I really don't see what point you are trying to make. It was Fox executives, no doubt responding to declining ratings, that pressured the show's producers into changing it's winning formula. And the ratings were declining because the public was starting to react negatively to the cavalier treatment of torture in the plots. The producers "grudgingly" accepted the need to change the format.

I've never seen the show, and only have a vague idea of what it's about, but this sounds to me like just a show tanking because it's running out of ideas, failing to reflect the national mood, and succumbing to corporate interference in the artistic process. If it's unraveling it's at least partly because of a business decision by Fox management. At least that's what I get out of reading the WSJ piece.

Frankly, I can't evaluate the artistic merit of the show because I've never seen it, although I also agree it's just TV and I enjoyed James Bond as much as the next guy. But I didn't see any ideological content to that either, it was just entertainment. But if the show did indeed glorify torture and exaggerated its effectiveness, as the WSJ suggests, to exploit the post 911 audience then it deserves to fail. And if the public reacts with revulsion to the linking of the show's plots to the actions of the administration, then more power to them.

Too bad about Keifer Sutherland, I've always liked him and his father. But I hope Fox takes a bath on this one.