Introduction to Designated Survivor

Designated Survivor, a popular American political thriller, offers a unique blend of political drama and action, catching the attention of viewers with its intricately woven plot and engaging characters. However, like any other television show, it carries its share of inaccuracies and oversimplifications, especially when it comes to political procedures and international relations. This article delves into the show's portrayal of the American political system and the geopolitical landscape, highlighting both the strengths and weaknesses of its storytelling.

Designated Survivor's Portrayal of Precedents and Protocols

One of the main points of contention with the show is its depiction of certain political procedures, notably the concept of the ldquo;Designated Survivor.rdquo; According to the show, a designated survivor, typically a U.S. Senate official, would be released from duty if the President and Vice President were killed, and then would automatically become the President. This, however, is not entirely accurate.

No Written Guidelines: As the original post suggests, there is no written document or previous order designating a specific person as the designated survivor. The process is more ad-hoc and determined by the President. Legal Considerations: Disobeying presidential orders, as depicted in the show, would be a serious offense. Under the U.S. Constitution, the President has the authority to command the Armed Forces, and defiance could have severe legal consequences. Interference: The show presents a scenario where the national guard and press are surprised by the President's decision to designate a survivor. In reality, such a decision would be a matter of presidential authority without extensive consultation with other branches of government or public announcement.

These inaccuracies highlight a common issue in TV shows where dramatic tension and viewer engagement take precedence over factual accuracy, especially when dealing with sensitive political content.

Challenges in Political Entertainment

The show's pacing and storytelling arc have also been a subject of discussion. Midway through its first season, the premise of the designated survivor becoming president was established, leading to a more action-oriented and fragmented second half of the season and the entire second season. This approach can sometimes dilute the narrative coherence and impact of the storyline.

Moreover, the show's handling of international relations has been criticized for its portrayal of American exceptionalism. While the series attempts to mask references to real countries by using fictional names, the implications and tone often point to specific nations, showing a bias in favor of American global dominance.

The Last Episodes: A Disappointing Conclusion

The conclusion of the show, particularly the last episode, has faced considerable criticism for its inconsistent production quality. Despite the high production values of most other episodes, the finale was marred by several errors:

Inaccurate Location: The episode set in London was poorly executed, lacking proper location shoots and using average North American towns to represent a British setting. This miscue in production led to humorous and embarrassing scenes with incorrectly configured British number plates on black cabs. Pacing Issues: The pacing of the final episode was uneven, with a mix of terrorist action and unresolved political drama, leaving viewers with a disjointed feeling. Character Development: The character arcs and motivations of key actors, especially David Duchovney in the last episode, were underdeveloped, detracting from the overall quality of the show's conclusion.

Conclusion

Designated Survivor managed to entertain audiences with its fast-paced and engaging storytelling, but it was not without its faults. The show's depiction of political procedures and its portrayal of international relations, especially the emphasis on American exceptionalism, sometimes fall short of historical and factual accuracy. Additionally, the uneven pacing and production quality in the final episodes are a reminder that even successful series can face challenges in ending on a high note. Nevertheless, for those interested in American politics and thriller drama, the show offers entertainment value and some thought-provoking questions about the roles and responsibilities of its leaders.