Where things stand with the Department of War

Re:Where things stand with the Department of War by vintermann on Friday March 06, 2026 @05:37AM (#47273257)

I was absolutely disgusted by stuff like 24 and zero dark thirty when it came out. "If you cut the throat of the terrorist's son he'll break down and tell you where the bomb is" - they expected the audience to treat that as plausible narrative, and a lot of them clearly did.

A lot of the war propaganda from back then is also depressingly similar to what gets pumped out now: you can't argue with success, you don't want to be on the losers' side do you?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Where things stand with the Department of War by Rzor on Friday March 06, 2026 @06:30AM (#47273675)

To give 24 some credit, it showed some Americans as complicit in the terrorism or corruption in the story. ZDT also touched on how torture wasn't as effective as assumed. I agree that the broader themes often feel biased/propagandized, framing the anti-hero, who's basically acting as a proxy for the government, as justified at almost any cost.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Where things stand with the Department of War by Phemist on Friday March 06, 2026 @06:13AM (#47273537)

Similarly in the pilot episode of Designated Survivor. "Let's nuke Teheran" was seen as a valid, and brilliant, tactical move in order to get negotiations with Iran to go Kiefer Sutherland's way.

[ Parent | on HN ]