In John Freeman's essay in the January 13, 2005, issue of the Las Vegas Weekly, he uses the television show 24 to substantiate his belief that with the Fox television network, "there is empirical evidence that the network creates falsehood ... and with the new season of 24, it appears the network has entered the realm of idea placement (otherwise known as propaganda)."
As an avid follower of 24, I know that main character Jack Bauer's behavior in this fourth season of the show is no different than his behavior in the first three. Nor is the premise of terrorists on U.S. soil different—it's the running theme of the series. Jack works for/with the "Counter Terrorist Unit."
The character of Jack Bauer has always been a loose cannon—defying orders and using un-sanctioned methods that he deems necessary. He is usually alone in his decisions and actions. Jack's reasoning has always been that the end justifies the means in his fictional, television world. And while he may be proven right, his actions are not without cost or consequence. This is part of a formula that makes 24 such arresting viewing.
I'm not a fan of the way Fox News manipulates facts and viewers. But I don't think their policies are reflected in their fictional television shows. Mr. Freeman need only look to The Simpsons and Arrested Development for proof contrary to his opinion. The Simpsons has always been one of the most subtly subversive shows on television. And an ongoing plot of Arrested Development has the patriarch of the family faking his own death, because he made a clandestine deal with Saddam Hussein to build tract houses in Iraq.
While I agree with what I perceive to be Mr. Freeman's political views on torture and civil rights, I disagree with his view of 24. There are many instances of art imitating life and ripped-from-the-headlines entertainment, and I believe that's the case with this show. I highly doubt that it's being used as propaganda by the Fox network, and I'm sure the creative minds behind the show would agree with me. Mr. Freeman needs to look elsewhere in support of his beliefs.
John Freeman replies: Andie Gottfried makes a good point about 24. The show's makeup has not changed dramatically since its first season, and Bauer is every bit of a loose canon as he was before. What I was calling into question was the timing of this particular episode and the way it asked viewers to collude with Bauer's embrace of by-any-means-necessary. Put that in light of the ongoing Senate confirmation hearings of Alberto Gonzalez, the chief architect for legitimizing torture, the network's obvious ideological bias, and things seem fishy.
And saying that Fox's airing of the wildly successful and lucrative cartoon sitcom The Simpsons is evidence that they are indeed "fair and balanced" is just rubbish. 24 is a realistic "real-time" drama about domestic terrorism. The Simpsons is a cartoon sitcom not about terrorism or geopolitics, but a dysfunctional family. Its occasional cracks about its own network seem like calculated bits of acting out, not subversion.
Even when The Simpsons made a mockery of the Fox News banner—thereby earning a threat from Rupert Murdoch to in effect sue his own show—I had trouble believing this is straightforward. After all, no one loses here. Murdoch didn't actually go to court, and he used some free publicity to buy the show some much-needed authenticity and screw-the-Man brownie points.
My question to you is: If you don't agree with Fox News policy for how they twist the facts, why do you patronize the network at all?
Josh Bell's pan of the NBC "train wreck" Committed (January 13) prompted this counterattack:
Critics lose credibility when they kick a great show in the teeth. I feel you need perspective. Take any great comedy and review the first few episodes. They all have their obvious quirks. I loved this show, and it is going to do well. If you don't see that, you're not much of a critic.
Editor's note: Stop us if we're getting this wrong, but your argument is that the standard for good TV criticism should be "agrees with Ferrell Smith"? We sure could have used you six months ago during the great Father of the Pride debate.
For some reason, last week's cover story, a piece of fiction by Richard Abowitz, prompted an wavelet of tersely worded approval. Minimalist praise! Affirmative aphorisms! Short letters!
Excellent story! Any more?
Interesting short story ... I enjoyed it.
The short story on the cover was mildly entertaining. Realistic, I thought, in subject and content, but I could tell it was written by a man.
Tempest on a T-shirt: Great article. Previously printed in Bitch. Bitch: excellent magazine.
Wink? Funny, actually. Even if she is having a dialogue with her, um, girl stuff.
Last week, in response to our January 6 feature about 10 great local sandwiches, a letter-writer took food critic Max Jacobson to task for including Jersey Mike's Subs. Not authentic, crabbed a reader who dubbed herself Former Jersey Girl. This fellow could not let that pass without comment:
I'm a local franchisee for Jersey Mike's Subs, and I take exception to your comments degrading us. This concept originated in 1956 on the Jersey Shore in Point Pleasant, New Jersey. I trained two weeks at that original store to learn how to make authentic Jersey-style subs. Jersey Mike's started out as a mom-and-pop sub shop and has retained the exact specifications of those early subs. Our cold cuts are top-quality and our bread is made fresh in the store every day. Our Jersey customers attest to our back-home quality by repeated visits and word of mouth.
I may not have the Jersey accent, but I know I'm putting out the real thing. All the other sub chains' DNA starts with Jersey Mike's Subs.