The Effects of Hollywood
Since the eventful day of September 11th torture has been a hot topic for the media, movies, and has even sparked debate amongst government officials. In the article, “Whatever it Takes” by Jane Mayer, she debates on the subject by comparing real life torture from an interrogators point of view and those of the fantasy world from which the producers and writers come up with for the hit TV show 24. Mayer attempts to influence her readers about the effects that the show 24 has on its viewers, which include young cadets, through interviews with highly trained interrogators. Mayer also interviews the show’s writers, producers, and actors to expose some of the main concerns in regards to the torture scenes in the hit show 24.
Throughout the article, Mayer makes it clear that she does not agree with the way torture is being projected in the show 24 by starting off her discussion questioning the producer’s credibility, Joel Surnow. Mayer wants people to see Surnow as an arrogant and selfish person by quoting Surnow as saying, “People in the Administration love the series, too, it’s a patriotic show. They should love it” (Surnow Qtd in Mayer 1). Mayer’s point is that Surnow is very confident in the show’s popularity regardless of the criticism the show brings amongst some of its viewers. Surnow also bluntly tells Mayer that he is arrogant, there’s no denying it. She also points out many times in her article that he is a conservative and goes on to say that Surnow even calls himself a “right-wing- nut job” (Surnow Qtd in Mayer 2). Mayer makes the impression that most conservatives are supporters of torture by mentioning a private luncheon hosted by the talk radio host Rush Limbaugh’s, which took place at his home. The attendees were all conservatives and fans of the show. They defend the show by saying it’s just a show, it’s not real. Surnow’s credibility is questioned yet again when he failed to attend a meeting with top F.B.I officials to discuss the show’s gruesome scenes and in hopes of replacing them with useful techniques that are used in real life interrogations. Mayer quotes Surnow as saying, “I just can’t sit in a room that long. I’m too A.D.D. I can’t sit still” (Surnow Qtd in Mayer 2). Mayer believes that Surnow was being disrespectful and doesn’t show any sympathy for people’s opinions. She claims he was conspicuously absent. She wants people to see him as someone that cannot be trusted. Mayer also makes it a point to tell her readers that Surnow is not happy with all these torture experts giving him advice on what works and what doesn’t. According to Mayer, Surnow believes that torture does work by speaking on behalf of Surnow and stating, “I don’t think it’s honest to say that if someone you love was being held, and you had five minutes to save them, you wouldn’t do it” (Surnow Qtd in Mayer 3). In other words, Mayer is presenting him as a firm believer on using torture as a tactic to extract information and is also indifferent to the controversy that his show has caused. Mayer interviews many others such as the star of the show, government officials, and writers in regards to their views on the use of torture. She finds many of the government officials as being credible.
Mayer introduces Patrick Finnegan, the dean of the United States Military Academy at West Point, as an important figure by pointing out his immaculate uniform and how his chest was covered in ribbons and medals. She wants her readers to know that Finnegan is a person that can be trusted. Finnegan showed up on the set with a few of his top interrogators on behalf of the government to voice their opinion of the controversial show and the image it was portraying against America. She views government officials as being credible by introducing them in high regards and quoting their thoughts on how ineffective torture really is. Mayer also emphasizes about other more effective tactics to interrogate besides torture. Mayer continues making a point on the ineffective use of torture by stating the views of the interrogators as saying, “the show promoted unethical and illegal behavior and had adversely affected the training and performance of real American soldiers” (Mayer 1). Having highly trained government officials make a visit to the studio of 24 to express their views and concerns about the show is enough prove that the show is indeed having repercussion on its viewers. Although the show is fictional, many viewers such as young cadets have been known to mimic the show in real life situations.
Finnegan is not the only government official with concerns, Gary Solis, a retired law professor who teaches cadets at West Point, has concerns that some of his students have taken the tactics used on the show literally. The young minded soldiers are impressed by the tactics used on the show. Mayer goes on to emphasize her point on how the show is having a negative effect on viewers by quoting Solis on the discussion he had with his students, “I tried to impress on them that this technique would open the wrong doors, but it was like trying to stomp out an anthill” (Solis Qtd Mayer 1). In other words, Mayer is clarifying how the show 24 is poisoning the minds of our future young leaders. The government would like the show to portray torture in a different light, to show some effective less gruesome techniques, some that work. The torture scenes on the show 24 are not effective because they are known to only get answers that the interrogators want to hear or what they already know. If some Islamic radicals are willing to bomb themselves for their beliefs then torture is pointless. Joe Navarro, a top F.B.I expert in questioning, has made it clear that only psychopaths would use the types of techniques used on the show and not be affected by them. Even the star of the show 24, Kiefer Sutherland, feels that torture is not effective or even necessary.
An example is when Mayer introduces Kiefer Sutherland, the show’s main actor, as someone who leans towards the left, meaning he’s a liberal, she explains that Sutherland’s political views are anti-torture and makes it obvious he’s in it for the money by mentioning his salary. According to Mayer even Sutherland, “claimed to be bored with playing torture scenes, admitted that he worried about the ‘unintended consequences of the show’ (Mayer 2). In making this comment Mayer is pointing out that if the main actor is concerned about the image the show is portraying then maybe the show is causing an effect on its general viewers. Another important figure is the lead writer, Howard Gordon, Gordon is a democrat that also worries that the show is having negative consequences but he goes on to defend the show by stating, “I think people can differentiate between a television show and reality” (Gordon Qtd in Mayer 3). Mayer makes the observation that regardless of how the producers or actors feel about the show and the negative feedback it may be stirring, money is more important. Tony Lagouranis was quoted saying, “They were a bit prickly. They have this money-making machine, and we were telling them it’s immoral” (Lagouranis Qtd in Mayer 1). Mayer is making It is obvious that the show’s producers are more concerned about the popularity and money than people’s opinion. A popular show such as this will never be changed.
Mayer’s overall argument on the article “Whatever it Takes” is that although 24 may be just a show it still has a huge impact on its viewers. Many of them are our future leaders. The producers, writers, and actors are conveying the message that money is greater than the consequences that the show 24 may lead to. She discusses salary and the roles played by different executives at the studio. Also, by discussing Surnow’s rebellious attitude Mayer questions his credibility. On this subject there will always be opposing groups but after much debate it all boils down to the show’s popularity and money. Surnow is stubborn and stuck in his ways he is a firm believer in what he thinks is right and I respect that.