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.
Don't forget Ambassador Joe Kennedy thought we could get along with Hitler if we only gave him Poland.
Pray for W and Our Troops
I was thinking there would be 10 million in the US, not even counting the resident Muslims.
How sad it is that we will have such an attack happen before anything is done about "Our problem" in America.
Just like "Attack of the Killer Tomatoes!"
Instead of watching it this season, you really ought to think about starting from the beginning on DVD. That's how I did it. This is the first season that I am actually watching the shows as they come out, and I find the other way to be far more entertaining.
We are at War, it might help if we can imagine what a Terrorist Oganization might do.
The more pertinent threat is from biological or chemical sources. Doesn't make for as good a TV story, but cheaper and easier to acquire and employ.
Quite. It's not like it wasn't depicted before.
Jericho.
Sum Of All Fears.
The Day After.
...and plenty of others.
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,
There would be passing out of sweets and lots of ululating all over the middle east, far more than 10 million, easily over 100 million cheering.
Well if he bites Simon next, that's really too far. :)
ping
Nyuk, Nyuk!
It ran Sunday (2 hours) & Monday (2 hours) to premier the new season.
Now it settles into a Monday 8 CST/9 EST (1 hour) slot.
Near the end of the run, it may run additional 2-hour features.
When you present the Stations of the Cross exactly as Catholics reflect on them, or a plausible terrorist scenario that was in the news far before 9/11, you are stirring up hate.
When you insinuate that tired lies about Christ are the truth, or you quote Reagan as saying "Homosexuals brought AIDS upon themselves," it's just entertainment.
There's a big difference between the two.
The message is the libs know how powerful images on television are and how they can sway the peeples opinion of things. They are admitting that.
So next time you hear a lib telling us that images of sex, violence, lewd conduct, etc., do not affect our kids and our behavior because it is only a television show or movie, point out the liberal reaction to the images on 24, which after all, is just a television show.
How could the images on 24 possibly affect the peeples beliefs and behavior while images of violence on other shows do not?
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.