Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Did "24" Go Too Far?
Townhall ^ | 1/22/07 | Hugh Hewitt

Posted on 01/22/2007 1:30:58 PM PST by presidio9

When the ABCNews.com column assignment arrived mid-morning --"Is the TV show "24" going too far by depicting a nuclear attack in Los Angeles in its opening episode?"-- the drama went out of tonight's two-hour program. Or so I thought. As zero hour approached, I found myself assuming that the program really wouldn't actually depict a nuclear detonation near Los Angeles. I noted as the show unfolded that the script had the doomsday scenario putting the casualties of such an event at somewhere north of a hundred thousand, a remarkably low estimate, and that no mention was made of the catastrophic impact of radiation sickness or the second level but still devastating impact to surrounding infrastructure, the immediate refugee problem, or the collapse of the national economy. Given that the consequences of such a blast, I found myself doubting that the program would risk absurdity by depicting a post-nuclear attack America far more simple than anyone has a right to conceive.

But blow the nuke, the writers did, and apparently there are four more where that came from. How Jack and gang deals with the aftermath remains to be seen --martial law at least from Bakersfield to San Diego, and from the Pacific to Vegas, perhaps, and a Dow 1200? -- But the question put to me remains: Did the program "go too far?"

Given that there are easily, oh, 10 million people in the world who would stand up and cheer at the real version of Monday night's fictionalized attack, and at least a few tens of thousands trying hard to do a deed of at least proportionate scale given the weaponry available, it is silly to argue that "it" couldn't possibly happen. Of course it could happen. Eventually another nuke will go off, and it is not likely to be the obvious action of a state actor. So what is the "too far" in the question supposed to mean? It can only be that "24" is engaged in fear-mongering, and that is as stupid a charge as can be made.

Would the BBC have been going "too far" if in 1937 it had broadcast a radio drama depicting life in a Hitler-authorized death camp where hundreds of thousands of Jews were being executed in gas chambers, one of a string of such camps springing up across Europe?

Would a Paris newspaper have been going "too far" if it had run a short story in 1913 supposing trench warfare that would claim millions of casualties?

Had PBS run a drama proposing a Communist massacre of millions of Cambodians in 1973 or a Rawandan genocide of more than a half million Tutsis twenty years later, would those prophecies have been going "too far?"

The problem of the last century was a failure in the imagining of evil, a failure which was in some ways evil's accomplice. "It can't happen" often masked the very unfolding of the too-awful-to-occur event.

So now a few people are shuddering that "24" has gone and done it: Blown up Los Angeles and left the most productive part of the national economy crippled and hundreds of thousands dead. An event much more likely to occur in our lifetime than any catastrophe unleashed by global warming has been put on the table (and the LCD) and suddenly tongues are wagging about responsibility.

"Israel must be wiped off the map," Iranian President Ahmadinejad has declared, and he's been repeating the same basic message for a couple of years. No "too far" language regarding him from the critics of "24" I'll wager.

It isn't "only a television show," and appeals to the First Amendment are beside the point. The key question is whether the drama is a bit of absurd science fiction, or the projection of a not-so-distant future, not in its particulars, but in its awful core depiction.

Americans don't like to think of such an attack upon America. But prior to 9/11, they didn't like to think of airplanes crashing into skyscrapers and thousands dead in a moment and the government within hours of being decapitated.

Give the producers another fistful of Emmys and settle in to see how Jack handles post-nuclear America. "OK, I think we can agree that this is a big step up from the canister plot," Dave Barry wrote on his blog in real time after the blinding flash, a reference to the rather labored plot from last year, and an indication that even the veteran humorist who has been dining out on "24" for the past few years to the delight of a huge audience was taken aback. A shock to many, an upsetting nightmare for others.

A depiction of a happy ending for our enemies.


TOPICS: TV/Movies
KEYWORDS: 24; jackbauer; wot
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140141-160161-180181-189 last
To: Indy Pendance

I believe Rambo converts to Catholicism in Stallone's next movie.


181 posted on 01/22/2007 7:41:13 PM PST by sageb1 (This is the Final Crusade. There are only 2 sides. Pick one.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 143 | View Replies]

To: GoldwaterChick
You must be about the same age as my Dad was, he was born in 1925 and could not serve active duty because he was deaf in one ear.

I did have other immediate relatives (on both sides of the family who did), and I heard their stories (those survived). In 1965, the end of WW2 was only twenty years gone.

I guess I just cant ever get into the fantasy that if the US never acts militarily, then nothing will happen to it. I guess a good example of that kind of thinking is the accusation that we 'made more terrorists' when we responded to 9-11.

Wolf
182 posted on 01/22/2007 8:19:49 PM PST by RunningWolf (2-1 Cav 1975)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 168 | View Replies]

To: secret garden

Just type in "davebarryblog" in your search engine.
If that doesn't work try www.miami-herald.com/davebarry
Get ready to laugh your arse off!!!!!!


183 posted on 01/22/2007 9:14:44 PM PST by cleveland gop (Curtis Manning, welcome to CTU heaven!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 170 | View Replies]

To: cleveland gop

Found it.


184 posted on 01/22/2007 9:20:12 PM PST by secret garden (Dubiety reigns here)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 183 | View Replies]

To: presidio9
Would the BBC have been going "too far" if in 1937 it had broadcast a radio drama depicting life in a Hitler-authorized death camp where hundreds of thousands of Jews were being executed in gas chambers, one of a string of such camps springing up across Europe?

Well, yeah.

Unless they could foresee the future.

These types of camps didn't get going for 5+ years, basically after the Nazis decided it looked like they wouldn't be able to deport all the Jews to Madagascar, so they'd just have to kill them.

185 posted on 01/22/2007 11:54:03 PM PST by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Petronski
Great little film [Special Report] there.

Yeah, but the problem with defusing the bomb was hokey; since it was stated to be an implosion weapon, they could have slapped an explosive charge on one side and single-pointed it. HE yield, but no nuclear.

186 posted on 01/23/2007 6:19:29 AM PST by Grut
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

To: montag813
Huh? Are you saying no Arab American can be a patriot? I was pleased with their depiction of the "CAIR" clone guy ratting out his fellow Muslims in detention. It is a great role model for Muslim viewers.

Spot On!!! The crafting of the story line is what puts 24 head and shoulders above everything else on TV. There are so many nuanced characters. The low level, grunt traitor (who gets the bomb rigger off of the bus); the director of the CAIR-like organization who tells his lawyer to 'stop being a lawyer and get this message to the FBI.' Assad, who is now helping CTU find the other four suitcases.

24 didn't go too far...

My only complaint...they didn't show the 'aftermath' very well. Maybe they will between 11:00 a.m. and noon.

187 posted on 01/23/2007 6:37:54 AM PST by PennsylvaniaMom (Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get you...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: Petronski
A million tourists in NYC every day? I find that hard to believe.

I base that number on the fact that we have over seven million tourists a year, and the average stay is a little less than one week. Of course, there are times of the year when there are more than a million, and times when there are less. Additionally, every single day there are many many people who travel into the city, but do not book a hotel room. They can not possibly be accounted for.

All of this is irreleveant. There is not another city in the country that can even begin to approach anything like the population density of Manhattan.

188 posted on 01/23/2007 6:40:46 AM PST by presidio9 (It's "news" that New Jersey smells bad?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]

To: RonF

View post 76, and then get back to me.


189 posted on 01/23/2007 6:41:17 AM PST by presidio9 (It's "news" that New Jersey smells bad?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140141-160161-180181-189 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson