‘Zero Day' Is a Throwback Thriller With Modern Echoes
The new Netflix limited series 'Zero Day' has been in development for several years, but it is arriving at a time when its primary themes — regarding presidential overreach, the hacking of the federal government and the persistence of disinformation — are dominating the actual news cycle. It is a contemporary update of a '70s-style political drama that is even more contemporary than anticipated.
Asked if the time is ripe for a resurgence of the conspiracy thriller, the executive producer Eric Newman was succinct: 'We're living in one.'
Created by Newman and two executive producers with journalism backgrounds — Noah Oppenheim, a former president of NBC News, and Michael S. Schmidt, an investigative reporter for the Washington bureau of The New York Times — 'Zero Day' depicts a nightmare scenario in which the United States has been attacked and the person in charge of the response might not be of sound mind.
After a cyber-strike cripples U.S. transportation systems, leaving 3,400 dead from transit accidents and other disasters, a former president named George Mullen (Robert De Niro) is selected to lead an investigative commission. But Mullen has been having hallucinations and keeps hearing the same Sex Pistols song, 'Who Killed Bambi?,' on a loop in his head. Is he cracking up? Has his brain been tampered with, à la 'The Manchurian Candidate' (1962)?
Whatever the cause, Mullen is soon trampling over civil liberties and resorting to 9/11-era 'enhanced interrogation' techniques, including torture, with U.S. citizens.
While 'Zero Day' makes explicit reference to 9/11 and the Patriot Act, its details are more current. As evidence seems to implicate Russian agents in the attack, Mullen grows obsessed with a leftist hacktivist collective, a provocateur talk show host (Dan Stevens) who fans the conspiratorial flames and an extremist tech billionaire (Gaby Hoffman) who would be happy to tear the whole system down.
Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
22 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Justice David Souter and state constitutional law
Among scholars who study state courts and state constitutions, Justice David Souter was notable for the experience at the state level that he brought with him to the Supreme Court. (Photo by) Following retired U.S. Supreme Court Justice David Souter's passing last month, commentators memorialized the justice with appreciations of his analytical acumen and commitment to the role of neutral arbiter. Steven Vladeck, for instance, praised Souter for 'just how seriously he took his job as a justice — and a judge.' At the same time, however, as longtime Supreme Court observer Linda Greenhouse noted in The New York Times, Souter's 'name was on so few significant opinions and his profile at the court was so low that after his first few years, legal academia essentially stopped paying attention to him.' Not all of legal academia. Among scholars who study state courts and state constitutions, Souter was notable for the experience at the state level that he brought with him to the Supreme Court. During his tenure as a member of New Hampshire's highest court, that court contributed to the development of state constitutional law in significant ways. The Granite State stood at the forefront of the jurisprudential phenomenon known as the 'new judicial federalism' — the practice of state courts interpreting the individual rights provisions of their own constitutions independently of the Supreme Court's rulings on the parallel protections contained in the federal Bill of Rights. The new judicial federalism was inspired, in large part, by an essay published in the Harvard Law Review in 1977. Alarmed by the extent to which the Supreme Court was retreating from the robust protection of individual rights under the federal constitution, Supreme Court Justice William Brennan reminded readers that 'State constitutions, too, are a font of individual liberties, their protections often extending beyond those required by the Supreme Court's interpretation of federal law.' In other words, individuals and advocates should consider, in appropriate cases, the depth and reach of state constitutional individual rights provisions. The New Hampshire Supreme Court heard Brennan's call. In its 1983 decision in State v. Ball, the high court held that, when state constitutional issues are properly raised, the state courts have 'a responsibility to make an independent determination of the protections afforded in the New Hampshire Constitution.' To ignore this obligation, the court continued, would be to fail in the duty to defend the state constitution, which in turn would undermine 'the federalism that must be so carefully safeguarded by our people.' A commitment to the independent interpretation of the state constitution necessarily entails the development of approaches and modes of analysis suited to that particular constitutional context, which Justice Souter recognized in a 1986 case, State v. Bradberry. Souter had been appointed to the high court when the court issued its opinion in Ball, but he did not participate in the decision. Bradberry thus presented an opportunity for him to explain the stakes for state constitutional law in individual rights cases: 'If we place too much reliance on federal precedent,' he wrote, 'we will render the State rules a mere row of shadows; if we place too little, we will render State practice incoherent. If we are going to steer between these extremes, we will have to insist on developed advocacy from those who bring the cases before us.' Justice Souter's plea for support from the bar in state constitutional cases continues to resonate. In our treatise on state constitutional law, 'The Law of American State Constitutions,' my co-author Bob Williams and I referred to Souter's opinion in Bradberry as a definitive statement on the matter. In the book, we echoed the perspective articulated in his opinion: State courts that rely wholly on federal law in interpreting their state constitutional rights protections risk diminishing those protections, while too little respect for federal precedent risks isolating a state's law from the larger, national discourse about the meaning of common individual rights provisions. His experience with state constitutional law and the new judicial federalism distinguished Justice Souter's career from that of most of his fellow U.S. Supreme Court justices, and the New Hampshire Supreme Court's commitment to fostering independent state constitutional interpretation in State v. Ball has distinguished it from other state courts. In Bradberry, Justice Souter maintained that the commitment represents but an initial step toward reckoning with state constitutional text. In ascertaining the meaning of the state's charter, Souter advised, the state's courts should expect to rely on counsel representing each side of a case to illuminate the text. Such advocacy allows judges to consider the full range of interpretive possibilities that may lie in particular provisions of the New Hampshire Constitution — and creates an alternative to relying exclusively on the views of nine judges in Washington, D.C., who are tasked with construing a similar but fundamentally different constitution
Elle
27 minutes ago
- Elle
Meet The Cast Of 'Dept. Q' Including Kelly Macdonald, Matthew Goode And Kate Dickie
While there never seem to be a shortage of crime thriller series, it can sometimes feel as though few series actually cut above the rest, enter: Netflix's latest offering, Dept. Q. Packed with refreshing storytelling, character arcs and locations from beginning to end, Dept. Q. is the latest thriller to bump up to the top of your to-watch list. Created by director Scott Frank, and based on the book series by Danish writer Jussi Adler-Olsen, the Scottish crime thriller sees a less than friendly police detective tackle a cold case, with an eccentric group of police officers by his side. If like us, you've already started binging the series and want to know more about the stellar cast ensemble which includes Matthew Goode, Kelly Macdonald, Kate Dickie and more, keep reading below. FIND OUT MORE ON ELLE COLLECTIVE Who is Carl Morck? He is detective working in Edinburgh that has been assigned the role of setting up Department Q, a cold case unit after being involved in a shooting which killed a police office, left him injured and paralysed his best friend and partner. Who is Matthew Goode? He is an English actor who has previously starred in Confessions of an Ugly Stepsister, Chasing Liberty, The Good Wife and The Imitation Game. Who is Moira Jacobson? Jacobson works as Carl's commanding officer. Who is Kate Dickie? She is a Scottish actor who is best known for her role as Lysa Arryn in Game Of Thrones. Who is Dr. Rachel Irving? She is a police officer that is in charge of handling Carl's post-shooting mandated therapy sessions. Who is Kelly Macdonald? She is a seasoned Scottish actor who has previously starred in Trainspotting, Nanny McPhee, No Country For Old Men and Brave. Who is Merritt Lingard? She is a a ruthless and ambitious prosecutor who (no spoilers) plays a key part in the story of Department Q. Who is Chloe Pirrie? She is a Scottish actor who has previously starred in The Victim, Temple and The Queen's Gambit. Who is James Hardy? He is Carl's former partner, who was also devastatingly injured in the shooting, but begins to find a new lease in life through consulting Carl on his cases. Who is Jamie Sives? A Scottish actor who has featured in the stage production of King James III, Frontier and Annika. Who is Stephen Burns? He is Merritt's boss. Who is Mark Bonnar? He is a Scottish actor who has previously starred in Guilt, Shetland and Line Of Duty. Who is Akram Salim? He is an assistant police officer who was forced to flee Syria as a refugee. He is often overlooked and underestimated despite doing well in his job... until he joins Department Q. Who is Alexej Manvelov? He is a Russian actor who has previously appeared in Chernobyl, Jack Ryan and The Contractor.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Working Ohioans will lose health insurance under Medicaid work requirements
(Stock photo via Getty Images) If you know anyone who works in the service industry, you should be very familiar with the problem of hour volatility. When work hours aren't set, worker schedules can vary greatly from week to week and from month to month. This can make a steady stream of income difficult to achieve for service workers. It can also affect eligibility for public benefits. The Ohio Department of Medicaid is currently working with the federal government to implement work requirements for Ohio's 'Medicaid expansion' population–the 760,000 Ohio residents who receive health insurance through the Kasich Administration-era expansion of Medicaid. These work requirements would apply to households at 138% of the federal poverty level and below. Low-income households tend to be headed by people who work in the service industry. My colleague Michael Hartnett estimates that cooks and waiters are the second- and fifth-most common jobs among people in the bottom 20% of income in Ohio. A new analysis by Brookings Institution researchers looks at how the volatility of hours for service workers will impact eligibility for benefits like Medicaid and SNAP. One of the things they look at is the mental model that undergirds the current work requirement system. In 1976, only 26% of low-income employees worked in the service sector. By 2024, that number had risen to 38%. This means that 50 years ago, the contours of an unsteady sector had less of an impact on month-to-month hours than it does today. These researchers used data from the Survey of Income and Program Participation to estimate that 64% of service workers worked less than 80 hours in at least one month in 2022. A third (34%) of workers who work an average of 80 hours a month had at least one month that year that they worked less than 80 hours. That means that a monthly work requirement of 80 hours would have disqualified a third of service workers at some point during 2022 from benefits like Medicaid or SNAP. The researchers also find these volatile work hours are largely outside of the control of the workers. According to their analysis, three-quarters of service workers with irregular schedules say their schedules are at the request of their employers, not their own. This is also a high rate among non-service workers, where over 3 in 5 low-income workers with irregular schedules are conforming to employer requirements. So what does this mean? It means tens of thousands of low-income workers in Ohio could lose their health insurance because of work hour volatility out of their control. The labor market has changed a lot over the past fifty years, especially for low-income workers. This has led to less certainty about hours, which makes thresholds like monthly hours not as effective for gauging whether people are participating in the labor force. There are a lot of reasons to be worried about work requirements. The fact that working people will lose health insurance because lack of control over work hours is just another one to add to the list. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
