Is Jack Bauer bad for us?

Here is an interesting- and thoughtful, though well-spun- liberal critique of one of my favorite television shoes, "24," from The New Yorker.

Many of the points it makes about the torture in which Jack Bauer seems to engage every week are valid: in real life, torture doesn't work (it only elicits information corresponding to what the victim perceives that the torturer wants to hear, whether true or not)- and other interrogation techniques (which unfortunately take too much time to fit into the show's fast-paced, race-against-the-clock premise) are far more effective. And the tactics he uses (and legitimizes) are quite rightly the subject of soul-searching and debate among thoughtful "24" fans of all political stripes.

Still, do you remember seeing many articles like this about the blatant liberal Democratic slant of "The West Wing?"

The current plotline (as, in fairness, the article points out) involves a nefarious hard line advisor to President Palmer trying to strong arm through some constitutionally dubious legislation which the "good guys" oppose; one sympathetically portrayed presidential advisor- LA CTU chief Buchanan's wife, no less, who took the civil libertarian point of view- has already been blackmailed by the hard line creep into resigning. And Barbara Streissand, Bill Clinton and Stephen King are all big "24" fans despite their reservations about certain aspects of the plot line. Certainly 24 is a much more ideologically balanced show than, say... well, "The West Wing."

But despite its liberal spin (its description of ABC's "The Path to 9/11," for example, ignores the fact that while dialog was invented to depict attitudes evidence says President Clinton and members of his administration actually held, its content was factual, not fictional), the article raises important issues that need to be discussed- not only about Jack Bauer's behavior, but about the effect the show may have on the sensibilites of the American public and even some segments of the American military.

Comments

rcb said…
I think the ways in which the war in Iraq are going badly are attributable to the lack of ruthlessness on the part of the US military, and that derives from the lack of seriousness that the war is given by the average US citizen. The position that torture is ineffective rings very hollow. It's just very unpleasant, and we don't want the lifelong trauma imposed on our guys - but there's not much chance of that since most of the allies captured are simply executed. The Nazi's had no problem with torture, and took out the entire french underground through its use. Their tactics went further than I would like to see our guys go, of course, but the enemy in Iraq knows our sensitivities toward pain and use it against us in many ways.
I watch "24" as a comedy as much as I do a drama - don't ever tell bauer, "Jack, ya gotta learn to relax!" you'll be seeing stars in seconds!
You're right about the show's lack of realism, and a considerable suspension of disbelief is necessary to enjoy it. But in fact, it's well established that a person being tortured will eithertell you literally anything to get the pain to stop, or simply hunker down (as Jack himself did in China)and clam up, becoming all the more determined to resist. The problem is that torture simply isn't a reliable way of getting people to tell you, not what you want to hear or what will make the pain stop momentarily, but what is true.

The article addresses the failure of torture as an interrogation tool in Iraq.