https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2014/10/02/...
Isn't strongly leaning on lazy stereotypes a form of intentional racism? It may not be with malice, but it is an intentional choice to use those lazy stereotypes.
They somehow managed to show that terrorists were manipulated by some higher interests , and were no more than "useful idiots". But it never painted the whole Muslim community as terrorist , nor does Homeland. It's always more about US policies and its consequences than anything else.
If we put the "racist" label on everything a little bit controversial then the word itself becomes void of any meaning.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2014/10/02/...
http://www.hebaamin.com/arabian-street-artists-bomb-homeland...
So characters start out as nuanced and then become more one dimensional towards the end of the season. Also they need to deliver twists and shocks.
So it's not exactly stupidity but it's not really intentional either.
[1] http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/homeland-writer-produc...
I enjoyed watching the show until they dropped that plot twist, then I rolled my eyes and quit. It's concerning because viewers who are less informed about the actual alignment of powers in the middle east may take the show's plot line as being inspired by reality, when it's fact it's far from it.
Homeland isn't a documentary. Its a dramatic show about national security and as such it will probably not paint a realistic picture of the average Muslim, because average Muslims aren't really what its supposed to portray. The same way professional wresting doesn't portray the average man's body or reality tv about wealthy people doesn't portray the average person's lifestyle.
True, but I don't feel it's not enough for Homeland's producers, or anyone, to say 'it's not our problem'. We all live in a community and are responsible for taking care of it and for the consequences of what we do. "No man is an island."
People absorb their views of the world from TV, in part. With widespread prejudice against people who believe in Islam, portraying stereotypes of that prejudice worsens a dangerous situation. Many, many very bad things in history have resulted and are resulting from that kind of prejudice. It's similar to portraying all black skinned people on TV as drug dealers; many people, seeing only stereotypes, come to believe them.
> The Globe and Mail reported that Scalia came to the defense of Jack Bauer and his torture tactics during an Ottawa conference of international jurists and national security officials last week. During a panel discussion about terrorism, torture and the law, a Canadian judge remarked, “Thankfully, security agencies in all our countries do not subscribe to the mantra ‘What would Jack Bauer do?’ ”
> Justice Scalia responded with a defense of Agent Bauer, arguing that law enforcement officials deserve latitude in times of great crisis. “Jack Bauer saved Los Angeles . . . . He saved hundreds of thousands of lives,” Judge Scalia reportedly said. “Are you going to convict Jack Bauer?” He then posed a series of questions to his fellow judges: “Say that criminal law is against him? ‘You have the right to a jury trial?’ Is any jury going to convict Jack Bauer?”
> “I don’t think so,” Scalia reportedly answered himself. “So the question is really whether we believe in these absolutes. And ought we believe in these absolutes.”
Seems like the local education system has failed if people can't think critically or rationally. Blaming the arts is wrong and only treats the symptom. Do you believe that all information needs to be carefully controlled so that people don't get the wrong ideas? If so, what are you doing on an open/liberal/libertarian forum like HN then? Anyone can post anything here, pretty much. Seems to me that you're going your own advice by being present here.
EDIT: Thanks for the down votes, the truth is a bitter pill to swallow, isn't it?
The simple facts are that we have a huge amount of ignorance in the audience for this show, this show takes advantage of that (it is targeted to folks who are not informed about the places and people and groups depicted, otherwise it wouldn't take such extreme artistic license with them) and will have an effect on the views of its audience.
It doesn't matter what society we'd like to live in or how that might play out in theory.
My point goes back to personal responsibility. Whose fault is it if you're surrounded by flammables labeled appropriately? The analogy is that this is labeled as a "TV show" not a documentary.
It doesn't matter if something is fiction, the reality is that fiction has a great impact on its audience, and that impact comes with proportional responsibility.
It does not matter what ideal rational actors should theoretically do when it comes to managing their opinions and knowledge about the world in the face of fiction, we don't have any of those.
We don't get to pretend society works a particular way, just so we can justify bad television that uses real places and real names of groups in a farcical way because it's capitalizing on a contemporary societal phenomenon of fear and ignorance of those things.
No, we trust fiction-based-on-reality to have a semblence of reality to it and to not be blatently racist. That's a cultural evolution we've developed. We are criticizing a show for not being what it should be. That's our responsibility as viewers, and we're fulfilling it.
Because they aren't democratically elected public officials, they're just making a TV show from private funding. And watching the TV show is optional.
> If a company poisons the local reservoir with their chemical run-off, are they morally able to say, "Well, they shouldn't have drank that water. They knew they lived near a chemical plant."
That's a violation of environmental laws; how is this analogy applicable to a TV show? Would you propose to curtail the right to free speech? It's a TV show, not real life.
We can and should discuss whether something is ethical, and we can and should advocate for legal ways of opposing such things, like publicly criticizing it, boycotting the show, etc.
We're not talking about the viewers of the show, we're talking about the people (Muslims, Arabs, etc) who are affected by the people who choose to watch the show -- that is, the impact on the culture that racism has.
>Would you propose to curtail the right to free speech?
We already do. The FCC does this. But I'm not suggesting that there be a law against it -- though other countries have gone this route -- I'm critizing the production of the television show. For being racist.
>It's a TV show, not real life.
Ah, but here we are: it is real life for millions of Muslims. Remember after 9/11 when Sikhs got beat up because people thought they were Muslims? Remember in the 60s when a black man couldn't get a hotel room in Atlanta?
We know that television and media have an impact on people, their opinions, and how they treat others. The people who broadcast that content have a moral responsibility to use that power in a way that does not negatively impact a single group.
Edit: since we reached our limit here:
>So one of the solutions to solving fundamental societal problems is to criticize a TV show?
Sure has worked for gay people. The public opinion turnaround time for gay marriage has been astoundingly fast. Television featuring strong portrayals of gay people certainly helped.
I agree, but I don't agree that this is the problem of the show's creators.
> Ah, but here we are: it is real life for millions of Muslims. Remember after 9/11 when Sikhs got beat up because people thought they were Muslims? Remember in the 60s when a black man couldn't get a hotel room in Atlanta?
So one of the solutions to solving fundamental societal problems is to criticize a TV show?
If someone fails to distinguish between reality and fiction, that may be their fault.
But if you know that many people are unable to properly distinguish the two, and you do something that you know may lead those to hurt innocent bystanders, don't you have some responsibility if the expected happens?
No, but nor should it be free from criticism.
And I can totally see why Lebanese would be pissed off at seeing Hamra street completely misrepresented in that way.
And even if the show isn't supposed to depict "average Muslims", do you really think all the viewers of the show will get that nuance? If all of the Arab/Iranian/Pakistani characters in the show (and the show doesn't seem to make much a distinction) are painted with a broad brush, that sends a certain kind of message to viewers.