TV Democracy

by digby

Christy at FDL posted this amazing TDS moment of zen featuring Laura Ingraham saying that because millions of Americans enjoy watching Jack Bauer of "24" it means we have had a national referendum on whether Americans support the beating of terrorism suspects.

This is a very interesting development. It would seem that Ingraham is saying that popular culture can be used as a proper guage of what Americans truly believe. Certainly Ingraham's allies on the right don't seem to share her view:

On the heels of the demise of NBC's "Book of Daniel" – which many Christians saw as an affront to their faith and actively opposed – ABC's popular "Desperate Housewives" program has become the latest target of a media watchdog organization that will sponsor a boycott of the show's advertisers.

OneMillionMoms.com, which is affiliated with the American Family Association, calls "Desperate Housewives" "one of the most vulgar and tasteless programs on television."

[...]

"ABC says the show is watched by 15 million people each week. That means that 265 million don't watch the show but still end up paying for it by the products they buy," he said.

Wildmon says he doesn't buy the argument that people who don't like a particular show should simply turn off their TV.

"Will they also tell us that if we don't like drunk drivers on the highway to stay off the highway? Sure we can turn the TV off. But why should we have to do that? Why do our children need to be exposed to such trash? Why do the networks keep putting out trash and more trash?"


Wow. These conservatives are confusing. According to Laura Ingraham a program's popularity proves that the American people are endorsing the behavior they see on them. By her logic the public endorsed mob violence because they watched "The Sopranos" and love indiscriminate killing because they watch violent video games. (And by Wildman's logic, watching TV is like driving a car ... or something.)

All liberals ever said was that adults had a right to watch whatever they choose, on the assumption that they are mature and intelligent enough to separate fact from fiction. We thought the V-Chip was the proper course of action so that parents would have tools to monitor their kids' viewing habits. The Ingraham Republicans, however, think the viewing habits of Americans should determine public policy and that has me a little bit worried. I mean, I'm all for popular culture sorting itself out without any interference from the government, but it never occurred to me that the problem might be that government would take its cues from popular culture.

I'm not actually kidding about this. They held seminars on "24" at The Heritage Foundation. Featuring Rush Limbaugh and Michael Chertoff. Together. (Be sure to check out all the pics. )

SECRETARY CHERTOFF: ...In reflecting a little bit about the popularity of the show "24" -- and it is popular, and there are a number of senior political and military officials around the country who are fans, and I won't identify them, because they may not want me to do that (laughter) I was trying to analyze why it's caught such public attention. Obviously, it's a very well-made and very well-acted show, and very exciting. And the premise of a 24-hour period is a novel and, I think, very intriguing premise. But I thought that there was one element of the shows that at least I found very thought-provoking, and I suspect, from talking to people, others do as well.

Typically, in the course of the show, although in a very condensed time period, the actors and the characters are presented with very difficult choices -- choices about whether to take drastic and even violent action against a threat, and weighing that against the consequence of not taking the action and the destruction that might otherwise ensue.

In simple terms, whether it's the president in the show or Jack Bauer or the other characters, they're always trying to make the best choice with a series of bad options, where there is no clear magic bullet to solve the problem, and you have to weigh the costs and benefits of a series of unpalatable alternatives. And I think people are attracted to that because, frankly, it reflects real life. That is what we do every day. That is what we do in the government, that's what we do in private life when we evaluate risks. We recognize that there isn't necessarily a magic bullet that's going to solve the problem easily and without a cost, and that sometimes acting on very imperfect information and running the risk of making a serious mistake, we still have to make a decision because not to make a decision is the worst of all outcomes.

And so I think when people watch the show, it provokes a lot of thinking about what would you do if you were faced with this set of unpalatable alternatives, and what do you do when you make a choice and it turns out to be a mistake because there was something you didn't know. I think that, the lesson there, I think is an important one we need to take to heart. It's very easy in hindsight to go back after a decision and inspect it and examine why the decision should have been taken in the other direction. But when you are in the middle of the event, as the characters in "24" are, with very imperfect information and with very little time to make a decision, and with the consequences very high on a wrong decision, you have to be willing to make a decision recognizing that there is a risk of mistake.


(Are we surprised that this is the guy who screwed up the Katrina response? Jesus.)

Chertoff is basically saying that sometimes we might get a little bit overzealous, if you know what I mean, but that's just because we don't have all the information we need. It's hard to make good decisions under stress and well, you know, you can't make an omlette without breaking a few legs. "24" teaches Americans about that and the government is grateful.

He's not the only highly influential GOP fan, though:

RUSH: I asked Mary Matalin, by the way, on this trip to Afghanistan, we were watching this, and I asked her -- she worked for Vice President Cheney at the time -- I said, "Do we have anything like this?"

SURNOW: (Laughter.)

RUSH: She said, "Not that I know of." What about the possibility of government officials -- back to the scholars -- government officials watching this program (we know they do) can they get ideas, creative ideas on dealing with these problems from this show, or are they strictly fans, do you think?

[...]

Speaking just as an American citizen, you mentioned the operation in Canada. This is why the show has an impact on people. We have a political party trying to shut down the program that enabled that operation in Canada to be a success. It's being called "domestic spying," when it's not. These guys put the same kind of conflict in the program. Jack Bauer, who never fails, always is the target of the government, somebody, being put in jail. It's amazing how close it is. I'm not trying to say that "24" replicates life or influences things. It's clearly an entertainment program. But people who watch this love it because it is pro-good guy; it does show a way in which these things can happen. Howard, how conscious are you when you write an episode or a story line, of real-life events? How recently do you try to incorporate, or is it all made up in your head and if it happens to coincide with reality, it's coincidence?


Sigh. That they all watch the show and think it is real in some way is bad enough. That they also believe it reflects a national referendum on the use of violent interrogation and torture techniques because it loosely tracks possible real life events and makes people "understand" how difficult it can be to make decisions under stress is just plain pathetic.

(Read the whole transcript to see the rather astonished military and Hollywood types try to explain the difference between fact and fiction to these zombies. Aye yay yay.)


Update: I missed this juicy item on C&L earlier. Pat Leahy may ask the DOJ to investigate Ingraham for her little phone jamming gambit on electon day.


.