By the afternoon of September 11, entertainment executives were rushing to remove media products containing ‘inappropriate’ references from American television and movie screens. While references to terrorism were the starting point, their caution extended to themes of war and threats against America, all in the name of ‘public sensitivity’ and ‘respect for the victims’. Simultaneously, uninterrupted news coverage was brimming with scenes of devastation and heartbreak. What makes fiction inappropriate when the equivalent fact is not? Can fiction help the viewer process fact, and if so, should it?
PAGES
281 – 287
DOI
All content is freely available without charge to users or their institutions. Users are allowed to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of the articles in this journal without asking prior permission of the publisher or the author. Articles published in the journal are distributed under a http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
Issues
Also in this issue:
-
Agnes Horvath, Magic and the Will to Science: A Political Anthropology of Liminal Technicality
-
Gibson Burrell, Ronald Hartz, David Harvie, Geoff Lightfoot, Simon Lilley and Friends, Shaping for Mediocrity: The Cancellation of Critical Thinking at our Universities
-
Bas de Boer, How Scientific Instruments Speak: Postphenomenology and Technological Mediations in Neuroscientific Practice
-
Bjørn Lomborg, False Alarm
-
How does innovation arise in the bicycle sector? The users’ role and their betrayal in the case of the ‘gravel bike’