That 24 is a bad television show is subjective, I guess. I’ve always resisted watching it because, even if its real-time shtick is a bit innovative and Kiefer can act, it mostly struck me as a load of jingoistic crap. The basic premise, that doom is always imminent, is a constant running justification for ridiculously over-blown measures and otherwise indefensible actions. Now, at the risk of sounding reactionary, I’ve always felt that this can’t be written off just because it’s a TV show. The show is a reflection of the immediate post-9/11 color-warning alert mentality, in which the government actually broadcasted the appropriate level of fear citizens should feel, with corresponding implications for how they should view government policies that addressed the issue. I don’t claim any Fox/conspiracy sort of thing, but that the show (with its legions of committed followers) might influence public perception of the context in which government policies and the “war on terror” is understood isn’t exactly radical.

My opinion of the show became even less favorable after an episode in which an Indian-American actor plays a young Muslim-American terrorist, who betrays the naïve non-racist white man who takes him in. Even more suspect would be the Heritage Foundation event hosted by Rush Limbaugh, featuring the show’s executive producer and creator, Joel Surnow, entitled "24" and America's Image in Fighting Terrorism: Fact, Fiction, or Does it Matter? (Perhaps knowing that most Bush Administration members are enthusiasts is anti-endorsement enough).

A recent article in the New Yorker goes further, profiling Surnow and discussing how even U.S. Army officials are against the show’s use of torture, due to its impacts on soldiers’ perceptions.

 “The series, Surnow told me, is ‘ripped out of the Zeitgeist of what people’s fears are—their paranoia that we’re going to be attacked,’ and it ‘makes people look at what we’re dealing with’ in terms of threats to national security. ‘There are not a lot of measures short of extreme measures that will get it done,’ he said, adding, ‘America wants the war on terror fought by Jack Bauer. He’s a patriot.’”

“This past November, U.S. Army Brigadier General Patrick Finnegan, the dean of the United States Military Academy at West Point, flew to Southern California to meet with the creative team behind “24.” Finnegan, who was accompanied by three of the most experienced military and F.B.I. interrogators in the country, arrived on the set as the crew was filming. … Finnegan and the others had come to voice their concern that the show’s central political premise—that the letter of American law must be sacrificed for the country’s security—was having a toxic effect. In their view, the show promoted unethical and illegal behavior and had adversely affected the training and performance of real American soldiers.”

Even if certain plotlines do have a progressive tilt, by portraying Machiavellian oil execs in a bad light, for example, my objections to the show go beyond any partisan bias. That people like John Yoo and Laura Ingraham use the show as an example to frame their pro-torture nonsense isn’t Surnow’s fault. But its impact reaches far deeper, and for that, and Surnow (who skipped the meeting with Gen. Finnegan) is doing the American public is a disservice by being so willfully irresponsible.

 “In a more sober tone, [Surnow] said, ‘We’ve had all of these torture experts come by recently, and they say, ‘You don’t realize how many people are affected by this. Be careful.’ They say torture doesn’t work. But I don’t believe that.’”