In defense of "24"
Several readers wrote impassioned and knowledgeable responses to Paul's post linking Diana West's column regarding the FOX series "24" yesterday. Jonathan Burack wrote:
I am second to none among those I know in denouncing even the tiniest signs of dhimmitude when I see them. I therefore cannot believe Diane West really paid much attention to 24 on this score.Reader Andrew Prokop wrote:Yes, of course, there were Americans involved in the Islamist Marwan's plot in 24. Does Ms. West not think such fifth columnists exist? And yes, the temporary president in the show was also caste as a fly in the ointment -- but not because he was in on the plot, but because of his inept readiness to APPEASE it. Does Ms. West really not recognize that this fool of a "president" was being made fun of by the show PRECISELY for trying to stop Jack Bauer from applying maximum force to the real suspects. Moreover, the idea that Jack Bauer's actions in this regard were meant to illustrate moral equivalence between himself and Marwan is absurd. Only someone who failed totally to register the heavy irony in a show rich in humor as well as tough reality could interpret this in this way. Bauer and President Palmer who backed him to the hilt in this use of torture were depicted as heroes and were seen as such by everyone I knew who watched this show.
In fact, Marwan remained the key focus of the CTU's effort to thwart the plot to the very end. And the CAIR pressure earlier in the show did NOT in fact lead 24 to moderate in any way its view of the hideous Muslim suburban family featured in it at that point. (They were the focus of CAIR's original complaint.) That family remained the Islamic Munsters they were to the very end. True, as the show promised CAIR, two good Muslims were included. However, they turned out to be "good" because, as two gun shop owners, they enthusiastically JOINED in the battle against the terrorists. The entire show stuck with the radical Islamic essence of the main plotters to the end. (Did Ms. West really find Marwan's "You wake to a new reality" speech all that murky? Amazing.)
What Ms. West may reveal is her own squeemishness at Bauer's over the top use of force. I did not find this extreme behavior by them to be making the case for "moral equivalence" at all. Instead, the show did a fine job of making clear how UNLIKE the terrorists Bauer was in his use of this preventive violence. The points where Bauer uses this pressure are clearly set up so as to enlist maximum sympathetic understanding on the part of the audience. Proof positive of this is the fact that President Palmer, accorded all his usual dignity, is the one who makes the central case for going all out when he tells the pathetic temporary President, "We did not bring this crisis on ourselves, but we WILL resolve it ourselves." I relished the scenes like this one, which force all of us to consider what we would be willing to do in the face of the ultimate nihilism we confront. The central theme of this show was that, in the age of terror. ALL choices are bad ones, but you must make the right ones anyway. Is Ms West ready to do what Jack did? If so, I think that should be enough to make the point clear to her.
And, oh yes, and finally, if Ms. West thinks the Chinese are not ultimately next in line as a major adversary, she is as naïve as she think the appeasers are.
You've probably gotten a few emails from people who watch 24. Your claim that they "knuckled under pressure" from CAIR isn't really accurate.Reader Carl Morgan wrote:Point 1: 24 has never before had the same group of villains throughout an entire season. Usually the first group of baddies is dispatched halfway through the year. This year was the first year that they had the same one all season: the terrorist Habib Marwan clearly orchestrated the events of the entire day.
Point 2: The author of the article seems to want to make the show fit her own personal agenda. She turns the twist about the Chinese embassy harboring a man who sold nuclear secrets to the terrorists into a "distracting subplot" simply because it does not feature Islamic jihadists, front and center.
Point 3: The terrorist leader, Marwan, employed mercenaries. Since there undoubtedly is increased suspicion of Middle Eastern men in the U.S. today, I don't think that this is too implausible.
Point 4: Since you haven't seen the show, you totally mischaracterize the "moral equivalence" exchange. Rest assured, there is no equivalence here. Marwan is portrayed as wholly evil. The exchange was an honest one...the terrorist DOES see the U.S. as evil, and he says so. But the audience sure doesn't agree with him, judging from what's on screen.
Point 5: It's a tv show. Their first commitment is for interesting plot twists.
Rest assured, it's not serving the left's political agenda... leftist blogs have been buzzing about it all year because of its portrayal of torture. Jonah Goldberg has blogged about it positively down at the Corner after an episode where the terrorist took advantage of Amnesty International to avoid interrogation. Rush Limbaugh even visited the set and bragged about how right-leaning the creators were, if that means anything to you.
P.S. I didn't really enjoy this season all that much, but the article you linked to misrepresents it, so I felt I should speak up as an informed viewer of the show.
First: 24 used some of last season's characters (when it was Mexican terrorists) in this season. For instance, the "Patty-Hearst" character West describes was actually someone who biologicallyI don't think we're sufficiently familiar with the series to render our own judgment, but we'll be sure to provide any response from Diana West.
poisoned the President last season. It was a cool twist seeing her
back. Secondly, they didn't whitewash anything. In the latter part of the season, the main terrorist (Marwan) recorded a classic terrorist message, complete with a black flag of jihad like you would see in Iraqi terrorists videos. Lastly, visit this blog post from Daniel Pipes about 24. It is much more informative than the West column.One last thing: I see a lot of people who are condemning 24 for "caving in" to CAIR when they haven't even watched the show themselves. 24 has been on for 4 seasons now and God only knows what the writers originally had in store. Perhaps the jihadist line wasn't what they wanted to do for the entire season. 24 has had Muslim terrorists in the past, as well. I believe it was season 2 when it had a Muslim "spy," but it ended up actually being a double-spy, where he was helping the government. There were no CAIR press releases before any of that, meaning, they could not have been pressured to change the story. Season 2 also dealt strongly with Gitmo and it could arguably be said that season 2 had more Islamist overtones. Take a look for yourself here.
People need to watch the show's previous seasons first, and perhaps get a better idea the show is about in the first place before jumping all over the writers.
UPDATE: Bruce Kesler adds:
Not to belabor the 24 discussion, but:1. I've been addicted to Monday at 9 PM for the last two seasons, since I became aware of 24. It's the only show to which I am addicted. It is thoroughly enveloping, and moral.
2. The '60's were "decided" by culture, not political reasoning. 24 (JAG sometimes) is the only show for the '00's culture challenge, appeasement vs. necessity, weakness vs. sacrifice, etc.
The CAIR episode was unfortunate, but as your commentators made clear, it was PR and did not affect the substance of the show.
