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.
In case you're interested, here are some of are many reasons why Manhattan is the most likely target:
1) Osama bin Laden has said specifically that he will hit New York again.
2) Manhattan has a population density of 67,000 per square mile before you count the 1mm tourist who are in the city on any given day and the fact that commuters double the population every day. The next closest city is San Francisco with 16,000 people per square mile.
3) New York is the financial capital of the world.
4) The only city that can challenge NY for symbolic targets is Washington, DC.
5) All of the major news media outlets are headquartered in Manhattan, ensuring the fullest coverage.
6) The United Nations is headquartered in Manhattan.
7) New York is the cultural capital of the western world.
8) There are 2mm Jews living in NYC. There are 360,000 living in Tel Aviv.
Since when did TV shows become composed of anything but entertainment. It just doesn't matter what gets on TV ... it is all fiction, up to and including the "news".
I think that we'd all love to see Thomsen enter the race, but he has stated categorically that he is not running. Time to move on.
C'mon, you have to ask? They'll Blame Bush...
ding ding ding. winner.
DVR it and start watching at :10 after the hour. We zip right through the commercials!
ddj
Yeah, but even with DVR, you still have to wait a week to find out what happens next.
Reality is such a buzz-kill for liberals.
True - but better than when we had to wait weeks to get the next videotape of "Star Trek: The Next Generation" from my sister while we were stationed in Panama!
"to get people to finally pull their heads out of their butts and figure out "hey there are people that really hate the USA"..."
Those people would just say that we "deserve it".
Friends and family know not to call me between 9 and 10 on Monday nights. My husband is late at work tonight. I told him if he walks in the door after 9 to do so QUIETLY. ;-)
I do not look to debate. So let me start this short post with.....'With respect'.
You said, "Some things are better feared, than experienced, even vicariously."
Indeed, what you say is correct, but the majority of the citizens of the USA, have failed to recognize the very real possibility of this, or something like it, as a very realistic future for us all.
It seems to me that it might be best to shake them up on film, as they sit in the comfort of their homes, than wait until the worst actually occurs.
Regardless, I hold little hope that America will ever really wakeup......even after the fighting hits our own streets.
I'm pretty sure ABC went to far in appointing a liberal woman as President on one of their shows. And I'm absolutely sure that NBC went too far in appointing two socialists as president on 'the west wing'. I don't remember hearing that there was allowed to be opposition to that kind of blatant political pandering on television without FEC filings being made.
Did ABC go too far when they aired "The Day After" during the Cold War when Reagan was President?
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.