Joel Surnow

Political Bloodlines

It fell to Jane Mayer and Jill Abramson to rewrite the history of the Clarence Thomas-Anita Hill conspiracy.  Ms. Hill, you'll remember, was the Joe Wilson of her time, a useful contrivance in the Democrat's war against presidents not of their choosing.  Mayer's past history was the second thing I thought of when I followed a Drudge link to "WHATEVER IT TAKES - The politics of the man behind '24'" in the New Yorker magazine. The first thing was, "You people are so transparent it's a wonder your guts don't fall out." By way of disclosure, I have never watched '24.'  (Why do I feel like an apology is required?)  I certainly know a lot about the show, given its success, and all that's been written and talked about.  I didn't watch my first X-Files for 3-4 years either, then went on a binge, which is what will probably happen here.  When the media begins anything with  "The politics of the man behind .., " I already know the answer. Any television show where the United States wins its wars against the evil bastards (based on real life evil bastards), and - OMFG! - is a ratings success, calls for an explanation.  I did not read the piece, but let me guess.  The man behind '24' loves his country, and knows Rush Limbaugh.  Am I right?  Okay, I saw Limbo's name mentioned., but you get the point. Did we ever read articles questioning the politics of  "Designing Women" producer Linda Bloodworth-Thomason, or "Murphy Brown" producer Diane English, who aired pro-Anita Hill episodes, influencing millions?¹  Or any of hundreds of left-leaners? No need to. They are assumed to be ''proper" in an entertainment world that views Bill Clinton as a great President with a few minor flaws.  It's Joe Stalin's "Give me Hollywood and I'll rule the world," fantasy come true.