Fox's 24 received "bronze" in Olbermann's "Worst Person" segment
On the February 2 edition of MSNBC's Countdown, host Keith Olbermann awarded Fox Broadcasting Co.'s series 24 the "bronze" in his nightly "Worst Person in the World" segment. Olbermann cited a January 16 segment of Countdown in which he discussed "the possibility that the show [24] was in part a device to get people thinking we were living in a country where a car bomb could go off at any moment." He stated that his concern "was pooh-poohed in some corners" by people who told him that 24 is "just entertainment." Olbermann then observed that, as Media Matters for America documented, syndicated columnist Cal Thomas "has pretty much underscored this point in his latest newspaper column, quoting: 'Watch the TV drama 24 for what could be our prophetic and imminent future with a nuclear device exploding in major cities.' "
From the February 2 edition of MSNBC's Countdown with Keith Olbermann:
OLBERMANN: But first, time for Countdown's latest list of nominees for "Worst Person in the World."
The bronze to the Fox TV series 24. We explored here a few weeks ago the possibility that the show was in part a device to get people thinking we were living in a country where a car bomb could go off at any moment. This was pooh-poohed in some corners. "Of course not," I was told. "It's just entertainment."
But now our esteemed colleague Cal Thomas of Fox Noise has pretty much underscored this point in his latest newspaper column. Quoting, "Watch the TV drama 24 for what could be our prophetic and imminent future, with a nuclear device exploding in major cities."
A few basic things Republicans forget...
The TV series 24 = FICTION
FOX News = FICTION
Bush's reason's for invading Iraq = FICTION
I would say the left/aka Democrats are having the problem with "24".....not Republicans. You're right, it is fiction.
I would say the left/aka Democrats are having the problem with "24".....not Republicans.
I guess I missed the post where someone claimed that Republicans have a problem with 24...probably because nobody has.
Fair enough...but the "problem" some right-wing viewers have is that they can't seem to remember that it's fiction. That was Irony's point.
Olbermann, of course, has a different kind of "problem" with the show, and I think he overstates it a tad. How can a show be a "Worse Person" anyway?
Well, Tommy please read through some of the older articles posted on this site. As you will notice far right wingers are using the show as "evidence" that they are correct in their views.
That is the basis of the left wing's dislike of the show. (oh and the fact that many U.S. muslim groups are a little upset that 24 has gone back to having muslim terrorist).
It is a Right Wing Show
I don't have a problem with 24 per say because it is such a right wing show and I believe in free speech. My problem is that morons forget it is a TV Show. Remmeber when Bo Dietl w\quoted it a few weeks back? Just watch the show and realize this is just a neo-con fantasy!!
I have watched 24 since Day 1 and am a strong "leftie". I disagree with anyone who claims that 24 is a "right wing" show. Since it's begining, 24 has portrayed demcratic presidents as the strong, intelligent representative of the people and Republicans as being weak, cowardly, and even evil. Most of the villains of the show have either been oil related or working for oil related groups. Hell, last seasons plot was about how a Republican president was willing to stage a terrorist attack on his own country to gain public support to attack the middle east. Finally, the shows hero IS a hero because of his willingness to do anything, risk his own life and own family, to do what is right...even if it means ignoring orders from his superiors. NOw when has any Repulican done that? I would also add that the people who are aiding the terrorists appear to be part of the industrial military complex.
Granted, the show does use torture as a first and only resort to get information. However, this is used more as a tension builder and plot device than as a "political message". In fact, two seasons ago they tortured someone who was innocent, based on faulty intelligence, and it tore apart a family.
As much as I disagree with rabid righties who think anything "defense" related is a Republican issue (therefore 24 is right), I also disagree with my fellow lefties who think 24 is a republican show because it has torture or terrorists.
It's fiction people and much like law and order, they are using modern news stories to base their fictional events around. Stop being such knee-jerkers. Chances are these muslim terrorists this season are working for som rich white guy or oil tycoon or, as stated, the military industrial complex.
Good points. I'm also a committed liberal, and also a big fan of the show. It's very, very hard, if not impossible, for me to imagine any show or film in this genre (espionage fantasy) that wouldn't have to have a relatively simple moral compass, or that wouldn't make use of torture (or violence generally) routinely in its plots. It's up to the viewer to remember that it's fiction.
Not to be argumentative, but isn't the premise torture=bad part of a "simple moral compass?"
You don't seem argumentative at all, but I'm not sure what you're asking me...please clarify.
1. The torture segments are purely for dramtic effect. They force the plot along. Since the program is supposed to be in real-time you cannot have an inrerrogation going on for days or weeks. It also builds up Bauer as a cold and almost unfeeling individual. Even the other people he works with are shocked by his actions.
2. Sutherland who plays Jack Bauer certainly doesn't come from a acting leanage of rightwingers either. His father was a devoted leftist through much of his career. Does that mean he shouldn't be doing Volvo commercials.
3. I think shows like "ER" on NBC show a world that is out of control, constantly in disarray and confusion and horrors. It shows a liberal society collapsing from within with trying to help the poor and disenbfranchised discovering its impossible because next week it all starts over again. I think this attack by Olbermann is just to please the big boys at NBC and attack Fox's (their competitors) program. Recently, NBC has been trying to promote heavily its program "Heroes" which goes up against "24." In fact promos for Heroes ran on Olbermann's show when he did the critique.
4. After the election Olbermann has started to stretch things a bit, looking for news any where to keep the interest going. attack a top rated show "24" and it will get you attention. Olbermann is a salesman. He got screwed in his last job because his show wasn't sexy or controversial enough. I say if it works go for it. I like his show. I don't like everything he says and nor do I read into "24." But I like "24" too, I'm just sorry it had to be on Fox and put on by Murdoch. The funny thing is that "24" has a lot of liberal themes running through it and right wingers like Limbaugh can't see them. The laughs on them.
Why would anyone care what Keith Olbermann has to say anyway? He's an ex-sportscaster for God's sake.
By that logic, why should anyone care what you have to say about Olbermann?
"Why would anyone care what Keith Olbermann has to say anyway?"
UUhhhmm... because he's intelligent, articulate and funny? And as far as I can tell he doesn't try to spread misinformation as gospel truth as some others do.
Olbermann spreads USELESS information. Why anyone would waste time watching him or Bildo O'Reilly is beyond me.
Second that...
Although I must admit that seeing Olbermann's pieces here, gets a little old. Olbermann, however, is a bright spot on the current state (stain) of punditry.
Does the guy above think Hannity is good? O'Reilly? If one truly believes that FOX is about 'free speech' or getting out a different message...(a parrotted point that is written over and over again) that's just straight-up delusional thinking. "Truth, fairness, balance" should not just be a slogan or meaningless catchwords, they should actually mean something. But, in the 'faith-based' community, there is no use for facts, logic or reason... all out the window for faith, prayer, alchemy, phrenology, etc... No way to win an argument with non-thinkers.
The people who stay glued to Hannity, Bildo, Olbermann, Matthews, etc. are the same morons who think the superbowl half time show is high art.
Yeah, he's so intelligent that he never brings on anyone who has a differing opinion from him, thus showing why he is so intellectually superior to Bill O'Reilly who regularly debates guests every night on his program.
"Bill O'Reilly who regularly debates guests every night on his program."
You call those debates... where O'Reilly dominates the microphone and calls his guests "lunatics" when they make points he can't refute?
uhh 24's ratings are like 18000000x that of keitho's. i dont really think he can criticize what works and what people want to watch. this is a democracy no?
"i dont really think he can criticize what works and what people want to watch."
You could say the same thing about American Idol...
actually pick any show and it is likely to
have better ratings than k.o.
"pick any show"
Dennis Miller's. But that's not fair, is it, as his right-wing show was cancelled. Due to low ratings.
No. Miller's show failed b/c his entertainment model is crude, highly intellectual, and with constant swearing.
It only works on premium shows like HBO.
It is the same reason why Bill Mahr became an Icon, not from P.I., but from HBO.
I repeat: Dennis Miller's (CNBC) show was cancelled due to low ratings-your false information notwithstanding.
"CNBC cancelled the show in May 2005 due to declining viewership."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dennis_Miller#CNBC_show
In addition, Bill Maher has a successful HBO show, whereas Miller (whose HBO program was cancelled) is stuck on right-wing talk shows like O'Reilly and Hannity's.
Actually, Olbermann can criticize whatever he wants. It's just in this case it's a TV show, a fictionalized, entertaining TV show......that's it.
Colonel:
Your comment is wrong. Olbermann cannot control what people watch. However, he can certainly comment on it. In fact, all kinds of people express their opinions on the merits of different shows, movies, etc. By the way, don't you think it is the least bit interesting that Fox presents a TV show, which is obviously very compelling based on its ratings (I have never seen it so I will not comment on its artistic quality), and then the Fox news division suggests that people should watch the show to see what "may" happen? Where does that stop? Suppose another network, say NBC, ran a show about a new Democratic administration that had to deal with all kinds of problems that were left by a previous Republican adminstration, let's say from a decision to invade a foreign country, and then the NBC news division ran pieces suggesting that people should tune in because the show portrays what might happen in a few years. Do you think that conservatives might have something to say about NBC wrongly trying to mix "fictional entertainment" with "news?"
Excellent point. I don't recall anyone from NBC or from the Left ever holding up "The West Wing" as any sort of template or example of good government.
What on earth does democracy have to do with television ratings?
"I dont really think he can criticize what works and what people want to watch."
Of course he can criticize anything he wants to. This is democracy, no?
Maybe Keith should have given Cal Thomas the Bronze in that case, because after all, at least Cal is a person.
Yep...also sounds like 24 may have been cherry-picked by neocons for their own agenda. Perhaps Cal was deserving, but not 24.
This just shows why Olbermann is such an unbelievable moron. His logic is as follows: because someone chooses to interpret 24 as meaning we live in a country where car bombs could go off at any moment, that means the show's intent is to try to instill that fear. Olbermann is not a serious person: granted he can be entertaining at times, but he is mostly just an empty-headed ass who is unbelievably jealous of the man who is keeping his paycheck down big time (Bill O'Reilly).
Be afraid, be very afraid, Fox viewers. 24:in synch with the White House. In synch with Fox News. The terrrrists are under your beds and are gonna getcha. Nice synergy targeted to the paranoid right-wingers.
So I guess the Simpsons are a brainchild of the White house? as well as Olbermanns favorite show "Family Guy"? These are two FOX Shows.
"These are two FOX Shows."
No kidding. The subject is 24, though, isn't it.
Thanks, that makes perfect sense. 24 is in sync with what the White House wants. I wonder if Keifer Sutherland is working for the Bush Administration? I guess FOX could care less about the Simpsons or Family Guy.
Have we looked into American Idol? The White House is probably running that show also, it keeps Americans focused on that and away from the Bush Administration.
What an intelligent analysis Dave. Thanks for the enlightment.
"Thanks, that makes perfect sense. 24 is in sync with what the White House wants."
Glad you see my point, because that was it.
I would say the paranoia label belongs on anyone who doesn't realize this is just a fictionalized TV show.......produced and scripted purely for entertaining their audience. It's relation to Fox News or the White House is also pure fiction, and ridiculous.
Olbermann has completely lost it.
Its one thing to be childish and call people "Worst Person in the World" but now he is attacking a TV Show. Why doesnt he attack CBS and Jericho ? That show uses a nuke. Regardless if mornons like Bo Dietel who by the way appear on his own network weekly in Imus (who makes disgusting remarks but never appears on Sir Olbermanns lists ) , he only targets FOX. Why? Because FOX is a competitor. He has a right to be critical of a TV Show but I wish he would look at his own networks and other networks as well. Maybe then he would have credibility.
Now I am prepared to be called right winger and a troll, which I am not either but since no one will debate , just attack on here I am prepared.
Olbermann does a service when he calls on the President and the horrible Bush administations lies during this war, but when he does things like this he is doing a disservice.
Yes you will be called a right-winger and a troll. I noticed that anyone who does not worship at the alter of Media Matters and Keith Olbermann gets those two labels automatically on these threads, thus demonstrating the tolerance of the left.
Sorry I meant "altar" not "alter."
Thought maybe Jonathan Altar...
I understand what you're getting at Doris, but in the last few weeks, O'Reilly, Inghram, Beck, Thomas and others have used "24" to justify their belief that we should allow fictional characters to determine the foreign and domestic policies of the US government.
For the last several years many right wing media people have been trying to show how important our ability to torture is to the future of this country by saying that they torture people on "24" and it's works on the show. If it works in fiction they think it should be used in real life situations.
So, those in the right wing media have been using this show as a reason to subvert our government, our military and our constitution. Maybe when they stop using this shop as an excuse to torture, we on the left will stop complaining about a fictional TV show as well.
Actually, O'Reilly has stated that he doesn't really even like the show. Limbaugh is the main one who loves the show and thinks that we need more people like Jack Bauer around.
Perhaps...
Perhaps Olbermann's point is that in the post-9/11 climate it is somewhat irresponsible to produce a show like 24 that plays to the same fears that the right wing systematically uses for political advantage. And considering that many, many people actually believe all of the manipulative dishonesty that comes from the administration and the right wing media, many viewers of 24 may very well be buying into the show as "prohetic"... just as Cal Thomas suggests the show may be. Sure the producers have a right to produce the show, just as the producers of The Path to 9/11 had the same right. But the real question is whether, in the present climate, is it responsible to do so.
If Olbermann had any brains, which he doesn't, he could pick out the left wing parts of the show and promote those.
24 does remind us that it's generally good to have basic competence in the executive branch.
Indeed - the snivelling, duplicitous loser who occupied the White House on 24 last season was quite reminiscent of the current real-life resident.
You've put your finger on it. Republicans and neocon-ish figures typically come off quite badly on the show.
And, as far as viewer reaction/interpretation goes, the difference seems to be this: Left-wing fans, as a group, don't believe 24 actually PROVES anything. A slimy Republican Prez on the show proves nothing about our current prez--although God knows the parallels are pretty fun to contemplate.
Right-wing viewers, on the other hand, are much more likely to trot out some development on the show as proof that torture works, or that Muslims are generally to be feared. (The show often problematizes these issues, with variable success.) I've checked out FOX's message board for the show, and there are an alarming number of posters there who take it as validation of jingoism and Islamophobia, however nuanced the show might actually be.
And this is their doing, not the show's. I think Olbermann has a decent broad point about its contribution to fearmongering, but at the end of the day (or hour) it's up to the viewer to remember its essential fictionality.
Bruce has this right. KO pegged the fiction as the problem rather than those who are exploiting it.
Upping the ante in technofear is what Hollywood does and we lap it up. The subject of ridicule must be those who use fictional fear mongering as a means to their political ends.
I guess we could build a bridge for trolls to hide under...
Nonetheless, I much prefer KO to BO. They each bloviate but KO at least lets people talk and can have intelligent discourse. For comedy relief I can switch over to BO.
I watched 24 the first couple of seasons but grew tired of all fear mongering. Jericho from what I remember did not define an enemy. Therefore is not as useful a tool for propoganda.
And if you watch KO Susie you would know that he doesn't EVER have people on who have a differing opinion from him. O'Reilly does on every show.
Yes but Bo doesn't let 'em talk so what's the point?
He doesn't let them talk? Keep sippin' that Kool Aid honey.
No, O'Reilley doesn't let them talk, unless they're seconding him. No Kool-Aid involved there.
Nice comment to Susie.
About 10 comments back you were just in pre-emptive cry baby mode about the onslaught of "troll" comments that were about to come your way... Then you turn around and act like one.
Here's a thought - If you don't want to be called a troll then don't behave like one.
Thanks. :)
O'Reilly has "differing views" on his show in order to use them as punching-bags and objects of ridicule.
At least he has differing views. Olbermann does not.
Very true.
Olbermann puts left wing hacks on. O'reilly puts on right wing hacks and the occasional left winger who does not know how to defend him or herself ie Whoppi Goldberg last week, or Andrea Mitchell.
He also has on Al Sharpton regularly, numerous Democrat Senators, and a whole host of respectable left-wing folks who are more than capable of holding their own. Yes he also has the occasional Whoppi Goldberg and other punching bags to prove his point, but for the most part there is an intelligent attempt to engage with the other side. Olbermann does no such thing, probably because he is not intellectually capable of going so but it may also just be because he is a coward.
Bully tactics. O'Reilly cuts off mics, tells people to shut-up, uses his cronies and pals to bully progressive guests, and basically does what he does to ridicule the "differing view". That's why right-wingers like you tune-in.
O'Reilly's really got his interns working overtime. Must be trying to stir up some viewers who aren't about to drop dead of old age.
At least he has viewers.
Well, to be fair, we don't know how much the old folks can really see.
Good one.
Or hear...
Sorry Argle, but that wasn't a good one. Rusty's retort was funny because I mentioned that at least O'Reilly has viewers. I never said anything about "hearers."
Or "listeners"
Aw, how crushing. And I was so hoping for your validation. I don't watch O'Reilly, but my impression is that he doesn't put on a mime show; he speaks as well. His viewers are also listeners, and it's probably his words they like. So it's on point, whether you laugh or not.
But, YOUR point is well-taken, if not especially well-made; I'll leave the lame jokes to you in future.
Wow great arguement! "At least he has viewers"
Maybe next you'll yell, "Keith is a poopyhead"
You obviously learned your debating skills at the O'Rielly school of debate. When you can't win an argument, you try to insult the target. In real debates you argue a point, you don't change the subject by introducing a insult that has nothing to do with the argument.
Car bombs could go off any minute...planes could fly into buildings
We don't need 24 to remind us of these things. Just watch the news. Things aren't going real hunky-dory in REAL life.
Of course Cal Thomas could have pointed to REAL life situation rather than a fictionalized version of it.
It makes him look just a tad silly.
My only issue with Olbermann here is that Thomas should have gotten the award, not 24.
Word. 24 is a heck of a good show, in my opinion (although I'm having to sit this season out because I've missed too much already). Cal Thomas is a waste of ink and oxygen.
Don't sit it out, just yet... It's becoming too good.
Here's what you need to know:
The U.S. sells out Jack to a supposed terrorist informant, who wants all kinds of safeguards and protection. Turns out the informant was really the terrorist responsible for all the attacks within the U.S.
Jack assists a known terrorist, who wants to broker peace between his people and the Western world.
Curtis (who's former military unit died at the peace-seeking terrorists' hands) tries to kill the man, only to be shot and killed by Jack.
Nuke goes off in an LA suburb and there are four more suitcase nukes within the U.S.
Chasing down a lead regarding the sale (or supposed disposal) of the suitcase nukes, takes Jack on a course to confront his brother (the Conspiracy Bluetooth guy from last season) and his father.
Karen Hayes (the president's National Security expert) is ousted by weasel, who wants to set up detention camps within the U.S. to round up all those of Middle Eastern descent or background.
It should also be noted that Jack had a relationship with his brother's wife (probably before marriage), but Jack's newphew is tall and blonde, but his brother is a troll (really, he is.)
I totally agree with CHRISTIANDEMOCRAT and BRUCE on this one. CAL THOMAS should've gotten the "Worst Person" bronze, not the show "24."
But on to the larger point. Keith is really starting to irritate me with his attitude towards 24. It's just pure lazy journalism to criticize a show's content without watching it or consulting with people who know the show well.
He ought to spend a weekend watching a DVD set of a whole season, any of the previous five, and he will see that if anything, 24 is a right-wing tease and disappointment, and some of its plots, like last year's season, actually show you what happens when the President (Gregory Itzin) gets in bed with terrorists for the sake of oil - the terrorists use nerve gas bombs on Americans and eventually, the President gets arrested, thanks to Jack (and replaced).
And this season? We've already learned that beating up/borderline torturing a Muslim prisoner in a bathroom stall while installing a wire on him so the FBI could listen in on his conversations with other Muslim prisoners who might know something about the other 4 nuks yet to be detonated this season DOES NOT WORK.
Keith is much smarter than these conservatives who think 24 is a neo-con fantasy. I'm a (moderate) democrat, and I hang on 24's every word and episode. I know there are plenty of other dems who love this show too.
Once he finally gets it, I would love to hear a mea culpa editorial or Special Comment that would go something like this:
"Previously, I commented that the FOX hit TV show 24 was a neo-con's wet dream. But after closely watching previous seasons, I now realize that this show does what the real neo-cons and the White House has never done, bring ACCOUNTABILITY to the characters who break the law and cause harm to the American people. Whether it's bad guys who get caught or killed or good guys like Jack who stops at nothing to save his family or country, there's ALWAYS a price to pay for their actions. And viewers always tune in to find out exactly what that price is, every season.
Good night, and Good luck."
In all seriousness, two non-conservatives who agree with something I write on this blog is an absolute record for me. Thanks for your support.
Make that three. :)
Four.
Wow, on Friday, 24 merits a mention on MMFA and Friday night, Olderman bestows his Bronze medal on same!!!!
Way to go, Olderman!!!!
I'd also like to add to this "other" debate going on here about keith's guests vs. Bildo's (I love that, wish I could've copyrighted it!) guests.
Anyone who says that Keith doesn't bring on people who disagree with him obviously doesn't listen closely: if you watch Olbermann regularly, he brings in left-leaning guests, neutral guests, and at least one regular CONSERVATIVE guest John Dean, author of "Conservatives Without Conscience." You probably don't notice when his guests disagree with Keith's points because people like Dean and Richard Wolffe aren't loud talkers, and neither is Keith (Special Comments aside!). Go read some recent Countdown transcripts on MSNBC.com and see for yourself.
Isn't it funny how mad people get when art imitates life
if i understand col. campbell, because the ratings of 24 higher are than keith's, keith cannot critize 24 (but i guess 24 can criticize keith?) and in a democracy if most people believe one thing, no one in the minority is allowed to state an opinion in opposition to (or criticize) that thing?
do i have that right? just want to make sure, i wouldn't want to say something which is not approved of by the majority in this grand democracy we've got going here.
and when did a majority opinion automatically make something correct, true or right?
If there was a rule that Keith couldn't criticize any show with higher ratings he would have to sit there and stare at the camera until either John McEnroe was rehired or until Anna Nicole Smith got another reality show.
IT IS A SHOW! It has no altruistic motives. It's purpose is to get viewers onto FOX so that they will then in turn see the product promotions in the commercials and on the show. Ratings is it's only purpose, an entertaining one at that. If you do not like it then change the channel.
Well, I will not argue that it is more than a show.
That's not really the point. Its the fact, and I mean fact, that far right wing individuals are using the show to try to paint a picture of reality. They quote it and point out plot elements as if these things are really happening (last time I checked no US city has been bombed). That is one reason people are attacking the show, it is being turned into reality in the minds of some right wingers. (hey lets all build bomb shelters!)
And I vote that Cal Thomas should have gotten the award, I've read his column and now if I see his picture I want to puke. He rarely makes a logical argument, just quotes others (sometimes incorrectly) and throws up White House talking points to try to prove what he says is correct.
Every time MMFA posts a story about KO, I have to admit, it bothers me. I love this website when it points out conservative dis-information, but not so much when it mindlessly promotes the other side. I guess I feel that MMFA's message is cheapened a little bit when they use their soap box to promote the Democratic/Left-Wing/Progressive point of view. I enjoy it so much more when the site appears to approach media bias from a non-biased point of view. As I do not subscribe solely to Republican or Democrat ideals, I like to read things that do not postulate, but rather present the facts. It is also unfortunate that when I reference information presented here, some people immediately discount it due to the fact that they believe MMFA itself to be biased. I believe the inclusion of such topics as Keith Olbermann's Worst Person in the World stories support this theory.
Don't get me wrong, as I agree with much of it, but when I started reading this site every day, it was much more of a "here is the fallacious/inaccurate/misleading content of the conservative media", as opposed to everything in the more liberal bastion of the media always being correct. Perhaps it is just me, but I feel that sometimes MMFA is guilty of the one thing that I love when they point out, which is the biased, slant presentation within the media.
I do not agree that 24 was, is, or should be “The Worst Person in the World.” The Worst Person in the World should be any and all “pundits” that cite to 24 as an example of what can happen when terrorists attack. Saying that 24 is the Worst Person In The World because some conservative talk show host used it as an example of what we have to fear when terrorists attack is like saying that the movie The Day After is the Worst Person In The World because a scientist uses it as an example of why we need to stop global worming. [I am a Progressive and Global Warming is a threat to our planet – but I would never cite to a fictional movie as an example of what we have to fear.] 24 is not The Worst Person in the World. Just because it is produced by FOX does not mean it is part of the Fox Noise Machine. I believe that the entertainment division of Fox is separate to the so called “News” division of Fox. [Yes, I know, Fox does not have a news division.] Example – The Simpsons is clearly not part of Fox’s propaganda. Last season of 24 dealt with a traitorous president. This season of 24 is addressing some interesting civil rights issues. It is true that the “hero” uses torture that results in information being given – but the show is fantasy. It is when political commentators suggest otherwise that it becomes a problem.
24 is not really a conservative show. I agree with Rosencrantz, who stated that it often portrays liberals in a positive light. Last season, the conservative president was shown as weak, cowardly, indecisive, and, to a certain extent, fascistic.
The show does employ torture as perhaps the only effective technique in gaining information, but it shows the debilitating effects of such actions on Jack Bauer, who is getting more and more haggard as the seasons progress. The only problem is that conservatives use this as red meat for their pro-torture mentality. As Media Matters reported last week, Laura Ingraham stated that 24 was basically a "public referendum" on torture policy, becuase "the average American loves 24." I'm sorry, but the show only gets 14 million viewers a week. American Idol gets 30+, and I doubt anyone would agree with me if I said "the average American loves American Idol." I sure don't.
(Sorry about the slight rambling in the last paragraph, guys.)
mrmojeffrisin37099,
You actually made my point even more evident with your clever posting of the MMFA mission statement : ...systematically monitor a cross section of print, broadcast, cable, radio, and Internet media outlets for conservative misinformation — news or commentary that is not accurate, reliable, or credible and that forwards the conservative agenda — every day, in real time.
Many of the times that Olbermann is posted by MMFA, it is not monitoring conservative misinformation, but rather, reporting the liberal point of view. You quoting the MMFA mission statement and mindlessly taking it at face value is just as bad as a neo-con saying, but Fox New says they are "fair and balanced." My point stands that MMFA does itself a disservice by continually promoting Keith Olbermann's Worst Person in the World segment when it is not pointing out conservative misinformation. If MMFA was sticking to their mission statement, the article would have addressed journalist Cal Thomas making erroneous statements regarding how 24 is an accurate portrayal of the current state of affairs.
But I appreciate your effort nonetheless, seeing as how you did not address any of the points that I made, but rather, made snide remarks such as, "Which part of the following is giving you trouble, sport?", as though I am just a wayward child who wandered into a grownup discussion. Treating me like a trolling neo-con does nothing to bolster your argument with me, especially seeing that I prefaced my post with "I love this website...".
While some people fancy super-spy solutions applied to tackle nightmare scenarios as in '24', critics ask if the ticking alarm scenarios are crafted purposefully. It does not stop at just offering an escape from failures in the real world, but advocates debatable methods and approaches that can do the trick. Since the start of the new season of super-spies fighting a no-rules-barred prime time war on terror, concerns are being expressed that such fascination may numb any urge to question the justification of applying heavy-handed solutions to life-like situations. The Guardian London, wonders if ‘24’ “trafficking in fear”. Is the serial used for softening opinions to sanction heavy-handed approach of the authorities? To Slate’s media editors it appears to be peddling “torture porn.” While common people are at liberty to the views they fancy, this tendency becomes risky when it affects those who vow to safeguard the American values. Following White House guidelines after Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay regarding what kinds of torture are officially acceptable, many have been struggling with the realization that the use of torture is no longer one of the ways by which you can recognize the bad guys. Not for Fox’s super spy opera star Sutherland's Jack Bauer and his fellow agents, there's never any question of civil liberties or other liberal wimpishness taking precedence over the urgency of their mission, notes British critic Adam Sweeting. For "24"s producer, creator and writer, Joel Surnow, there's no question that torture can be a legitimate counter-terrorism tool. It's shocking to find this once-deplorable practice embedded in a TV drama, as if it's routine enough to serve as a mere strand in TV's entertainment mix, complains The Independent London. Surnow's take on torture in the show, and in the war on terror, is a little more controversial as clear from his quote to The Guardian's John Patterson: "I think torture does work. It would work on me! I believe torture has been around since the beginning of time because it works. I just think that for any person in the circumstances that Jack Bauer is in, you'd be a fool not to."