I just read an article in the New Yorker that's gotten me all fired up and pissed off. Its about the creator and producer of the television show 24. Personally, I watched about half of the first season of 24 on video. My mum's boss was taping the show and she brought home the tape for us to watch it. Either I lost interest or went back to college or something and never finished it. Then when I worked for CTV and could rent videos for free I started watching it again and made it several episodes past where I had stopped but still didn't finish it. It's essentially a stupid show (I'm not saying this to be mean - stupid is my category for all shows that lack "artistic" merit.) The dialogue is silly, the plots are silly, it doesn't break any new ground. It's just a thriller. It's certainly an entertaining thriller and maybe I would have at least finished the first season if I was watching in television time. Watching it all at once, the adrenaline just dies down. Without adrenaline, basic thrillers quickly seem sort of pointless. But enough of my history with the show. The article is about the producer's political affiliations and how they affect the show. 24 shows a lot of torture scenes. Frequently the torturers are the "good" guys and the show has this often-used plot device where unless the bad guy talks in THE NEXT FIVE MINUTES New York City will be destroyed by a nuclear weapon or the population of Los Angles will be decimated by a bioweapon. Secondary characters in the show make softhearted pleas for humane treatment or due process. The more practical patriots shoot the suspect in the leg or pretend to kill his son in another room. This always results in a confession which is always true. (I'm summing up from what the article said here. Since I don't watch the show I haven't seen enough to make this sort of generalization.) This kind of stupidity makes me crazy! Alright, I know it's a television show so I shouldn't take it seriously. And I wouldn't if it weren't for some of the information that the New Yorker collected for this article. Apparently, real-life interrogators are worried about the effect the show is having on people's perception of what they do. The dean of West Point and three professional military and FBI interrogators went out to have a meeting with the show's people to suggest they show some of what real interrogators do or at least have an episode where torturing a terrorist results in a false confession that blows up in the good guys' faces. I'm not expressing this very well because I'm trying to be fair-minded and rational instead of just writing an emotional rant. Honestly I'm just so angry after reading how the people who are responsible for 24 react to all this. What they show on their show is fantasy not reality. Almost universally, people who interrogate suspects have said that torture does not work as an interrogation technique. It makes suspects less willing to talk. It hugely increases the chances that any confession they do get will be false. At the most, interrogators get information they already had. It dehumanizes the interrogators, making them more open to other abuses and psychological damage. Last but not least, it hurts our standing internationally and makes it easier for other groups to justify torturing our people. Fair enough, it's television. It doesn't have to show reality. But the man behind all of this seems to feel that it is reality in a way and that people responding to it like it's real is a good thing. 24 seems to be this endless series of choices. The patriotic but hard main character must choose between committing an illegal and immoral act or risk running out of time on saving the world. These are presented as the only choices. He always chooses to torture and they way things are manipulated, it's always the right choice. But torture is the wrong choice. How did we get to this place where it could ever be presented as the right one? |