Torture Porn

The Parents Television Council found no prime-time TV scenes of torture in 1996 and 1997. But in 2003, there were 228 such scenes, and over 100 in both 2004 and 2005. In the first five seasons of "24" alone, there were 64 torture scenes--about one torture scene for every two episodes. Moreover, before 2001 most TV torture was conducted by villains.

Is terrorism and 9/11 the reason--or the excuse? Torture and graphic violence work in TV and movie stories because they tap into a very basic survival instinct. As a species, we become instantly alert to threat, poised to fight or flee. Violence gets our full attention like nothing else, not even sex.

This attention is accompanied by heightened sensations, a chemical tension. It can be fascinating, and addictive. We come back for more. What better formula could there be for a TV series, and its sponsors?

It's also very, very easy. Getting that addicted attention doesn't require great effort with story, dialogue, ideas or even production values. Acting extreme emotions is also relatively easy, even if it's the kind that's most often awarded. Writers don't have to sweat out an ingeniously plotted and paced story, they don't have to come up with something new every week. It's almost all n the editing. They just push the same reliable buttons. It's as good as printing your own pay check.

But why hasn't TV done this to this extent before? Viewers wouldn't put up with it. They would be scandalized, embarrassed and offended, and perhaps even insulted. But this supposed new reality of a world suddenly filled with dark forces has given these writers, producers and actors permission to push these buttons. People have been convinced by their leaders that they are threatened as never before, that these are extraordinarily dangerous times, and that they have much to fear from terrorists and "evildoers." Fear has given the audience permission to indulge in what I've seen referred to as "torture porn."

Exploring the dark side of our unconscious is one thing. It has to be done very carefully and consciously, but that's not what this is. This is exploiting and manipulating the unconscious, with the viewer none the wiser.

As for its relationship to the external world: yes, the kind of terrorism that resulted in the 9-11 suicide attacks is a different threat than most the U.S. has faced, requiring new ways of responding. Torture however is not one of them--not an effective way, that is, although clearly it is being done, in Iraq and elsewhere.

And yes, the world is dangerous--but it's been dangerous for a long time. What America has experienced does not bear comparison with the London Blitz, or even what goes on today in many other western countries, let alone what life is like in Darfur.

It is the fear and not the actual danger that makes torture comforting, and dramatizing it as effective is reassuring. Though it may make the viewer feel safer, in reality it doesn't make us safer. It's fundamentally dishonest to portray it as effective. It is also sadistic, because it is dramatized to give the viewer pleasure.

This dark view of the world as predominately violent runs deep--it's fundamental to the dominant view of human nature derived from a perverse Social Darwinist interpretation of natural selection: the dog eats dog, survival of the fittest view. Such a view may even add to the violence, providing excuses to those who foment it, or who enable it with trade in weapons that constantly become more deadly and easier to obtain and use.

But that dark view is unbalanced--it simply ignores the contrary evidence we see everyday in our lives and in the natural world, where cooperation, nurture, giving and compassion are as natural and at least as necessary as anything else. But you won't get that idea from watching the so-called reality shows, any more than the plethora of dramas that depict how violent and perverse the world around us is. (You did get that idea of balance--of humanity's straddling state-- from Star Trek, right from the start.)

But we don't really have to go that deep to see why violence predominates on TV, or why torture is the style of the day. Violence is push-button drama; fear is the first ingredient of the adrenalin cocktail. During the Cold War (in real terms, a much greater threat to each of us in North America than terrorism), that was the template for the us vs. them simplification and the terms of violence. The rise in urban crime in the 70s, though real, was vastly overblown by media using fear to sell papers and get viewers, and politicians using fear to motivate voters. It also jump-started the dominance of police and crime shows, which also are prospering lavishly since 9/11.

Fear as a mighty motivator for political gain is also feeding torture porn. While Kiefer Sutherland may call himself liberal, and the "24" show runner quoted before calls himself a moderate Democrat, the co-creator and executive producer who really calls the shots, Joel Surnow, is a self-described "right-wing nut job" who is close friends with Rush Limbaugh. "24" is broadcast on Fox, affliated with Fox News, notorious for its far right slant. It's no coincidence that "24" is the darling of right wing bloggers and commentators. Surnow is straightforward about it being an expression of the Bush-Cheney view of the world. With an extremely simplistic division of the world into the forces of good (the U.S. and the Administration, which by definition can do no evil or even wrong) and the forces of evil (who do no good, and have no grievances or reasons for their views or behavior, they just hate us), and a hold on the electorate (at least up to 2005) based on keeping them fearful, this is a very easy worldview to dramatize.

But how real is it? There is a certain symmetry to politicians with no experience in war preparing the perfect worldview for writers with no experience in war or knowledge of interrogation. This all came together on the set of "24" when that delegation of military officers arrived, including U.S. Army Brigadier General Patrick Finnegan, the dean of the United States Military Academy at West Point. According to the New Yorker:

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.

Finnegan told the producers that “24,” by suggesting that the U.S. government perpetrates myriad forms of torture, hurts the country’s image internationally. Finnegan, who is a lawyer, has for a number of years taught a course on the laws of war to West Point seniors—cadets who would soon be commanders in the battlefields of Iraq and Afghanistan. He always tries, he said, to get his students to sort out not just what is legal but what is right. However, it had become increasingly hard to convince some cadets that America had to respect the rule of law and human rights, even when terrorists did not. One reason for the growing resistance, he suggested, was misperceptions spread by “24,” which was exceptionally popular with his students. As he told me, “The kids see it, and say, ‘If torture is wrong, what about “24”?’ ” He continued, “The disturbing thing is that although torture may cause Jack Bauer some angst, it is always the patriotic thing to do.”

Gary Solis, a retired law professor who designed and taught the Law of War for Commanders curriculum at West Point, told me that he had similar arguments with his students. He said that, under both U.S. and international law, “Jack Bauer is a criminal. In real life, he would be prosecuted.” Yet the motto of many of his students was identical to Jack Bauer’s: “Whatever it takes.” His students were particularly impressed by a scene in which Bauer barges into a room where a stubborn suspect is being held, shoots him in one leg, and threatens to shoot the other if he doesn’t talk. In less than ten seconds, the suspect reveals that his associates plan to assassinate the Secretary of Defense. Solis told me, “I tried to impress on them that this technique would open the wrong doors, but it was like trying to stomp out an anthill.”

Another of the veteran interrogators at the meeting had a list of 17 methods that proved successful in obtaining information--and none of them was abusive.

Those attending the meeting did not include executive producer Surnow. He was on the phone with Roger Ailes, chairman of the Fox News channel, discussing the development of a right-wing comedy news show.