Re: West Wing, et. al.

[Paul lavely <lavelyp@UCLINK4.BERKELEY.EDU>]

With the exception of actual real-life coverage (news, court tv, 

cops, survivors and others) I hope that we assume that the prime-time 

shows are fiction. Or should we assume that Baywatch accurately 

portrays the lifeguards of Southern California, ER the medical 

profession, and Ally McBeal the legal profession? Distortions, 

distortions, one and all! Also, fiction, fiction, one and all.



There are medical dramas, political dramas, legal dramas, dramas 

about government, comedies, etc. Anyone see the (now dead but not 

gone) "American Embassy?" Is there anyone who believes that this show 

depicts what REALLY happens in an American embassy? Distortion!



However, to your question. Implied that all carbonated drinks cause 

cancer. As fiction? Implied or specifically stated?



Gee, I think that we see that now.  A movie with a kid with brain 

cancer or a cancer cluster at a school caused by power lines.



I saw a Law and Order the other night that implied that a meat 

producer (commercial butcher) was using day labor with little English 

language ability that had (ecoli) that had resulted in a number of 

deaths. Fiction? Yes. A bunch of butchers or a meat packers union 

trying to say "remember, this was fiction and not 100% accurate." No, 

didn't see a one.



A kid being poisoned by eating the insides of peach pits? Yes, the 

fruit packers and Georgia Peach growers protesting and reminding us 

"Fiction!!!" No.



An airliner (type clearly identifiable by anyone who knows a DC 10 

from a 727) that has a computer failure after a lightening strike 

that kills the flight crew? Yes. The manufacture of that plane and 

the airline pilots union protesting because the plane selected for 

the exterior shots did not have that type of computer? No. Why? 

Because most people are smart enough to know that things in a drama 

or medical show are not 100% correct.



Did anyone believe that a large city newspaper could be run by a 

handful of reporters (Lou Grant) or that a TV station could be run by 

a handful (Mary Tyler Moore)? Reality? Nay, distortion.



Has anyone ever asked an elevator repairman about the magic that 

elevators do on TV? Distortion?



I do not see toxicologists raising the "its a distortion" banner for 

poisons or chemicals (snake bites?) depicted as acting virtually 

instantaneously.



I have never heard the legal profession rise to say  "its a 

distortion" when evidence is allowed in or ruled out to make a show 

more interesting. Does anyone believe that there is an attorney out 

there who would be allowed to act the way "Matlock" does in court?



How often has the AMA reminded folks that the show ER is fiction and 

does not show a true depiction of life in an ER. That few of those 

"brought back from the brink" make it. That people are not in the ER 

only while they are evaluated and then wished to an almost always 

available operating room with a team ready to "do us some cutten."



When shows get it wrong for medicine I do not see the claim that some 

cult of anti-medicine followers is behind it. Where is the AMA when 

we need them?



When a show gets it wrong for court or legal issues I do not see the 

ABA rise to call foul and "its anti-lawyers getting their message 

out."



Where is the International Society of Toxicologists when we see a 

magic compound released in a plane, room, etc. that virtually 

immediately renders everyone unconscious, but not one person (young, 

old, sick, infant, etc.) is killed. Why don't we use this stuff for 

REAL hostage situations?



However, time and time again I see HPs (and "associates" in the 

"nuclear business") raise the  "its a distortion" flag and the its 

how "the anti-nukes get the mileage that they get."  Perhaps it is 

that this nuclear stuff is just something that the folks in Hollywood 

do not understand very well and that the more they know the less 

interesting the show.





As I have said before, let us make life REALLY dull by trying to 

force TV, movies, and books all be 100% technically accurate (unless 

they are science fiction and/or in the future). The 100% accurate 

rule will not be just about nuclear power , but about EVERYTHING.  We 

can replace the writers of West Wing,  Law and Order, ER, and The 

Simpsons with nuclear engineers, lawyers, doctors, and former 

presidents (hey Bill C is out of work). Does anyone think that they 

will keep their viewer share? Then how will you entertain the masses.



I suggest a very deep breath and hope that the show passes unnoticed 

by as many folks as possible. OR, we can try to secure a podium from 

which we can "tell the truth." However, that will only spark a debate 

that may allow the anti's on any subject to have a podium from which 

to shout "their truth."



Education is the answer - not argument.



Finally, we do have a professional group. The Health Physics Society. 

If responses to shows that depict radiation in an unfair or 

technically incorrect light are to be made, it seems that it is they 

who should comment. Seen many comments from the HPS saying "remember 

this was fiction."



Not ALL fiction is intentionally incorrect so as to make some 

political statement or anti nuclear point. Sometimes it is just 

entertainment. Usually, it is also really bad entertainment (such as 

John T's "Broken Arrow").





You asked



>My question wasn't really about law. It is whether people have a right, or

>perhaps an obligation, to try and set the facts straight.



No. Those who write this stuff have no obligation to get the facts 

right; however, when the facts a wrong a company or industry can take 

them to court. The only place where you can force them to correct it 

is court. Sometimes the sponsors can be convinced. How many sponsors 

will be forcing a change to a show to satisfy the "nuclear viewers?"



Life is not fair, the law may not be fair, TV is not fair, not having 

a good way to refute false information is not fair. Who can remedy 

all the things in life that are unfair? Do people have a right or 

obligation to try and ser the facts straight. That is a personal 

decision, not a a yes or no for all.



Paul Lavely <lavelyp@uclink4.berkeley.edu>



>OK, what if the TV show implied that all carbonated soft drinks caused birth

>defects? Would Coca-Cola, or the soft drink council, or the people who

>approved the drinks for sale say "Its just fiction."?

>

>My question wasn't really about law. It is whether people have a right, or

>perhaps an obligation, to try and set the facts straight.

>

>Kai

>

>PS: To me, fiction is a story that did not happen, but that COULD happen. If

>fiction gets its facts wrong (spent fuel = depleted U), its not "just

>fiction" its "just poor writing" at best.

>

>-



-- 

************************************************************************

You are currently subscribed to the Radsafe mailing list. To unsubscribe,

send an e-mail to Majordomo@list.vanderbilt.edu  Put the text "unsubscribe

radsafe" (no quote marks) in the body of the e-mail, with no subject line.

You can view the Radsafe archives at http://www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/