# The Newsroom: "News Night 2.0" OAD 7/1/12 ***SPOILERS***



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

Let's begin with a look at real life. Back in August 2010 CNN's DC bureau chief David Bohrman and CNN political director Sam Feist produced the following memo:


> From David Bohrman and Sam Feist:
> 
> We are thrilled to announce that today, Patricia DiCarlo becomes the Executive Producer of The Situation Room with Wolf Blitzer. In her three years at CNN, Patricia has demonstrated that not only is she an outstanding journalist, she has also emerged as an important leader at CNN.
> 
> ...


What bugs me about this memo is that sentence "Patricia's 15 years in broadcast journalism have spanned important producing positions from WFLA and WTVT in Tampa all the way to the Oprah Winfrey show in Chicago." So the "Oprah Winfrey Show" is considered "journalism"???

Last night I realized that the show accurately reflects the reality of 21st Century American television news which is worse than the worst possible nightmare scenarios imagined by Edward R. Murrow and Walter Cronkite. The meaning of "journalism" as they knew it is dead.

As I watched the first 33 seconds of the opening credits/intro sequence of "The Newsroom" last night...

[YOUTUBEHD]q5TxEix6mdU[/YOUTUBEHD]

...I realized that the show reflects a nostalgic Aaron Sorkin writing a fantasy where the male characters are simultaneously bigger than life and run things, like in the 1950's.

Other than the men being "bigger than life", is it a fantasy? The cable news channel news-prime-time (6-7 pm) anchors are CNN's Wolf Blitzer, Fox's Shepard Smith, MSNBC's Chris Matthews.

Last night's episode is taking hits among reviewers because of its portrayal of women. Hey, folks, let's back up a notch. This is Sorkin's fantasy, we've only seen two episodes, and over at CNN the male honchos see "The Oprah Winfrey Show" as journalism in the context of a woman producer's experience, even though she stayed there only 1 year and 1 month before returning to real news.

I'm not so sure Sorkin is _that_ far off.

As seen by Sorkin, there are three critical sources of philosophical conflict in early 21st Century television news. Two were presented in this episode by the character Mackenzie MacHale (well-portrayed by Emily Mortimer) as keys to the main story arc of the series:

In an argument with News Night's anchor Will McAvoy she states the first element of Sorkin's belief's about what the television news should be:


> MacHale: "We don't do good television we do the news."


 The second is an exchange between MacHale and the other members of the newsroom, mostly younger people who grew up with the current news style. In the exchange we hear the second element of Sorkin's belief's about television news, this time about bias:


> MacHale: "The media's biased towards success and the media's biased towards fairness.
> 
> Maggie Jordan: "How can you be biased towards fairness?"
> 
> ...


 The third critical philosophical conflict is the issue of ratings and popularity versus integrity of content and informing the viewer.

Sorkin seems to be framing this last conflict as an economic issue, which it is. But he isn't clearly presenting the reality of cable news networks. If no one watches, you aren't informing anyone. And, if your "integrity" is so great you don't tend to reflect a political ideology, no one will watch because cable news is mostly background noise, except for the believers who "pay the bills" in the cable news competition.

McAvoy's speech in the first episode is about what's wrong with Americans - not what's wrong with America. In it he said about the past: "And we were able to be all these things and do all these things because we were informed."

In this episode Sorkin is saying in his fantasy is that we cannot become an informed people if all we're looking for is entertainment. But what several characters in the story are saying is what the larger audience is looking for in television news is entertainment.

Which brings us to this show which is supposed to be entertainment.

Other than the ideologues who hate Sorkin for his political views, the show is getting the most criticism for what the first two episodes have not been. They have not been the representation of the well-written soap opera. Sorkin has not focused on creating believable characters.

What's most worrisome about this is the fact that Sorkin is writing this series without a "writers room" where others can expand his horizon regarding people, particularly women at the beginning of the 21st Century. This means that while the show is powerful with solid "production values" it is similar to "Mad Men" in that it is primarily the sole creation of one fifty-ish man. The female characters are not accurately represented according to their female contemporaries.

In "The Newsroom" the focus on the two women important to the story so far has been painted with a fog about relationships with the men they work with and even men they dated in college. That probably was a bad idea, at least for the first few episodes.


----------



## Maruuk (Dec 5, 2007)

Man, second ep was awful. Talky, all that classic Sorkin machine-gun insider blitz chatter, I can't follow it and I'm a media guy! Can they possibly talk any faster? Are they getting paid by the word??

At least next week it looks like something actually happens. As opposed to this week. Has this show already jumped the Shark?


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

Maruuk said:


> Man, second ep was awful. Talky, all that classic Sorkin machine-gun insider blitz chatter, I can't follow it and I'm a media guy! Can they possibly talk any faster? Are they getting paid by the word??
> 
> At least next week it looks like something actually happens. As opposed to this week. Has this show already jumped the Shark?


Well, apparently HBO doesn't think so as they renewed it for a second season.

Yes, it's classic Sorkin. There were people who did not watch "West Wing" because of the sometimes frenetic verbal pace.

With that said, in terms of story arc, this episode combined with the last one demonstrated that the new "retro" approach to the news sometimes will work and sometimes will fail. And it can be because of the unexpected. Last episode, one staffer had a solid connection to the story. This week the other staffer had a connection that should have been avoided.

These two episodes were "the pilot." The problem is if you missed some of the chatter you may have missed something you need to know. Or not.

I'm hoping we're going to get more quiet character interaction. It happened a lot in "West Wing." In an interview with Jane Fonda we learn that:


> ...[Jane] Fonda plays the recurring role of Leona Lansing, the CEO of the fictional network parent company Atlantic World Media that is, as Fonda explains, somewhere in between Ted Turner and Rupert Murdoch.


 In the interview Fonda explains:


> ...Aaron says that it's mostly about the relationships -- and they are fascinating relationships -- about the characters that are in the newsroom. With Emily Mortimer and... well, you know who's in it. It's very interesting. The newsroom, to me -- and I play the head of the whole parent company -- the newsroom is less than three percent of my bottom line. But, because it's the newsroom, it can create a lot of trouble for me. So, I can rattle a lot of cages. But, my dilemma in this first season is what's happening because of what happens to Jeff Daniels in the course of the series. I don't feel like I'm in a position to say, you know, what the core of the story is....


So I have great hopes that the story will develop well.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

They had one episode where "everything fell into place" and the show went well and they one. Now they have had their episode where everything went wrong (different stupid decisions by many people) and they survived. If the plot of the show is the ups and downs of working in a television newsroom we have now seen the ups and down. Now it is time to get into the rhythm.

Relationships are important in today's world ... networking. Your connections via Facebook, Linked In, Twitter and even off the web can get you the next job or lose it - and can help you within the job. Show 1 went well primarily because of one person's connection to two people who gave insight no one could. Show 2 went poorly primarily due to one person's connection to a college friend who wanted to be mean. Sometimes it is who you know.

Will's big error on 2.0 was airing something he had not seen without anyone in the newsroom vetting it for him. He got bad advice and took it - and got burned. One relationship that turned into something bad for the show.

PS: Don't send email to asterisk and watch what pops up via auto-fill.


----------



## Maruuk (Dec 5, 2007)

The show clearly has to fight to maintain its neutrality (we know the showrunner and writers are all rabid lefties) but I felt it hugely violated that in one moment. John Gallagher is vetting Alison Pill about the call concerning the AZ law. He plays devil's advocate and at one point which is hard to describe as the "test call" plays out, she delivers the standard knee-jerk lib line about the poor, helpless, wonderful (illegal criminal) aliens and he stops and a huge smile breaks out on his face: she got it right, they agreed, home run, the lib line wins. Now you've got it. Now you can shove that purity of Truth in the face of these AZ lunatic haters! 

And at that moment the show lost all credibility. It became a lib shill vehicle, us against them, goodie libs vs. moronic, evil righties. Just for good measure, later they agree to call down some guy from Seattle who is a poor, suffering illegal criminal alien to play up his tragic plight on air. Swell, that's fair.

Yes, we know Will pointedly supports the AZ law (which they touch on for about 2.7 seconds), but you know that over the course of time he will see the light and embrace the lefty zeitgeist. Just as President whatisface on West Wing was always victorious in the end with his progressive policies.

If Sorkin's behind it, rainbow blood will out.


----------



## djlong (Jul 8, 2002)

Maruuk, I think you read too much into it.

On both sides of the AZ law issue, there are cogent, rational arguments. What the "good" answer was the cogent, rational liberal side instead of the loony-left arguments. Remember, they were going to interview the architects and enforcers of the law so, presumably, you had the cogent, rational conservative side already there and the exercise was to challenge their position without going to the 'loony left'.

There are arguments that can be made on topics that I vehemently disagree with that are at least intelligent and respectable.


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

Maruuk said:


> The show clearly has to fight to maintain its neutrality (we know the showrunner and writers are all rabid lefties) but I felt it hugely violated that in one moment....
> 
> Yes, we know Will pointedly supports the AZ law (which they touch on for about 2.7 seconds), but you know that over the course of time he will see the light and embrace the lefty zeitgeist. Just as President whatisface on West Wing was always victorious in the end with his progressive policies.
> 
> If Sorkin's behind it, rainbow blood will out.


Don't get too upset by Sorkin's viewpoint. As djlong states, there are cogent, rational arguments on both sides.

IMHO Sorkin is the worst kind of "progressive" because really he's a conservative in the sense that he is defending a fictional past as "the time when American's were better because newsmen were better."

And because I fear a huge political argument will stop us from being able to discuss the show, I'm putting the remainder of my opinions about this here in my blog where it can be heatedly debated if someone wants to.


----------



## Maruuk (Dec 5, 2007)

Of course I agree there are two sides, just that it appeared here that Sorkin did a wink wink/nudge nudge to the audience in that scene basically saying, "We all know what Alison Pill just said was the REAL truth, and those Arizonans are all crazy muthahs!" 

That was my point, that it looked like he violated a basic tenet of the show which is not to take sides as the SHOW. Of course individual characters can take sides and argue, but the SHOW can't suddenly adopt a political viewpoint or it's sunk.

That said, next week looks a lot more lively with actual events happening so maybe it won't be so boring, but if they keep up this machine-gun smarty-pants insider chatter only Mensa members will be able to keep track of it.

Word to Sorkin: use different colored pills this week.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Maruuk said:


> That was my point, that it looked like he violated a basic tenet of the show which is not to take sides as the SHOW. Of course individual characters can take sides and argue, but the SHOW can't suddenly adopt a political viewpoint or it's sunk.


Maggie was preparing to interview a conservative person. She needed to present the opposing viewpoint in order to elicit the response that they wanted for the show. "Here is what your opponent is saying, what do you say?" The wink and a nod was for her getting the argument right to where she was prepared to face off against a conservative.

If her job was to pre-interview a liberal she would have had to present the conservative viewpoint to the subject and get that right.

When I was in school and did debates we could flip a coin to decide which side of the issue one took. It didn't matter what our personal viewpoint was on an issue - we had to present the side that we were chosen to represent as effectively as possible. We also had to know the other side as well as ours in order to provide an effective counterpoint.

I believe Maggie was being acknowledged as having the argument right ... that she was ready to work ... not that her argument was the right answer in the debate but that she understood the argument and could present it.



> That said, next week looks a lot more lively with actual events happening so maybe it won't be so boring, but if they keep up this machine-gun smarty-pants insider chatter only Mensa members will be able to keep track of it.


That defines a Sorkin show. If it isn't machine-gun smart dialog with long detailed speeches it isn't Sorkin.


----------



## Maruuk (Dec 5, 2007)

I've seen West Wing, Sports Night and Studio 60, and never has the blitz of burnished blather blasted so bloviatingly. He's ramped it up to the point of absurdity. It reminds me of the auctioneer-style disclaimers they stick at the end of after-midnight commercials. The only way they get them to fit is to compress them electronically, and that sounds like what Sorkin is doing. The poor actors must have to mainline meth to keep up the pace. 

For me, I miss about 1/3 of this super-speed dialog. That is, the dialog that goes into hyperdrive when characters get excited or intense about an issue and start arguing back and forth at data-dump speed. I never had that problem with the previous shows, though you did have to pay attention for sure.


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

"Maruuk" said:


> I've seen West Wing, Sports Night and Studio 60, and never has the blitz of burnished blather blasted so bloviatingly. He's ramped it up to the point of absurdity. It reminds me of the auctioneer-style disclaimers they stick at the end of after-midnight commercials. The only way they get them to fit is to compress them electronically, and that sounds like what Sorkin is doing. The poor actors must have to mainline meth to keep up the pace.
> 
> For me, I miss about 1/3 of this super-speed dialog. That is, the dialog that goes into hyperdrive when characters get excited or intense about an issue and start arguing back and forth at data-dump speed. I never had that problem with the previous shows, though you did have to pay attention for sure.


I hate to tell you this, but my mother had the same complaint about "West Wing" and you have to remember I'm old.

Sorkin did it in that show when staffers were walking the halls of the White House intensely debating policy issues or what to have for lunch.

I'm fearful we'll have more of it in this show if each episode is to be about some hot news story. There are slow news days when these characters wouldn't be hyped up. I pray that Sorkin has permitted some of those.


----------



## djlong (Jul 8, 2002)

I don't know... I remember the same kind of machine-gun dialogue in Sports Night that I see in The Newsroom. Maybe it's just my impression.


----------



## Maruuk (Dec 5, 2007)

Yeah, it definitely ramps up and down depending. David Milch has his own variation of this as heard in _Deadwood_ and _Luck_: while not so much a rapid-fire machinegun delivery, it was intentionally written in a bizarre indirect "insider" almost Shakespearean patois all its own, kind of like Yoda-speak with misplaced modifiers and oddly-interjected parentheticals, which could be awfully hard to follow. A grammarian's wet dream!

And ironically, neither style sounds like the way anybody talks in the real world! Any more than David Mamet's weirdo dialog. In which everybody repeats everything twice!


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

The only further comment I can make about Sorkin's pace is that I was younger when I watched his earlier shows. I'm older now and not quite as tuned in to fast speech. I wonder if I would get lost watching the West Wing DVDs?


----------



## Maruuk (Dec 5, 2007)

You want some dialog blitzkreig/overkill, turn on any Saturday morning show for about 15 seconds. Then turn it off quick before your brain turns to oatmeal. It sure explains the last few gens! The shows are bad enough, but kiddie commercials today are like turning on 10 channels at the same time and cranking the volume to "11".


----------



## Maruuk (Dec 5, 2007)

This week (I Can Fix You) was much better, this show is finally finding its legs. The relationships/sexual tension sandwiched in with real news and real issues formula is finally starting to gel.


----------



## Sixto (Nov 18, 2005)

Loved episode 4.


----------



## codespy (Mar 30, 2006)

Sixto said:


> Loved episode 4.


We did too....Wife and I are hooked...at least for now.

Viacom dispute may be assisting with it.


----------



## Maruuk (Dec 5, 2007)

The irony is, you wish you had this news show in real time every night!


----------



## Nick (Apr 23, 2002)

Maruuk said:


> The irony is, you wish you had this news show in real time every night!


No, I don't.

"Newsroom" is not a 'news show', it's a show about producing the news. The story line of interest is behind the scenes, the part we would never see if it were a real news program.


----------



## djlong (Jul 8, 2002)

I think the poster is saying we would LOVE to have a REAL news program LIKE the one portrayed in the show.

I don't know how many times I've said that I would pay a *premium* for a news channel like the one we get to see for an hour on Sunday nights. I'd pay for something that did NOT have to bow to advertiser pressures. Something that didn't slant the same way all the time (Fox/MSNBC).. Something that embodied the line "There are NOT always two sides to a story. Sometimes there's only one, sometimes there's FIVE.."


----------



## Rnrboy (Oct 7, 2010)

What perplexes me is how my parents can hate The Newsroom, but love Veep!!! How is that even possible???


----------



## Maruuk (Dec 5, 2007)

djlong said:


> I think the poster is saying we would LOVE to have a REAL news program LIKE the one portrayed in the show.
> 
> I don't know how many times I've said that I would pay a *premium* for a news channel like the one we get to see for an hour on Sunday nights. I'd pay for something that did NOT have to bow to advertiser pressures. Something that didn't slant the same way all the time (Fox/MSNBC).. Something that embodied the line "There are NOT always two sides to a story. Sometimes there's only one, sometimes there's FIVE.."


Exactly. I want a show unafraid to nail the Koch Bros., Rupert Murdoch, the NRA, Obama, a religion, or even the Supreme Court if they're up to no good. I don't want happy-talk news, I want real news calling it like it is.


----------



## Bobsacto (Feb 13, 2008)

Whenever one of my kids asked me, in reference to a career, what should I do my response was always the same. Become an editor/producer for television news. No decisions to make just throw anything on as long as you're first.


----------



## Maruuk (Dec 5, 2007)

You can judge the integrity of any current news show by who they've blacklisted: who they DON'T allow on under any circumstances. You'd be amazed how long those lists are. And how many highly-respected PHDs, best-selling authors, prize-winning economists, leading scientists and brilliant social commentators are never allowed to air their perspectives on what is supposed to be the PUBLIC airwaves! All because they might rock the boat before the next CIALIS commercial.

Remember when the McNeil-Lehrer Report was supposed to be that magical show? Now they run 2-minute commercials for major corporations masquerading as "major funding advisories". And instead of just telling it like it is, they have to have crazies come on to represent "the other side" of a given issue, no matter how misguided or looney the "other side" of the issue is.

So even though their news is 2 years late, I do appreciate "The Newsroom" telling it like it is on BP, Citizens United, the Koch Bros, the Tea Party, etc. Because frankly, most of America never heard those truths about those things 2 years ago. Better late than never!


----------



## gaperrine (Dec 8, 2002)

Maruuk said:


> You can judge the integrity of any current news show by who they've blacklisted: who they DON'T allow on under any circumstances. You'd be amazed how long those lists are. And how many highly-respected PHDs, best-selling authors, prize-winning economists, leading scientists and brilliant social commentators are never allowed to air their perspectives on what is supposed to be the PUBLIC airwaves! All because they might rock the boat before the next CIALIS commercial.


I would love to see those lists. Could you post a link?


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Let's stick with discussing the show on HBO and not drift into further political discussions.
(In other words ... we're not going there.)

Thanks!


----------



## balboadave (Mar 3, 2010)

Maruuk said:


> Exactly. I want a show unafraid to nail the Koch Bros., Rupert Murdoch, the NRA, Obama, a religion, or even the Supreme Court if they're up to no good. I don't want happy-talk news, I want real news calling it like it is.


That's *exactly* what the show _Countdown with Keith Olbermann_ did. Well, except he wasn't afraid to inject a fair amount of humor.


----------



## Maruuk (Dec 5, 2007)

This is exactly the point "The Newsroom" makes with Jane Fonda threatening the anchor: Lay off billionaire X or you'll find yourself in a manufactured personal scandal which will allow the net to break your contract without penalty.

Olbermann, like Will McAvoy, showed proper outrage over wars for profit, Katrina and American torture. Will McAvoy is under threat for his proper response to outrageous circumstances, Olbermann is out of a job.

Thus "The Newsroom" is dealing fairly with the core issues of journalism, or what passes for it, today. Can you still report the real news on a major network and like Murrow did, like Mike Wallace did, like Tim Russert did, and like those guys, deliver it with real emotion that brings home the truth to the public like a sledgehammer?

That's called integrity, and networks banned that at the same time they brought their news divisions under the "Entertainment" banner.


----------



## Nick (Apr 23, 2002)

You're confusing saying the news with opinionated editorializing.


----------



## RasputinAXP (Jan 23, 2008)

Rnrboy said:


> What perplexes me is how my parents can hate The Newsroom, but love Veep!!! How is that even possible???


We love both in this house.


----------



## Maruuk (Dec 5, 2007)

Nick said:


> You're confusing saying the news with opinionated editorializing.


This is what "The Newsroom" is all about: reminding folks that there used to be these guys on TV called "journalists" or "Newsmen". They came on TV and exposed frauds like McCarthy or dangers like DDT or Vietnam. They didn't have opinions, they just told the truth and people got the message loud and clear.

Today under the entertainment banner, network news has intentionally created a new semantical framework where EVERYTHING is opinion and there is no objective truth. Thus they sell commercial time by pitting everyone against each other like some demented wrestling match.

If anyone tells the truth about anything, the network immediately books opposition to it and sets up another shouting match so the public has no idea what's true and what isn't, so they buy more Cialis to cope with the resultant stress.

"The Newsroom" reminds us, hey, there are real facts. Actual, incontrovertible truths out there. And when this guy McAvoy tells them to you, you can believe him, and be properly outraged. We don't always need to jump to the opposition moron spewing some talking points baloney.

The anchor just told you the news. It was not his "opinion". Deal with it. Just like back in the day. Integrity. The lost art.

But there's an additional bonus to the nets for keeping everything on the "opinion" level. It allows them to prevent the emergence of any actual truth teller. These are giant corporations with global interests and a great deal of money at stake in many markets. Truth rocks boats, and rocking boats affect the bottom line. So this "scandal" that McAvoy is being threatened with is not some fictional metaphor. Scandal hammers fall on whistleblowers and truthtellers all the time. See: Julian Assange and Eliot Spitzer.

Speak truth to power and get your teeth knocked out in short order. "The Newsroom" masquerades as a romcom, but it's actually a hero's tale.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Maruuk said:


> "The Newsroom" reminds us, hey, there are real facts. Actual, incontrovertible truths out there. And when this guy McAvoy tells them to you, you can believe him, and be properly outraged. We don't always need to jump to the opposition moron spewing some talking points baloney.


They are only facts if one believes them to be true. Otherwise they are opinion or propaganda.

I agree that there is a tendency toward the "dualing talking heads" format where a "neutral" host/anchor brings on diametrically opposed people to yell at each other. Sometimes it expands into teams of diametrically opposed people. But the alternative isn't necessarily better.

The format of the show on Newsroom follows the other popular format. A host with a clear viewpoint and opinion on the subject matter bringing on guests to either agree totally with or to do battle with anchor vs guest. He doesn't need the "opposition moron" on the show - for Wil tells the "truth" and the opposition moron is the guest. Or (if Wil agrees with the guest) they attack an opposition moron who is not on the show to defend themselves.

Wil's show is not about the truth - it is what he believes to be true. It is about facts that people have convinced Wil are true.


----------



## Maruuk (Dec 5, 2007)

Could not possibly disagree more. Relativism is the problem that "The Newsroom's" and Will's new "I'm in" commitment is out to solve.

There really is man-made climate change. BP really caused the deaths and disaster. There really is evolution. "Newsroom" is about a shift back to reality from the UN-reality of the new quantum relativism where ANYTHING may or may not be real so let's hire colorful and attractive personas to debate it for hours to sell soap.

Guess what...reality exists. There really are true things. The world is not a magic box full of Shroedinger's cats.

"The Newsroom" is committed to reality news, not quantum news. And hopefully that will be a wakeup call for America that was starting to believe that _nothing's_ real, it's all just a matter of opinion.

That's exactly what the Corporation (and Jane Fonda) wants you to believe.


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

The strength and the weakness of "The Newsroom" is that it is not a news show. It's a show about producing the news that mixes a little truth with much fiction. Confusing the two is dangerous.

Virtually every piece of information being shown in "The Newsroom" - the omnipresence of the Koch Brothers money in our political system, for instance - was available through legitimate news sources in a timely manner, but it was not presented on TV news as fact in a timely manner.

That maintaining democracy has always been hard work for the governed is a fundamental truth. The less work they do, the less democracy they have. One has to search for the truth. It's not available in a timely manner delivered in rapid pace amusing sound bites delivered by hot-but-educated women and sophisticated-looking men.

"The Newsroom" isn't reflecting a possibility, it's telling an emotionally appealing fiction. I enjoy the show. But even it's on HBO, not on ad-supported broadcast TV.


----------



## Maruuk (Dec 5, 2007)

Yeah, it's a nuanced dynamic to be sure. Long ago, you could get somewhat straighter, less-censored, uncolored news on a major TV network at 6pm. Now you have to dig for it.

The problem is numbers. Only a tiny percentage of Americans watch cable news compared to network news. The ratio is staggering. Network news is still the 800lb gorilla in the room. And it's why America mostly missed the Kochs and what they're up to, and mostly missed the implications of Citizens United and more recently the LIBOR scandal. Network news run by folks like Jane Fonda in "The Newsroom" make sure you hear only what they want you to hear. To frame issues only in the frame they hang for you.

You know, I would take issue with one point: "The Newsroom" IS quite a news show. And don't think Sorkin isn't aware of the subversive nature of what he's up to. It's easy to dismiss these time-shifted stories on the show as "old news". But the issue of corporate malfeasance relative to oil spills is a current topic. The Tea Party takeover of the Republicans funded and orchestrated by the Kochs is headlines today, or should be. The refusal of SCOTUS judges to recuse themselves in blatant conflict-of-interest situations is just as hot today as back then. Citizens United, a perennial monster.

Sorkin is delivering the reality news as surely as a little boy on his bike at 6 in the morning. Most folks just don't know it yet.


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

"Maruuk" said:


> You know, I would take issue with one point: "The Newsroom" IS quite a news show. And don't think Sorkin isn't aware of the subversive nature of what he's up to. It's easy to dismiss these time-shifted stories on the show as "old news". But the issue of corporate malfeasance relative to oil spills is a current topic. The Tea Party takeover of the Republicans funded and orchestrated by the Kochs is headlines today, or should be. The refusal of SCOTUS judges to recuse themselves in blatant conflict-of-interest situations is just as hot today as back then. Citizens United, a perennial monster.
> 
> Sorkin is delivering the reality news as surely as a little boy on his bike at 6 in the morning. Most folks just don't know it yet.


 From a longer time perspective that is true. But the Koch direct financial ties to two SCOTUS judges regarding Citizens United needed to be a headline story done by a broadcast network reporter when the case was sent back to be reframed, not many months after the decision was handed down. People don't understand that the failure of the judges to recuse themselves should have risen to the level of a Watergate story. That fact, not the decision itself, is more worrisome IMHO as it appears a new standard of judicial ethics has simply been established without much notice.

Even Sorkin hasn't focused on that.


----------



## Maruuk (Dec 5, 2007)

+1,000 to that! And I'd feel exactly the same way if it was one of the so-called "liberal" judges. There's no place in SCOTUS for even a hint of conflict-of-interest. At even the suggestion of a possible COI, a judge needs to recuse. The phraseology in the judges' guidelines refers not to recusal on the basis of an actual COI, but merely the _appearance_ of COI. But these judges have used the guidelines for TP. Should have been immediate calls for impeachment. Props to "The Newsroom" for at least reminding us of this core issue.


----------



## Maruuk (Dec 5, 2007)

Wow, speak of the devil! A story right out of "The Newsroom", Will would have a field day with this: NBC just blacked out a moving 7/7 tribute during the opening ceremonies of the Olympics with a canned Michael Phelps puff piece. Blatant corporate censorship.

Over to you, Will...


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Maruuk said:


> Wow, speak of the devil! A story right out of "The Newsroom", Will would have a field day with this: NBC just blacked out a moving 7/7 tribute during the opening ceremonies of the Olympics with a canned Michael Phelps puff piece. Blatant corporate censorship.
> 
> Over to you, Will...


First of all ... last night's NBC action was NOT part of the show "The Newsroom" on HBO. Perhaps they will cover that decision in a couple of years when the show is set in 2012, probably not (unless the show changes to "The Sportsroom").

This thread is for discussion of the TV show.


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

See the thread NBC skips tribute piece in Olympics Opening Ceremony for access to the BBC coverage.


----------



## Maruuk (Dec 5, 2007)

Thanks for the heads up! So many threads, so little time!


----------



## Maruuk (Dec 5, 2007)

Speaking of the show, from the romcom perspective, how do knockout and super-smart and sexy Olivia Munn and gorgeous Margaret Judson get to be treated as sexless old wallpaper while skanky Emily Mortimer and ditzy cheerleader Alison Pill get to be clawed after like the second coming of Megan Fox??

I mean, I like Emily as an actress, and even Alison, she's terrific. But guys are treating poor smoking-hot Olivia like she's a guy in drag or something when they should be all over her, from a real-world perspective. I hope the plot in the future allows Olivia to be "attractive" and gives her a relationship, it's the only thing in the show that is wildly improbable.


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

Maruuk said:


> That said, next week looks a lot more lively with actual events happening so maybe it won't be so boring, but if they keep up this machine-gun smarty-pants insider chatter only Mensa members will be able to keep track of it.


OMG, the inside flippery is hard to take. Don't think one needs to be a genius, just more au courant with inside the biz jargon....

I'm just now boarding the train, as I bailed after the first ep due to that very phenom. I thought the first ep was hard to follow for other reasons, too. Thank heavens for VOD!


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

I didn't watch the first few years of The West Wing (no locals on DISH and the SD receiver didn't pick up OTA) and ended up catching up in a hurry with shows on Bravo. Sorkin's signature shows take some work to watch at times but I believe they are worth the effort.

I believe that the fact that Sorkin's Studio 60 made it one season and 30 Rock will be wrapping up in it's seventh season this fall (138 episodes) is an example of the difference between good TV and popular TV.


----------



## Maruuk (Dec 5, 2007)

Yeah, I liked Studio 60!

Man, the Newsroom finale was awesome last night! The show has really found its stride. Good for intelligent TV!! I still can't figure how Sorkin gets away with such obvious Republican bashing but it works for me. (snickers into shirtsleeve)


----------



## Maruuk (Dec 5, 2007)

I think Sorkin toned-down the machine-gun overlapping insider-jargon dialog a bit, I find it much easier to follow now. Can't wait for next season!


----------



## Sixto (Nov 18, 2005)

Awesome show. Just watched the finale. Love it.


----------



## pablo (Oct 11, 2007)

Great finale. I'm just a little concerned they burned through over a year of real-world news events in these 10 episodes (from the BP spill on April 20, 2010 to August 8, 2011).


----------

