But it also got me to wondering: will Keith Olbermann lambaste Rome for its torture on Countdown as he did week before last for 24? Will he devote a Special Comment or whatever he calls it to Rome? Will its producers by held up as one Olbermann's "Worst People in the World" as he did for 24?
If his concerns were really just about torture depicted on television, perhaps he would. But, somehow, I doubt it.
For Olbermann's antipathy to the torture depicted on 24 is not just about torture, but about his hatred of Fox.
And however justified that may or may not be, it has no business getting formulated into attacks on a television drama... and a good one at that.
Sure, 24 is a show about modern-day terrorism, and Rome is a show about the past. Torture in one is not the same as torture in another. But they are both tv dramas, and have more in common with each other than either does to the real world in which we live and Olbermann works.
Helpful links:
Keith Olbermann, Jack Bauer, and Samuel Taylor Coleridge my 20-min podcast about Olbermann's 1st attack on 24, with videoclips and other links
Olbermann's suspension of rationality about 24 my blog post on this issue
Digg 
del.icio.us
reddit
8 comments:
24 takes place in the country for which Olbermann is somewhat responsible, as a citizen. Rome doesn't.
Fair enough. But if Olbermann were really so concerned about torture in television drama, he'd talk about Rome, too - and we both know he won't. The whole point of my raising this issue is that I think it's not good form to be attacking a tv drama as a stalking horse for national politics, on no evidence. In fact, I think it's a really bad idea, because it begins the walk down the road to censorship.
One is on late night pay TV, the other is not.
One depicts the "bad guys" torturing the "good guy," in a show that is supposed to (at least on some level) be topical. Now, who does the majority of torturing in the modern world?
Well, you're right that HBO is pay-TV, but, last time I checked, Rome and 24 were on at exactly the same time of night: 9pm. And so many people have cable these days, that top shows on HBO - such as the Sopranos - have attracted more viewers on occasion than free network tv.
24 is no doubt more topical than Rome, but most people agree than when we watch or read historical dramas, we apply its lessons to our current world.
And, in any case, the two shows do not need to be identical for my point to stand: if Olbermann were really concerned about the bad effect the depiction of torture on TV can have upon us - and not just grinding an axe against Fox - he'd at least be somewhat concerned about Rome.
(By the way, just to clear, I'm not endorsing America's use of torture as a real or threatened tactic. I just think Olbermann's attack on 24 is a dangerous step, and I'm going to keep calling him out on it.)
First off, Fox is in MANY more homes than HBO (which isn't part of basic cable but a subscription service of its own) and 24 is watched by MANY, MANY more people than ROME. They swear on HBO, show graphic violence on HBO, show graphic sex on HBO, etc. They do all this on an entirely different level than ANY network TV show, regardless of the time shown. They also do this because watching HBO is akin to watching a movie. And -- like with watching a movie -- the person going in (generally) knows this.
The torture in 24 could be construed (and is by me) as "See, this is what bad people do and that's why WE do it." The network the show is on is absolutely relevant to the message, IMO, and Olberman's "axe grinding" is based on said network's ridiculous skewing of NEWS, which should -- frankly -- be illegal.
The torture in ROME is to show A. That it went on all the time in Rome (Sevilla: 'A confession is not valid without torture') and B. the lack of humanity involved with the act (The Jew: "I am not an animal!" ). Applying that message to today (and I agree with you that fiction is always relevant to when it's shown as well as when it took place) it reads (roughly and by my estimation): 'Torture is some horrible fucking shit. Here's what it's really like. Eat it while you pretend your government fights for Freedom.'
A "dangerous step" towards what exactly? Doing his job? I'd say that even comparing the two shows while ignoring the context(s) is a dangerous step towards stupidity ... but whatever.
"Olberman's "axe grinding" is based on said network's [Fox's]ridiculous skewing of NEWS, which should -- frankly -- be illegal."
Well, what you say above is, alas, where we irrevocably part company. Because I hold making any kind of communication "illegal" to be not only in blatant violation of the First Amendment in America, but also profoundly against the freedom of expression that makes any society livable. If someone - Fox, whoever - says something to your disliking, say so, attack them publicly - don't call for the government to shut them off or down. Because therein lies the surest road to totalitarian rule.
And that's the step that I see Olbermann's attack on 24 as moving towards. That's the dangerous step he's taking.
One last point (for now). You're welcome to continue posting here anonymously. But I'd certainly prefer knowing your name - after all, you know mine...:)
Misrepresenting the news shouldn't be protected under the First Amendment, IMO. There's a difference between the right to expression and the right to misrepresentation. You can't lie under oath, for example, and then claim you were "expressing" yourself.
I never said that Fox should be shut down, I said that skewing the news should be illegal ... or maybe regulated is a better way of saying it. There's a big difference between the individuals right to expression and the media's. For starters, one entity (the individual) has a right to express themselves while the other (the media) has a responsibilty to the public. If I tell you aliens just landed in Boston it shouldn't be subject to govenment interference. If NBC 7 does, it should be. Information is essential to democracy. The intentional skewing of said information is as dangerous , maybe more dangerous (at least in it's real effect on our current world), as censorship.
Regardless, I still don't see why 24 and ROME would be held to the same standard, nor why we should expect them to be. They show torture in some movies too but I don't expect Keith Oberman to be consistently anti-torture scenes just because he didn't like it on a network TV show.
Chris
Thanks for the clarification, Chris.
Fox, of course, can always be sued in civil courts for deliberately or reckless spreading knowingly false information - that's what our libel and slander laws are all about. And those laws are fine with me.
But I do we think we need to be clear, when we're talking about broadcasters, about things being illegal - because that suggests that the government may have a right to censor, or take a show off the air - which I feel very strongly the government does not have a right to do.
And, yes, I'd argue that censorship is a much worse action than dispensing false information. Take a look at Thomas Jefferson's papers, or Karl Popper's The Open Society and Its Enemies, for more on this.
But here, in a nutshell, is why: if NBC lies and says aliens are landing, any other station can say they are wrong. But if NBC is ever prevented from broadcasting a particular story, then no one would know about it (if it had a exclusive scoop on the story). So the public interest is damaged much more by censorship than publication of false information. Because restrain of publication, if allowed, may get in the very way of exposing falsity.
Post a Comment