Reading 24 posted by Ben

I am deeply ambivalent about the Fox Network show 24. It is the only TV show that I have watched consistently since it began to air in 2001, which is no mean feat for a guy who chooses not to have television reception of any kind in his home. Nonetheless, friends and DVDs have allowed me to follow the adventures of Jack Bauer without missing an episode.

When it's good, 24 is fantastic television, with intelligent writing, tense pacing, and a semblance of relevance to modern events. And of course, it deals with one man's unending quest to fight terrorism on American soil by any means necessary. (I find it sadly ironic that the producers of the show were thinking more about terrorism in the days prior to September 11th than was our vacationing president.)

What I don't have a good handle on is the thematic intent that runs through every season, lurking below the surface. The show is too complex to qualify as gung-ho jingoism, but since the first season aired, it has relentlessly presented scenarios whose moral certitude has been gray if viewed from a progressive position and startlingly clear-cut if viewed from a conservative position, at least based on surface level analysis. The easy answer would be to dismiss is as conservative framing of security issues from the zealots at Fox. But that would miss some crucial narrative elements that inform every decision the show's writers make.

Let's start with the question of how 24 presents torture. Beginning in the second season, CTU agent Jack Bauer was thrust into time-sensitive situations where the only way to get answers from hard-core terrorists was to torture them, either physically or mentally. Since that season, one can reliably count of scenes of torture to play a prominent narrative role. Is this meant to condition viewers to accept the exigencies of war, to create a willingness in the public to view torture as acceptable in certain circumstances?

One of the lessons of 24 is that Jack Bauer is always right. People who ignore Jack's suggestions or orders invariably put their own lives or careers in jeopardy. So, to present the titular hero as achieving (good) results through the application of (bad) torture seems paramount to condoning torture as a necessary act in the war on terror. Jack always makes the right decisions in order to protect us, Jack tortures terrorists (or his girlfriend's estranged husband), therefore torture is a justified means to ensure our safety. If Jack can do it, wouldn't it be unreasonable to disallow our actual soldiers, CIA agents, or foreign proxies from the use of such a powerful tool?

That argument misses a key element of the typical 24 narrative, however. When people other than Jack commit acts of questionable morality without Jack's authorization, they invariably turn out to have exercised poor judgment. Torture may be a valuable tool, according to 24, but the vast majority of people who chose to use it would do so incorrectly and would end up causing far more harm than good. Because let's face it, the vast majority of people are not, and will never be, as honest, morally upright, wise, heroic, or smart as Federal Agent Jack Bauer. So we have to modify our understanding of the messaging: Jack Bauer has the moral authority to torture. Other people do not. That still doesn't mean that we're not being conditioned to accept torture, but there is a strong mitigating factor telling us not to allow just any federal agent to go around kicking people in the groin or sawing off heads.

Let's look a little bit at the show's villains, as well. Every season has featured a terrorist threat that is never as obvious as it seems. Those who we believe are the terrorist masterminds often turn out to be working for somebody else, somebody who is nuanced and, in a twisted way, principled. Additionally, these villains often turn out to have major connections within the U.S. government. This season, a major arms manufacturer and military contractor turns out to have been selling arms to terrorists and goes to war with Federal Agent Jack Bauer. Last season, the Mexican drug dealers turned out to be a mere distraction from the white, Western terrorist who sought to end the United States' interference in world affairs. Agents from the highest levels of government have been presented as conniving, manipulative, and willing to act immorally to achieve unethical goals. Once again, this is not a message that easily fits Bush administration (or Fox News) framing of world and domestic affairs.

The conservative message is built on respect for authority. 24 tells us to distrust it. Corporations, politicians, and government agents become just as culpable when things go bad as the terrorists.

I don't intend to classify the show as liberal, by any means, although David Palmer was clearly running for president in the first season as a democrat. But neither is it overtly conservative.

It presents a world full of moral ambiguity, where we do indeed have reason to be afraid, where people act for complex reasons in their efforts to achieve their goals, and where heroism comes with a price, even if you're Jack Bauer. In doing so, it defies easy political categorization.

Does this mean that 24 has no agenda beyond the desire to entertain the masses? Not at all. While I couldn't offer a strong conclusion without much more thought and a careful study of each season's narrative structure, I can suggest some preliminary directions for further exploration. The show's producers want their audience to think. They want us to experience heightened suspense. And, I suspect, they want us to step outside our rigid ideological boxes. Because ultimately, 24 is a show about very idealistic people who want to do horrible things to innocent people. The show's writers understand that those who act in the name of 'good' can often bear awful culpability for the actions of those whose acts are 'evil'. Even Jack Bauer is not exempt from that core rule of 24.