"Law & Order": Gypped from the Headlines

[Autonomy]

Plot: An undercover New York cop gets killed. A newspaper report outted her as a cop, putting her in the position to be killed. She turns out to be the daughter of a prominent politician. The chief of staff of the father's political opponent planted the story with press. The chief of staff is a "pit bull" and "a vile little snake" with "a long history of dirty tricks." The chief of staff claims the cop was "fair game", and his motive was that he "attempt(ed) to rattle (the political opponent)."

Does this plot seem strangely familiar to you? Well, it should. It's obviously the cop is Valerie Plame and the chief of staff is Karl Rove. Except there's one twist: Karl Rove is "a liberal" in this one.

I have no problem with Law & Order doing simulations of current events, but they missed the most important fact in this story: liberals aren't into rovian dirty tricks. Law & Order is pulling a rovian dirty trick itself in this one. Instead of Law & Order it should be called Bait & Switch. "Ripped from the headlines" my ass! They're trying to perpetrate a usual right-wing fraud that equates both sides, and the conservative modus operandi as "mere politics" that both sides engage in. That's not the truth, however. The only headlines this story is ripped from is from the "Wonderland Times". This plot is product placement for the Republican Party. Sickening.

It ends by implying that the liberal politician had a hand in the outting, but the prosecutors can't lay a hand on him because he covered his connections to the crime.

Liberal staffer: "Politics is a manipulative business, people lie all the time." Does this sound like any liberals you've ever known? Or does it sound only like conservatives you know of? I know the latter is true for me.

[AllieB]

1. That really bothered me too

I didn't think it was very good tonight. Plus I really miss Jerry Orbach. :-(

[JohnKleeb]

2. I didn't have a problem with it

Corruption isn't a liberal or a conservative thing. It's motivated by greed and power lust which is what the character Eric Lund had. The episode could have been about a conservative politican and it would have had the same message. Law and Order busts on conservatives with jokes so I don't think Wolf made this episode to say liberals are the only corrupt people in government. My opinion is that episode could have been about a conservative politican and the message/theme would have been the same.

[Autonomy]

6. The episode says liberals ARE like Karl Rove

which is not true. The fact that they bust on conservatives, too, or that corruption exists in both parties is immaterial. The point is that this plot serves to forward the idea that all things are equal on both sides of the poltical spectrum. This is a ploy to undermine the willingness of John Q. Public from participating in politics. "They're all a bunch of bums!" I'm sure you hear that often; I know I do. But the fact is, the sides are not the same. There are distinct methodological diffences as one travels across the political spectrum. Republicans keep downloading the "politics is dirty on both sides" meme to smokescreen their dirty tricks. And now primetime TV is doing product placement for The Republican Party, Inc. (tm)

Why copy the Plame scandal, but switch the political persuasion? They were really lazy is creating this plot line, but made sure it was a mirror image of the real life story in political terms. And in that, they made a conscious, deliberate choice to change the liberals into Karl Rove. Nice moral contortionism!

[JohnKleeb]

11. Its saying that corruption is the same

no matter who does it perhaps we intepreted it differently but I don't what you're seeing. The guy Lund was a scumbag who just happened to be a liberal. I don't know how you get the idea that tehy're doing product placements for the republican party. Since if you may or may not recall Tom Delay whined that there was a joke about him on the show and just last night on SVU there was a Cheney shot someone joke. Law and Order is a great show because it explores the shades of gray. Just because someone is a liberal doesn't mean they can't do terrible things for political reaosns. You could totally converse that episode and have it be a Republican that did it and I would feel the same way about it.

[Autonomy]

20. OK, name the real life equivalents of Republican scandals

made by Democrats in modern politics. Start with Republican behavior during the Clinton administration. Name the equivalent. Next, the Bush administration and it's many and sundry fiascoes. Name the equivalents.

If L&O is a great show, and whether they make jokes about republicans doesn't matter because my criticism is specific, and neither point is material to my argument. But Dems DON'T do similar things to the republicans do for political reasons. Or for any reason. The political sides are not just about issues; we are starkly divided in conscience, compassion, and method. If you don't realize that, then you've taken at least a sip of the kool-aid.

[ceile]

47. Me either.

I am a L&O addict and have been since it premiered in 1990. I would guesstimate that 80% of their "political" plots or touchy subject plots (abortion) are very left leaning. This one "right" leaning one, I think, was only fair. And it IS fiction. We all know who the real story is about.

[napi21]

3. Oh come on! It's the perfect excuse for them when the RW acuses

then of dirty politics from Hollywood AGAIN! Can't you just hear the writers saying "You're berating us for beating up on a liberal?"

Look a little beyond the obvious!

[Autonomy]

8. So they were cowering?

Believe me, I realize that could part of their motive. Here's the thing: it doesn't matter what their motives were.

[napi21]

18. If they can get their point across without incurring any liability, I say

GOOD MOVE!

It's a damn TV show! you're taking this way too serious!!!!

[Autonomy]

22. It's their point that is my objection.

Again, legal liability for defamation or libel never entered into it. Their motives, whether they're republican shills, or simply avoided a right-wing backlash, doesn't matter.

Saying someone is taking something too seriously is not a valid argument. The obverse would be that there is some sort of joke here, and there's not. Also, I've made my case that it's product placement, so please either address that case directly, or knock off the "taking it too seriously" bit. It's insulting to my intelligence. Address my argument only, please.

[NaturalHigh]

4. I thought it was a good episode...

but then, I am a big Law and Order fan. Usually it's the far right (Neo-Nazis, skinheads, corrupt conservative politicians) who take a beating in the Law and Order shows.

[GrumpyGreg]

5. I agree,in fact it was a pleasant change. It's only a TV show .

[Autonomy]

10. So is The O'Really Factor

Are you suggesting that people's worldview and opinions are not in any way affected by television? Hah!

[AllieB]

15. And that distresses you? You wish they were treated more even-handedly?

[NaturalHigh]

16. *Sigh* Did I EVER say it distresses me?

If I were distressed, I wouldn't be such a big Law and Order fan. I watch the syndicated episodes several times a week.

Please stop reading into my posts and trying to add words that aren't there. Can't you look for something else to be pissed off about?

[AllieB]

19. It was a simple question

Thanks for answering so politely.

[Firenze777]

7. this and Commander in Chief

I was upset with the plot of a Democratic operative arranging to spike the 'first gentleman's' drink. I'm very sensitive about how Dems are portrayed in TV fiction right now.

On cable news, the Republican talking point is that 'both sides of the aisle' are equally participating in corrupt behavior right now, and it just isn't so. I am uneasy about the unwillingness of the average voter to investigate facts and make reasoned decisions- these fictional shows only add another subtle layer to making their uninformed choices on election day.

[Sinti]

9. Gypped is an epithet and offensive to my people

Just kidding :)

If they made it the Republicans they'd probably get sued or sent to Gitmo - * don't tolerate no criticism.

[Autonomy]

12. I knew someone would say that!

but I just couldn't resist the catchy rhyme.

[Sinti]

13. LOL n/t

[TahitiNut]

46. Well, golly ... it's SO much better than saying "Jewed," right?

:puke: :puke:

[magellan]

14. I think making it the "corrupt Left" was sheer genius

...and perhaps necessary. Can you imagine the petty claims of libel and defamation from the Right if they'd written the bad guys as Repugs?

Anyway, a viewer would have to be politically tone deaf not to pick up that this episode was a body slam to Rove and the Right...because in the real world there is no parallel story involving the Left.

[Autonomy]

17. So they're not worried about the "petty claims of libel

and defamation" from the Left? I guess not. Goes to show they know there's some kind of difference when it comes to retribution. That in itself is very telling.

Fact is, the show is protected from actual liability, and they're well aware of that.

As far as a viewer being politically tone deaf? That perfectly describes the plurality, if not the majority, of Americans.

But you can still fully realize that it was about Rove and still get the message that the Left engages in it, too, which is the crux of my objection. The fact that there is no parallel story involving the Left is proof enough that my objection has solid foundation.

[magellan]

21. I said "perhaps necessary"...I don't know the ins and outs of Hollyweird

But if you say they're protected then I default to "sheer genius". There's no need to clobber people over the head when a poke will do.

As for those who aren't interested in real world politics, what would you have the writers do? Restage the entire criminal fiasco with names, functions and political persuasions intact? One fictional tv show episode isn't going to educate those who refuse to learn. You're expecting too much.

[Autonomy]

24. Consider yourself poked.

I refuted your argument that there was defamation or libel involved! You can't go back and "default" to your refuted premise when the supporting argument was refuted! lol

That's like me saying that bananas are orange. Or purple. What's that? You say they're yellow? OK, so they're not purple, that defaults to orange. Haha!

I would have the writers make the offending characters conservatives. Isn't that simple enough? Why the extreme conclusion that you'd have to include real names?

[magellan]

25. Oh for god's sake

It's a TV SHOW. Lighten up.

[Autonomy]

26. see post #22

[magellan]

33. You're welcome to go overboard

I have no intention of following you.

[Autonomy]

35. Even if the ship is sinking?

I really prefer dialectics to accusational metaphor wars, but I will play once in a while.

But aren't you "following" me, at least in a way, by continuing to post in this thread?

[WCGreen]

23. Let me tell you something....

I have been involved with Democratic politics here in Ohio for over 30 years...

I was bothered by the congressman's political leanings as well...

But if you think there are no dirty tricks on our side of the aisle, you are sadly mistaken...

People who have power or strive for power are capable of almost anything....

I have seen it...

Had to deal with it...

Anything can be justified, in many people's mind, as long as the end result is perceived to be noble....

[Autonomy]

28. I didn't say there were "no" dirty tricks

Just that there's a qualitative (and quantitative) difference in party dynamics when it comes to politics. But my main point is that there is no reason, other than the nefarious, to take the plot of a real current event and switch the party affiliation.

Are you saying that you believe that methods are the same on both sides of the aisle? That's certainly not my experience. I've seen local Dems guilty of accepting bribes and sexual dalliances, but never the type of political undercutting that I see from the national Republican Party.

[WCGreen]

31. Oh it happens all the time....

Remember, politics is winning....

I have never seen anyone of Rovian stature in the democratic party, but the Kennedy's were pretty good at the pragmatic thing...

To far too many people, the ends do justify the means.....

After 30 years, I have to say it happens more than I care to think about in the democratic party....

[Autonomy]

36. Are you from Chicago?

Because the closest equivalent I can think of for the Dems is Chicago, 1960, Kennedy vs Nixon. And if you're going back that far for an example...

It occurs to me that your statement that "politics is winning" means that both sides are equally corrupt. But since Republicans own all three branches of government, wouldn't that mean they are therefore more corrupt?

[WCGreen]

41. I am from Cleveland....

And that was just an example so widely known as to be identifiable by anyone reading this post...

Suffice it to say, the corridors of power, from the local city hall to the halls of congress, are full of people from all political persuasions who are seduced by power and deluded into thinking they are using that power, however attained, to the betterment of the people.....

[Autonomy]

32. I'm going to take a simple poll

to see whether other DUers think that corruption is equivalent in both parties. I'm curious what others say, but I've been following this for a while (not as long as you), and I am pretty firm in my belief that it's not the same on both sides.

Again, my main point really doesn't rest on this question, though.

edit: here's a link to the poll

[OldLeftieLawyer]

27. Relax

It's a TV show, and it was simply about politics - I was amused to see them use a progressive instead of the traditional demonization of the rightwingnuts, which would have been too predictable and easy.

Don't forget, though, that Jim Thompson, who plays the DA, is a rightwingnut who was in charge of getting Sam Alito through his confirmation hearings.

It was well done, and I'm glad they did it that way.

[Autonomy]

29. see post #22 for your suggestion to relax

Enough with the relax and it's just a TV show bit. You're posting here, too. It's just a DU thread. Relax.

Do you mean Fred Thompson? Yeah, I know he's a Republican. That's supposed to convince me that there's not a deliberate agenda?

[OldLeftieLawyer]

30. Did I say "Jim"?

I'm reading Jim Harrison. Oh, what an insult to Jim Harrison.

Yes, there is always a deliberate agenda on all Michael Mann and Dick Wolf shows. I first worked for them on Miami Vice as a writer, and they always start with a political/social agenda.

So, it's not ok to make progressives/liberals out as politicians who do political crap?

Oh, please.

Relax. It's a TV show, and it's a really good one.

And, darling, convincing you - or anyone else - is of less than no interest to me. Simply trying to shine some light into a dark place.

[Autonomy]

37. It can be good and still make mistakes

Like they did tonight. So you used to work for the writers? Or are they the producers? Are they still friends of yours? I'm sure you realize I am trying to gauge your bias. No one posts about something they don't feel they have a stake in, prescriptions to "relax" notwithstanding

I am shining a light into the darkness, too. That's my intention with this thread. You made a point that contradicted your argument, and I shined a light on it. I just phrased it somewhat sarcastically. Having a well-known Republican on the show does not support the idea that there's no specific conservative agenda.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

42. No, you're just trying to make

an opinion posted here into something personal. What my job was with that organization is irrelevant, and you are not entitled to that information. I simply agreed with you, and explained to you - you needed the explanation, obviously - that their shows have always had a social/political agenda. Now, you're just being nosy.

I disagreed with your post. You saw it as a contradiction. At that point, I realize I'm wasting my time. It's a TV show, and you can make of it what you will, no matter how stressfully you might have to squeeze your rationalizations in order to make them fit.

The "well-known Republican" was a regular on "Roseanne," too, so what does THAT do to your theory?

Relax. You really stepped on yourself with this one, but I'm sure you had fun. I hope you did.

And now, welcome to IgnoreLand.

[Autonomy]

45. Your bragging about inside knowledge

put your neutrality in serious question here. You brought up the inside knowledge to bolster your argument, but are suddenly stonewalling when you realized it makes your motives for continuing to reply in this so-called unimportant thread suspect.

Reallly, if I had realized I was wasting my time, I would have stopped posting. Right then.

Does Roseanne fit my theory? WTF are you talking about? My argument was very specific, as I've mentioned early in this thread. It regards this one episode of this one show. Careful, your agenda is showing. I don't know what it is, but no one makes up such weak, straw man arguments without a hidden agenda.

You ignored my argument and told me to "relax". Skip the Frankie Goes to Hollywood crap and address the argument. Yeah, I like that word. It means stick to what I actually posted instead of what you want me to have posted.

So you come onto my thread, condescend to me, calling me "darling" and adding nothing but to insult the ideas I am sharing, then you put ME on Ignore because I dare to respond to you. You're frickin' nuts! If you haven't already, PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE PUT ME ON YOUR (extremely long, i bet) IGNORE LIST!!!

[tblue37]

40. Fred Thompson, I believe.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

43. Yeah, you're correct

Or was it J. Fred Muggs?

Oy, am I old ...........

[KingFlorez]

34. This a television show

Law and Order never bases a true story exactly like happened, they don't want lawsuits. They have redo things to make it different.

[tblue37]

38. It really angered me, too--

especially since the liberal "Rove" actually used Rove's own words, saying the daughter was "fair game" and things like that.

[Autonomy]

39. Yeah, there were several direct quotes from admin officials

and probably several I missed.

[malaise]

44. Actually it was quite clever

It was obvious to all that this was about Rove. Now if he gets 15 years I'll be very happy.