Jump to content

Talk:Critical reaction to 24

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the current revision of this page, as edited by Cewbot (talk | contribs) at 06:04, 31 January 2024 (Maintain {{WPBS}} and vital articles: 1 WikiProject template. Create {{WPBS}}. Keep majority rating "C" in {{WPBS}}. Remove 1 same rating as {{WPBS}} in {{WikiProject Television}}.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.

(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Fair use rationale for Image:Dt24.jpg

[edit]

Image:Dt24.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 06:56, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Republican and Democrat parties

[edit]

"...24 has featured two African-American Democratic Presidents which the show presented in a positive light and featured two negatively portrayed White Republican Presidents, one of which, Charles Logan, was revealed as masterminding terrorist attacks against Americans and the murder of a former President. On the flip side, Republican Defense Secretary James Heller and former Democrat/current Republican advisor Mike Novick have relatively been portrayed as a moral and competent figures while Democratic Vice Presidents Jim Prescott and Noah Daniels have been seen as opportunistic and reactionary. Both political parties have demonstrated good and bad characteristics."

I've watched the show from the beginning and cannot remember any administration in the show being identified as either Republican or Democrat. As far as I can remember during the show it has never been mentioned which party the various administrations actually belong to. The only reference to either of these parties I can think of is in Season 6 when Milo said Nadia was a member of the Republican Party. Count de Ville 00:54, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was definetely stated in Season 1 that David Palmer was a member of the Democratic Party (Sherry outright said it at one point). Since Senator Keeler was running against David Palmer, it can be assumed he was Republican. Since Logan was Keeler's VP, it can be assumed he was Republican. And while to the best of my knowledge Wayne Palmer being a Democrat was never actually referred to in Season 6, he almost certainly is one, like his brother. Nerva 01:21, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More to the point, that paragraph appears to be unsourced. Somebody seems to be inserting his own personal ideas into the article instead of writing about the subject in a verifiable manner. --Tony Sidaway 21:15, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is allegations of bias necessary

[edit]

Is this section necessary whatsoever? This is criticizing the show because it *might* be conservative. As if that is a justifiable criticism. I've never seen anything on wikipedia criticized for being liberal, let alone maybe liberal. You know how many shows there are that advance the policies of the Left? Almost all of them. ER is a great example. Every Christian on ER is completely whacked out and intolerant of everyone, there is one episode the doctors give a pregnant girl with "crazy" religious parents an abortion drug without letting her parents know, plenty of sex/pregnancies outside of marriage, etc. Should we maybe add an "Allegations of Bias" section to the ER page? Better yet... should we add a section about ER being anti-Christian. I'm so sorry that this 24 may show terrorists who happen to be Muslim in a bad light. ER shows EVERY Christian as bad. There hasn't been one sane Christian on that show. Case in point, there's a huge double standard and my point is maybe to just identify it so that people are just aware that we need to be more neutral on these pages. -Brad Kgj08 (talk) 20:44, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The show has has an appearance of being "conservative" but in substance it's quite left wing. How many villians are 'left' vs 'right'? In almost every season the results are either right-wing military fanatics or corporate fascists or right-wing Serbian nationalists. These are all *standard* liberal-seen enemies.DavidMIA (talk) 17:25, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article is about Critical Reaction to the show, rather than the show itself, so the section 'allegations of bias' by published critics is appropriate. I can't help but be amused. I remember mass ridicule of Dan Quayle for his criticism of 'Murphy Brown' for its depiction of an unwed mother. The mantra then--and I'm pretty sure it was coming from the 'left'--was 'it's only a tv show, dummy.'
I don't think the show depicts torture as effective. The SECDEF tortured his own son, only to extract that his son was gay. A Muslim working in the Counter-Terrorism Bureau was racially profiled and tortured, only to be proven innocent. Jack Bauer's brother deliberately gave misinformation under torture. There are numerous depictions of 'unbreakable' people trained to withstand torture, including Jack Bauer. One season paraphrased the 9/11 conspiracy theory about crackpots in the U.S. govt staging a terrorist attack, hardly a right-wing notion. In another season, mass detention of Muslims is debated from both sides in the Oval Office, the 'left wing' argument presented cogently. Also, the one woman and two black Presidents are depicted as highly moral, the two white male Presidents as godawful. 24 does depict terrorism as a serious threat -- I suppose some on the 'left' think that's 'right wing' in itself.Ten-K (talk) 05:14, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If there are people alleging bias in ER, other than yourself, then you should add that to the article. As is evidenced by the many citations in this article, re: allegations of bias, there are many notable figures who have these criticisms and there is much debate. This article is about 24, not ER, and not your personal feelings vis-a-vis Christians 59.38.32.5 (talk) 03:06, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know I should resist responding to this OT discussion but isn't Luka Kovač a Roman Catholic? His article says he is. Then there was Hope Bobeck. Okay both of these may have been wacky in some ways but not in a bad way and no more then the average character, indeed arguably less so Nil Einne (talk) 12:39, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Its funny that some people here claim this to be a right-left issue when it really isn't. Every conservative in their right mind (and I know quite a few) abhors torture. For the record: Its not left-wing bias to be against torture. It is common sense to be against torture. Torture is unanimously considered a serious crime in all of the western world (including the US, to remind you), so what 24 really does is promoting not only immoral but also criminal behaviour. What's going to be politcised next? Public Executions? Vigilante Violence? Will some consider it criticism from "the left" if a series is attacked for those things? Janfrie1988 (talk) 02:50, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Might be helpful

[edit]

[1]. Sceptre (talk) 12:03, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

unsourced controversial comment

[edit]

There was a line in the Allegations of Bias section that said

In addition to his commentary, Limbaugh reportedly kissed Mary Lynn Rajskub, the actress who portrays Chloe O'Brian.[citation needed] (revision)

This had been tagged as cite-needed since July 2007. I am honestly shocked that it wasn't removed sooner. -Zeus-u|c 16:48, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Bias

[edit]

I haven't been watching the series so I'd like to see 2 aspects discussed here:

1) how many times the use of torture was depicted as justified at the end of the day?

2) did the plot ever relate to real life issues like:

a) the problem of torturing random/innocent people on mass scale e.g. in Abu Ghraib ? or

b) the use of tortures other than officially admitted as acceptable by US authorities (e.g. waterboarding, depravation of sleep, life threats) that have been proven to take place in "war against terrorism" (for example: pouring phosphoric acid on detainees, beating wounds with metal sticks, beatings causing the need of amputations unless the interrogated person didn't die, tying wires to detainees genitals and dragging him across the floor, sodomisations, rapes, rapes on minors, torturing minors and family members to break a detainee etc.)78.131.137.50 (talk) 17:47, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(1) In Seasons 2-7, torture is portrayed as unreliable -- sometimes effective, sometimes not -- but justified to prevent imminent (within '24' hours) attack with nuclear or other weapons of mass destruction -- a sensational scenario that has never happened in reality, to public knowledge. However, in Season 7, Jack Bauer testified that he used torture to prevent a bus bombing, not a WMD attack. The show does not address the controversy over torture as part of on-going intelligence gathering, it always deals with a massive attack within '24' hours. In Season 7, the show was most manipulative on the issue: a Senator who opposes torture is ironically murdered by terrorists; the FBI is depicted as slowed down by their refusal to use torture; an FBI agent who opposes torture at the start of the day converts to Jack Bauer's 'Whatever It Takes' philosophy when Bauer is depicted getting faster results in preventing catastrophes. In Season 6, the President turns Jack over to terrorists to be tortured, in exchange for vital intelligence; Jack willingly agrees to be tortured 'for the Greater Good.' In Season 4, the Secretary of Defense tortures his own son. Jack tortures his own brother (Season 6) and threatens to torture his girlfriend (Season 5). He is also forced to execute two innocent colleagues in the Counter-Terrorist Bureau (Seasons 3,6) for his view of 'the Greater Good.' Bauer also uses summary execution of terrorists and traitors. In Season 7, Bauer discusses his views on counter-terrorism and says its up to the American people to decide whether they want to use him or not.
(2) There's some inconsistency in how torture is authorized on the show. In Season 4, Presidential authorization was necessary. In other seasons, lower level counter-terrorism officials can authorize torture. The Abu Ghraib scenario has not been depicted, though mass detention of Muslims in the U.S. was part of the Season 6 storyline. People are sometimes tortured based on flimsy, circumstantial links to terrorist plots; in numerous episodes, innocent people are tortured. On the TV show, torture goes far beyond waterboarding, etc. Medically induced extreme pain, denial of pain medication or medical care, or extreme brutal methods are used. In one episode, Jack Bauer staged the shooting of a suspect's child on video to extract information, though the child was not actually shot. Bauer sometimes uses his reputation for using torture to scare suspects into giving information. These are always depicted within the contrived moral dilemma of preventing a catastrophic terrorist attack or genocide.Ten-K (talk) 06:56, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 12 external links on Critical reaction to 24. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:30, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Critical reaction to 24. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:34, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Critical_reaction_to_24&oldid=1201238967"