious fantasy, a different kind of show. I don't doubt that 24 has broken the mold in some ways. I don't watch it, and don't think that kind of thing is good for us (rather like Grand Theft Auto), but it's hard to tell how much harm comes from such things. Even a small risk of promoting real torture is worth opposing.

I doubt 24 would depict torture as it does if not for Bush Administration policies.

Posted by: Sanpete | Mar 27, 2007 3:26:08 AM

Sanpete:

"Anyway, I was serious about the low probability that the show
has led to real torture."

I know a lot of people would agree with you, but here's why
I would disagree.

Most liberals were outraged that Alan Dershowitz make his ticking
time-bomb argument in favor of torture. Now why would they be
outraged? For a number of reasons:

- This argument gives moral cover and justification to those who
want to torture ("we didn't torture for pleasure, we tortured to
save our fellow Americans")
- Because it *is* a compelling argument, it can be used to convince
those who don't want to torture, to help out with the torturing
or at least turn a blind eye.
- Again because it is a compelling argument, it is being used
to convince the American public to accept official torture in
their name, or at least not get too worked up about the "black
sites" in Eastern Europe, Guantanamo, etc...
- or in other words this argument, taken to heart, will increase
the number of people being tortured.

But make that exact same argument (week after week after week)
in a TV show, dressed up with thrilling action and a sexy hero,
and somehow it's all ok.

Plus add the message of "Do Whatever It Takes" including breaking
the law, plus add the fact that 24 has become a cult favorite
of the right-wing (including those in the military), and I am
positive that more people have been tortured due to this show
than would have otherwise.

Another argument that is commonly made is that it is just FICTION!
But fiction can have very influential political messages
(especially back when novels were the main form of entertainment,
instead of tv).

"Native Son" - influential anti-racism novel
"The Handmaid's Tale" - Feminist Novel
"Uncle Tom's Cabin" - important to the abolitionist movement
"Turner Diaries" - important to the white supremacists
"Left Behind" - important to the Armageddon crowd

"and not watching a TV show, which has no effect on the income
the show earns" well you are probably right there. But I am
hoping that people will boycott it mainly because it is so
*morally reprehensible*.

Posted by: Terry | Mar 28, 2007 3:20:12 AM

Boycott the advertisers.
You can boycott TV, but that does no good. Also, we have a few good fiction programs (Veronica Mars, Gilmore Girls) and Jon Steward, Stephen Colbert, Bill Maher... any others?

Posted by: Janus Daniels | Apr 27, 2007 1:05:36 PM

Terry
The point about torture rarely being designed to gain information is an excellent one, and often overlooked. Is it also possible that to some extent the alternative rationalist explanations you offer (deterrence of political opponents, false confessions) may even be overstated. Is it fair to say that in some institutions there is simply a culture of torture? That its use is often simply to reaffirm the identity of the torturer in contradistinction to the identity of the victim?

Posted by: RW | Apr 27, 2007 1:13:09 PM

托盘
 托盘
 钢托盘
 钢制托盘
 塑料托盘
 木托盘
 木制托盘
 纸托盘
 木塑托盘