A while back I wrote a couple of short pieces (such as this one) for the site arguing that Hollywood, for the most part, has showed a surprising reluctance to respond to the events of 9/11 by indulging in paranoid right-wing fantasies. While I stand by most of what I said then, I did forget the obvious counter-example: television’s 24.
My correction is prompted by an article written by Jane Mayer in The New Yorker that looks in some detail at the show’s enthusiastic endorsement of the torture of terror suspects. It’s a fascinating article, noting that the show’s gung-ho depiction of torture has even led to the US Army sending Brigadier General Patrick Finnegan to visit the show’s producers to tell them to cut it out, on the grounds that it is giving young soldiers the wrong idea:
Finnegan told the producers that 24, by suggesting that the U.S. government perpetrates myriad forms of torture, hurts the country’s image internationally. 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.”
As the article outlines, the show is not likely to change course. Basically, the very format of 24, with its unrelenting countdown to impending doom, evokes the oldest rhetorical ploy used to justify torture: hypothetical situations in which the torture of one person can save the lives of countless others. In that situation, the ethical scales are loaded so that the pressure to endorse torture becomes overwhelming. But it’s a completely manufactured scenario, because things are never that clear-cut in real life. In real life, there’s doubt over the guilt of suspects; doubt over whether they actually know anything; doubt over the gravity of what’s being plotted; and so on. But 24 is a powerful bit of pro-torture propaganda, because it shows the clear-cut imaginary situation (where the party is guilty and their information averts catastrophe) not just as a frequent recurrence, but almost a defining part of the narrative.
On another note, it’s kind of amusing to see the self-proclaimed right-wingers on the show enthusing about the possibilities of a conservative’s version of Jon Stewart’s The Daily Show. Good luck with that, fellas.