I feel like its not so much civilian-oversight that’s antagonized but greedy politicians.
Partly, yes. But for the most part, the ones in favour of civilian oversight were only greedy politicians, and that was used to frame the whole idea. Also the pure thought of civilian oversight was ridiculed by the protagonists without it being contextualized as a point of debate or something. Remember, there was a whole episode about why the US Air Force was best to control the Stargate program instead of an international comittee.
where Weir is not a politician- she’s a scientist
No, Weir was a diplomat, peace activist and expert on international politics, not a scientist. Also, her appearance in SG1 marked a slight change in the show’s characterization of civil oversight.
Kinsey is one of my biggest points in this issue. For several seasons, he was the only or leading figure arguing for civil oversight, and when you let only one or a most prominent character represent an idea that character is how the show frames that idea.
Partly, yes. But for the most part, the ones in favour of civilian oversight were only greedy politicians, and that was used to frame the whole idea. Also the pure thought of civilian oversight was ridiculed by the protagonists without it being contextualized as a point of debate or something. Remember, there was a whole episode about why the US Air Force was best to control the Stargate program instead of an international comittee.
No, Weir was a diplomat, peace activist and expert on international politics, not a scientist. Also, her appearance in SG1 marked a slight change in the show’s characterization of civil oversight.
Kinsey is one of my biggest points in this issue. For several seasons, he was the only or leading figure arguing for civil oversight, and when you let only one or a most prominent character represent an idea that character is how the show frames that idea.