"Over There"
FX has got a new series by Steven Bochco called "Over There." I have not seen it yet so I will not pass judgement upon it. In fact, I had planned on skipping the whole thing altogether. I cannot trust the entertainment media (or news media for that matter) to paint a truly non-partisan picture of the conflict in Iraq. Aside from Fox News that is. That many of the elite in the media claim to "support the troops" but not the current Administration, while brining up Abu Grabe and Gitmo at every oppertunity, rings hollow to me. It was soldiers who misused their authority in these situations and to constantly bring it up, especially after all soldiers invloved have been tried and punished, only makes the jobs of the hundreds of thousands of innocent men and women in our military harder. How is this "supporting" the troops? And now the ACLU is filing a Freedom of Information Act petition with the FBI to force them to release all Abu Grabe photos. Why? For what purpose? To make those who have already been found guilty more guilty? What sense does that make? None. It would only be used to hurt the Bush Administration and that's it. The guilty have been punished and the debate as to what is appropriate treatment of non-Geneva Convention POW's is currently engaged.
So, you can see why I'm nervious about this new show. It could be a great medium to present a balanced (if fictional) depiction of what life is like in Iraq for our military. And I strongly feel that a balanced look will only help real life soldiers. A short interview Mr. Bochco had with Bill O'Reilly on Tuesday has raised my hopes. In it Bill stressed that he felt the men and women serving in Iraq were exceptionally brave in that they were fighting for the freedom of strangers in a strange land. While that fight does have postitive effects here in the U.S., as it was intended to, it has far more profound implications for the Iraqi people. This is not something that should be spat upon. Mr. Bochco acknoledged this and stated that his program isn't designed to pass judgement one way or the other on the conflict. Though he was sure ideologues on both sides would read whatever they wanted into it. Instead he wants to tell stories about real people in this extraordinary setting.
If this is true then I hope his new program ends up being compelling, honest and entertaining. If not it'll only serve as another example of the media turning on those it claims to respect.
So, you can see why I'm nervious about this new show. It could be a great medium to present a balanced (if fictional) depiction of what life is like in Iraq for our military. And I strongly feel that a balanced look will only help real life soldiers. A short interview Mr. Bochco had with Bill O'Reilly on Tuesday has raised my hopes. In it Bill stressed that he felt the men and women serving in Iraq were exceptionally brave in that they were fighting for the freedom of strangers in a strange land. While that fight does have postitive effects here in the U.S., as it was intended to, it has far more profound implications for the Iraqi people. This is not something that should be spat upon. Mr. Bochco acknoledged this and stated that his program isn't designed to pass judgement one way or the other on the conflict. Though he was sure ideologues on both sides would read whatever they wanted into it. Instead he wants to tell stories about real people in this extraordinary setting.
If this is true then I hope his new program ends up being compelling, honest and entertaining. If not it'll only serve as another example of the media turning on those it claims to respect.
Posted by Kevin D. on
Thursday July 28, 2005 at 2:49am
Yeah, that bit was in the pilot. I wouldn't call this casting the war in a bad light however. Since Vietnam the military has had to deal with media and it's coverage of war. During the Gulf War the military, knowing that they had to let the media in in some fashion, tightly controlled what the media was allowed to see. It didn't want a repeat of Vietnam what with the media obviously casting the military in a poor light whenever possible.
The modern news media has proven to be little more sympathetic. What's interesting to note is that reporters imbedded with military units usually have nothing but good things to say about the military while they're with them. It seems being confronted with reality tended to have a positive effect. However, with all that said, for this episode, the military leaders knew that (1. Al-Jazeera would use the footage to only hurt America and (2. The public would only react to the violence of the situation not the neccisity of it. That is to say they would be repulsed by the carnage without taking into consideration the context of it. I firmly believe that we look back on World War 2 with such positive feelings because the media wasn't the cynical machine it is today and the government tightly regulated what the public saw. If the public really saw how terrible war was, as they easily can today, they tend to shy away from it. This only hurts us because war is something that must be waged from time to time. It's a good thing that the West is repulsed by it. This tells us that we are not a warmongering civilization as the far-left would have us believe.
Additionally, what I find interesting about the pilot and the reporter situation: The military never considered taking the man's camera. Even though the footage would obviously be used as propaganda they still got to keep it. That's very telling where the West's mindset is. And it's something that should be praised.