I have to say that I have rarely seen as ignorant and misleading an analysis of television and propaganda - and I say this as someone who teaches and has published books on this subject. Olbermann claims that the nuclear explosion at the end of Episode 4 of 24, the suicide bombings at the beginning and throughout, and indeed all of 24, is an attempt of Fox to push the Bush administration's agenda of scaring the American people about terrorism.
I'm no friend of the Bush administration, but the absurdity of Olbermann's charge has nothing to do with what the Bush administration wants or does not want of the American people, so I won't even bother to address that issue. Nor do I need to discuss the relationship of Fox News or Fox Entertainment with the Bush administration, because that, too, is irrelevant to the vacuity of Olbermann's claim.
What is relevant is something Samuel Taylor Coleridge talked about in his Biographia Literaria nearly 200 years ago. Exploring how and why people enjoy poetry, Coleridge said it operates on a "willing suspension of disbelief" - that is, people pretend that what they are reading in a poem is real, even though they know full well it is fiction. The genius of Coleridge's insight is that, of course, all media of fiction operate this way.
Does Olbermann really think that, even if Fox were doing the Bush administration's bidding, and this went down to the creators of 24, that the American people would be unable to distinguish this fiction from our reality? Does Olbermann think that any Americans would have derived any enjoyment whatsoever from a nuke going off near Los Angeles, if they thought for a moment that this was likely, or anything other than a remotely possible danger?
Like so many others who speak to us from their media soap boxes, Olbermann is so eager to make provocative points that he leaves common sense and a basic respect for human rationality behind him.
Surely, fiction can be influential - just as a media commentator can. But by and large, as Jefferson and most of our founding fathers saw very clearly, people can separate truth from fiction. We can tell when we're watching a work of fiction, and when a media commentator is stretching to make a ridiculous point - which, if taken at its word, is in effect calling for a de facto censorship of a television program.
This puts Olbermann in the same class of media commentators as those on the fanatical, far right. Congratulations, Keith.
I'm off to teach an evening class - I'll have a podcast up about this later tonight.
Useful links:
Memo to Olbermann: Are You Going after Rome?
Memo II to Olbermann: Did You See Jack Bauer's Concern About Militant VP?
Keith Olbermann, Jack Bauer, and Samuel Taylor Coleridge 30-minute podcast
Levinson news clips 3-minute podcast
Biographia Literaria: Biographical Sketches of my Literary Life & Opinions
Coleridge's masterpieceOlbermann's diatribe can't guarantee how long it will be up at this MSNBC site
24 - Season 6 Premiere (First 4 Episodes)
4 comments:
While it can be seen as absurd for what he said, especially with out base, there's a larger question out there...
Can and does the US Government influence television to push their agenda, be it public or otherwise?
The answer is, we don't know. You don't know that Olbermann is telling the truth or not. He might be, he might not be.
Before you go on just shouting and ranting about how BAD he is, why not reflect and ask yourself if there could be truth to it all? You might think that the small chance that he's right is negligible, but you wouldn't think that in a court of law where it means everything.
I'm in no way saying there is or isn't, so don't bother attacking me. I only expect reprisal because of the way you've blindly attacked Olbermann and I'm assuming blindly since you've not provided any base to contradict Olbermann's comments.
Oh, but let's look at the other side of the coin here. 24 is run by FOX, which is known for strong Republican ties. Their "fair and balanced" is always under dispute, but yet you'll become an instant standard bearer when someone attacks the show you love? C'mon now, you're acting no different than if I had insulted your mother.
Stop ranting and start thinking I say.
Thanks for the advice, but I was under the impression that I was thinking...:)
More specifically, I said that, regardless of the accuracy of Olbermann's claim about the Bush administration, what it wants, and what Fox is willing, eager, or not, to do about that - regardless of all of that - Olbermann's claim about 24 is absurd on the face of it.
I cited Coleridge's "willing suspension of disbelief" as just a single, but time-honored, example of what Olbermann overlooked. So how is that proceeding blindly?
And, listen, you don't need to be concerned about my "attacking" you when I respond to your points. I have no interest in being critical of you - or anyone - only in pointing out the relevant knowledge and cultural history as I know it. (Admittedly, not completely - for no one does.)
***all of 24, is an attempt of Fox to push the Bush administration's agenda of scaring the American people about terrorism.***
Now I get it!! Because all terrorism is of course so much FUN! Why didn't I see it before??
Good to have your comment, Angie!
One of the saddest things about Olbermann's rants against 24 is the way that so many of his fans can't seem to understand what's wrong with that. Over on the Countdown MSNBC Message Board, I raised this issue, and, with a few exceptions, I was called a "neo-con" and all sorts of things. Apparently, if you dare utter a word of criticism against Olbermann, nothing else can be good about you.
I'm not quite ready to give up on Olbermann entirely as yet, but his attacks on 24 make me shake my head just about every time I see him on the screen now...
Hope you come by and comment again!
Post a Comment