The Newsroom - Season 1 thread [edited title]

[Enderw24]

Haven't yet seen tonight's episode. I'm going to go watch it now. But there's something that just occurred to me about last week's episode.
All the previews keep talking about "raising the level of discourse" in news, by putting together a news program that's entertaining and informative (as if that's never been done before). Something that no one else is doing. And I'm sure they'll show it at some point, but last week's example wasn't it.
Last week was about a scoop. A good scoop, sure. They can pat themselves on the back for it if they want, but you pull back the curtains and that's really all that was there.
They didn't discover a story that no one else was covering. Not really.
I mean, compare it to Watergate. If Woodward and Bernstein weren't around, there's a pretty good chance Watergate would never have come to light.
This? It's oil gushing into the gulf, a raging fire on the oil rig, and 11 people dead. Take away this news network and its "scoop," give the story 24 hours and every station on Earth would be covering it. Which is fine because the oil isn't going anywhere. It's not like reporting on it on a Monday would make a difference in the lives of people instead of waiting for Tuesday.

Bottom line is that they didn't do anything magical. Not really.

[jsc1953]

True. I guess the takeaway from last week's episode was that they have the ability to see beyond the superficial (burning oil rig) and get to the substance (oil leak). So it's a metaphor, kinda.

[Marley23]

Originally Posted by Bryan Ekers

Through contrivances and hindsight, the characters can jump all over a story that we know was one of the biggest of 2010. That doesn't signal journalistic skill to me - any more than a movie character who can draw a Royal Flush at the critical moment indicates poker skill.

Exactly. This was my biggest complaint about the first episode, although it certainly wasn't the only one. This cuts to the core of the series. If you are making a show about the way the media should be doing its job, you can't have them succeed through plain old dumb luck. In this episode ACN got a big scoop based not on doing their job the right way, but based on information that would not have really been available to them at that time and which may not have been very well sourced. Because the fictional producer had a fictional roommate who worked at BP and a fictional sister who worked at Halliburton, they knew something they would not have known at that point in the story. If you can only make this critique work because of a series of crazy coincidences, it's not a valid critique of the way the story was broken. Of the way the story was covered later, perhaps. It makes the deep, deep preachiness of the show even more grating if they say on one hand that the news media should be much better (nobody disagrees) and on the other say that they should also have magically good luck and apparently need someone on staff who is either an expert on oil drilling or becomes so after five minutes on the internet.

I'm also not sure about the way they depicted the response to the Deepwater Horizon disaster. It seems to me that people realized that was a big story pretty quickly because it was a huge oil leak in the Gulf of Mexico in addition to the huge rig fire. I remember that being a top news story by the afternoon of April 21, which is before ACN's show goes on the air. You don't need a lot of technical expertise to understand why "huge oil spill" is a big story.

The second episode felt like a step in the wrong direction for me. I appreciate that they're not always going to have everything go right for ACN and that felt realistic. I love whatever they have Sam Waterston do. But there was much more relationship drama in this episode than I needed. (On that note: hey, there's a huge news story breaking. Mind if we take 10 minutes to argue about our relationship and quote Broadway lyrics at each other?) And it's somewhat annoying that everybody on the show is devoted beyond all reason to the greatness of Will.

Originally Posted by Meltdown

I wonder if they did themselves a disservice by setting this show in the "real" world, and in 2010. Part of the tension the characters felt was not knowing if the BP story was going to pan out -- but of course we all knew it would, so we weren't feeling the same tension.

The idea here is that they're going to offer some specific critiques of how big stories should have been covered. If they're making things up it doesn't have the same impact. I don't know if it's going to work and it is certainly Monday morning quarterbacking, but it's an important element in what they are trying to say.

Originally Posted by Enderw24

All the previews keep talking about "raising the level of discourse" in news, by putting together a news program that's entertaining and informative (as if that's never been done before). Something that no one else is doing.

Yeah, there is a certain amount of disingenuous self-praising there. "Why don't we do a news show that is informative and not moronic?" "Oh my God, you're a genius!"

[Enderw24]

So. The mousy girl, who two weeks ago was an intern and last week an administrative assistant, says TO HER BOSS, "oh my god, how come you can't just magically trust me when I say I can do an awesome job at this phone interview? I'm completely experienced here and it's downright rude of you to assume otherwise!"

[Marley23]

Originally Posted by Enderw24

So. The mousy girl, who two weeks ago was an intern and last week an administrative assistant, says TO HER BOSS, "oh my god, how come you can't just magically trust me when I say I can do an awesome job at this phone interview? I'm completely experienced here and it's downright rude of you to assume otherwise!"

I think any professional journalist would be offended if her boss demanded they do a practice interview before he allowed her to talk to a spokesman on the phone. He was wasting her fucking time and saying he didn't think she knew how to do a basic part of her job. Of course, in the heat of the moment she also did something absurdly unprofessional, but in the interest of personal drama I guess that's going to happen again.

[Enderw24]

Originally Posted by Marley23

I think any professional journalist would be offended if her boss demanded they do a practice interview before he allowed her to talk to a spokesman on the phone. He was wasting her fucking time and saying he didn't think she knew how to do a basic part of her job. Of course, in the heat of the moment she also did something absurdly unprofessional, but in the interest of personal drama I guess that's going to happen again.

But that's the point. She wasn't a professional journalist. Last week she was an administrative assistant and now she's an assistant producer. But the title change doesn't magically anoint her with journalistic knowledge and her boss knows that!

But instead of saying "hey secretary! I don't trust you to get my coffee, let alone screen a guest," he says "let's walk through this together so we're both on the same page."
And this girl, who apparently is so scared of confrontation she'd lie quiet under a bed while her boyfriend fucks someone else, confronts her superior as being way out of line in making this request. He doesn't know what she's done as an intern. He doesn't know if she's done anything as an intern. So he questions her and it turns out he's completely, 100% right to have done so because she ends up fucking it up.
Hell, for all we the audience know, she totally lied about why she fucked up because she didn't want to admit that she lied about knowing how to pre-screen a guest.

[Typo Negative]

Originally Posted by Enderw24

Haven't yet seen tonight's episode. I'm going to go watch it now. But there's something that just occurred to me about last week's episode.
All the previews keep talking about "raising the level of discourse" in news,

I find the show entertaining, but I am a little put off by the way Sorkin rehashes his old stuff. News Night? Sports Night? Raising the level of discourse is straight out of West Wing. The girl being actually offended that no one gave her a ration of shit for a major fuck up is straight out of Sports Night. I am sure I would find some stuff from Studio 60, but I didn't find that show as memorable. (although I do remember complaining that Studio 60 was rehashing Sports Night and West Wing dialogue.)

[Marley23]

Originally Posted by Enderw24

But that's the point. She wasn't a professional journalist. Last week she was an administrative assistant and now she's an assistant producer. But the title change doesn't magically anoint her with journalistic knowledge and her boss knows that!

I admit I've never worked in TV news and they have not gone into depth about Margaret's background, but my understanding of the situation was this: she works in television, she has been with McAvoy's ACN show for a year, she presumably has a journalism degree, and her cable network has offered her a job as an associate producer on the 10 pm news show. So it would appear she has at least some vague idea how her job and television news work. She was not asked to talk to Gov. Brewer, she was asked to help prep Brewer's spokesman. She has presumably done this a ton of times and spoken to scads of spokesmen in her brief career, but her boss (who is on his third day on the job) says she doesn't know how to talk to someone on the phone and needs to practice with him. This would be more than a little insulting. If he doesn't trust her to do the job, he should ask someone else to do it instead of conducting a pointless make-believe session, or else he should just let her do her own job. I remember discussing this once in some other thread (I forget what show or movie was being discussion), but journalists don't role-play interviews like this. It's useless.

[Enderw24]

All Sorkin productions are like that. I think it really comes down to the word "gravitas." The President of the United States of America? Hell yeah I want Jed Bartlett! Raise the mother fucking discourse in this place and I'll say "it's about time." He completely hit it out of the park.
The problem is, it didn't translate to Studio 60. There's no gravitas there. I don't want a comedy program that raises the public discourse. I want a comedy program that I can laugh to. Or with. Or even at. And Studio 60 provided none of that. It was just preachy and annoying and I didn't care.

I think Sorkin managed to straddle the line with The Newsroom. It *can* raise public discourse. It *can* have gravitas. But it can also crash and burn. It's teetering right now, and teetering towards the latter rather than the former. But I'm willing to continue giving it a shot.

[Taomist]

I like the show and will keep watching, but am a little disappointed that the second episode, at least, seems more like a comedy of errors all around than...I don't know. I was expecting, or hoping for, something a *little* more serious. Also can't believe Mac put personal interest in front of an immediate, emergency deadline. What wasted time there was there, ugh. It was kinda painful to watch. And more than a little unbelievable.

[hajario]

I never watched West Wing and am not super familiar with the rest or Sorkin's work other than a few episodes of Sports Night which I did enjoy.

The style of dialogue that I loved in the first episode is already starting to wear thin for me on the second one. It's repetitive and he makes the same jokes over and over. Also, no character seems to have their own voice. Anyone could say any line with only some minor changes and it would be the same.

[Bryan Ekers]

Saw the second episode. I'm not interested in romantic history of the two main characters, and I'm actively disinterested in seeing it take up roughly a quarter of the episode's run time.

I'm also getting a little put off by Englishwoman and Waterston (I'll learn their character names by and by) instantly - and in Waterston's case, with threats of violence that I'd probably laugh at if directed at me ("Bring it on, Early-Bird-Special") - jumping to Mainguy's defense whenever someone points out that he's kind of a jerk. He is kind of a jerk - mollycoddling him and jumping down the throat of anyone who criticizes him is not helping him.

I suspect manipulative writing, in the sense that suggestions that Mainguy is flawed gets shot down, coupled with repeated praise for Mainguy, is suppose to impress on the viewer that Mainguy is uber-talented, even when he's quite obviously being a jerk. If he has any flaws, it's that he's too good at his job.

[Shalmanese]

NPR has a great and scathing review of The Newsroom.

I particularly loved

Hearing a Sorkin character forcefully argue something you believe to be true is like bathing in a tub full of champagne while you listen to a CD of affirmations called You Are Great And Smart, And No One Understands You: You know at some level that it's self-indulgent, but it feels so good, and don't you deserve that?

and

The underlying thesis of The Newsroom is that the problems of TV news – no, the problems of news media – no, the problems of American political life – are really pretty easy to solve. What could turn things around, the story suggests, is one newsman who will look into a camera and speak the objective and easily discernible truth. And, it suggests, the only reason that hasn't happened anywhere (and is thus so revelatory) is that everyone in every media organization in the country is so obtuse that they've never thought of offering objective facts in a civil manner before, and is such a money-grubbing coward that they'd never do it if they did.

and

In the bleak worlds created by David Simon, the problems that vex society – poverty, drugs, crime, education – are hard rather than easy; complex instead of simple. Simon was thunderingly angry, but he was angry about problems that he presented as enormously difficult to solve. He wrote a world where a well-intentioned cop could inadvertently make things worse for a kid whose life he didn't fully understand. He allowed a character with an admirable commitment to problem-solving to boldly set up a zone in which drug activity would be ignored and violence hopefully quarantined, only to find that it got caught up in complicated political battles.

Simon presented a world with institutions so diseased that the people within them, however decent, well-meaning, and smart, often didn't stand a chance. He was a pessimist about our institutions and the people currently in charge of them, but he was not a pessimist about the capacity for intelligent thought on the part of the people he passed on the street every day. In his world, a responsible media culture was essential, critical, desperately needed – but that was because of the need for reporting of facts, not the need for the snide lectures that become Will McAvoy's stock in trade in the second and third episodes.

[Bryan Ekers]

Originally Posted by Shalmanese's NPR link

The underlying thesis of The Newsroom is that the problems of TV news – no, the problems of news media – no, the problems of American political life – are really pretty easy to solve. What could turn things around, the story suggests, is one newsman who will look into a camera and speak the objective and easily discernible truth. And, it suggests, the only reason that hasn't happened anywhere (and is thus so revelatory) is that everyone in every media organization in the country is so obtuse that they've never thought of offering objective facts in a civil manner before, and is such a money-grubbing coward that they'd never do it if they did.

Not quite the case - the conceit of Newsroom is that a golden age of accurate news once existed - in the time of Cronkite and Murrow - but gosh-darnit, MacAvoy will lead American News, and America, back to the promised land.

[Maserschmidt]

Originally Posted by Taomist

I like the show and will keep watching, but am a little disappointed that the second episode, at least, seems more like a comedy of errors all around than...I don't know. I was expecting, or hoping for, something a *little* more serious. Also can't believe Mac put personal interest in front of an immediate, emergency deadline. What wasted time there was there, ugh. It was kinda painful to watch. And more than a little unbelievable.

Agreed. I liked the first episode, but this one was awful. It may be that a show about a news room, rather than something more serious like, say, POTUS, has no core context to keep us interested (Lou Grant aside).

[Taomist]

I think that NPR article was the one I'd read earlier, and if so, there was another section that resonated for me.

Something about it being a show for people who love America but hate Americans. And a lot about how the premise of the show is that people are STUPID, STUPID, STUPID.

Which is supposed to make you feel good, I guess, about being the part that can appreciate a show that thinks everyone else is stupid, but...it kinda pissed in my cheerios a little.

[Bryan Ekers]

I'm kinda curious how she manages to accidentally put an asterisk into the "To" field of an e-mail she types on a phone. My working hypothesis is that she suffers from convenient bouts of implausible stupidity. In a future episode, she will trip and fall, knocking over a interview subject in the most embarrassing way, because her illness will briefly cause her to lose the ability to tie her own shoes.

[Maserschmidt]

She's ditzy but committed! Just the thing to help Will become the man he secretly wants to be.

I need Maggie to calm down if I'm to continue watching this.

[Tangent]

Mackenzie: "Wait, you mean everyone thinks the guy that acts like an asshole is an asshole?"
Everyone else: (stares silently at her, thinking she's not too bright)

[Wheelz]

Okay, episode 1: I thought it did a pretty decent job as a pilot, in that it introduced all the characters and the relationships thereof in an economical and entertaining way. I absolutely loved the first scene with Will speaking his mind at the panel discussion. Then the oil spill plot started, and, well... I seem to recall a lot of those details becoming public in the days following the rig explosion, but this dude has the entire story locked down in five minutes because he just happens to have high-level personal contacts at both BP and Halliburton, who both thought the very first thing they needed to do in this situation was to call the News Guy. The whole thing was eye-rollingly implausible, but you know what? I went with it because I'd gotten pulled in by that point and it made for a pretty fun ride of a TV show.

Then, episode 2: From the first mention of Chekov's e-mail system, everybody watching the show (and many who weren't watching, just by osmosis) absolutely knew that somebody was going to send a sensitive e-mail to the entire staff by the end of the show. When it happened, it had zero impact because the audience was two steps ahead already. Plus, it was a stupid e-mail that nobody would have actually written and sent in the first place.

Also, in the "more ridiculously implausible coincidences" department, the spokesman for the Governor of Arizona that Maggie has to interview, 2500 miles away, just happens to be her old college boyfriend who cheated on her! How about that! And you know the rest.

So then, instead of simply reporting the story and saying something like "Governor Brewer's office declined to comment at this time," they decided they had to dig up somebody to be a talking head, just because (which seems like the exact opposite of Mac's stated mission earlier in the show), and found not one, but three incredibly worthless guests. And the brilliant professional anchor who did such a masterful job of doing an entire newscast unscripted and on the fly just three days earlier can't handle a short interview with a few yokels.

Plus, I've yet to give a rat's ass about any of these characters.

Sorkin has done much better than this in the past, so I know he's got it in him, and I'll stick with the show for a little while in the hope that it will improve. But so far I'm not terribly impressed.

[WordMan]

Sorkin's stock in trade, as discussed, is gravitas. So the problems with seeking gravitas in the media include: a) while there are always landmark events that mark journalistic effectiveness, the media has always been gray-area messy, in terms of objectivity, quality, intent, etc.; and b) in today's media, we know so much more about the process and the players that no one thinks that integrity in America is a black-and-white problem to solve.

There's an article in the NYTimes Book Review on a new bio of Walter Cronkite. It basically skewers the collective understanding that Cronkite had demonstrably greater integrity or impact on the events of the day, e.g. Influencing LBJ about pulling out of Vietnam or running for a second term.

I enjoy Sorkin's craft w/r/t dialogue - the pacing, multiple layers, convening meaning in monosyllabic clusters - but he is trying to put the media on a pedastle it never consistently occupied, IMHO.

[Dewey Finn]

Originally Posted by Wheelz

Then, episode 2: From the first mention of Chekov's e-mail system, everybody watching the show (and many who weren't watching, just by osmosis) absolutely knew that somebody was going to send a sensitive e-mail to the entire staff by the end of the show. When it happened, it had zero impact because the audience was two steps ahead already. Plus, it was a stupid e-mail that nobody would have actually written and sent in the first place.

Second this. Plus it didn't make any sense that they'd bother to announce this crap, instead of sending it by email. But I'm wondering if we're supposed to understand that Mac deliberately made the mistake of sending that email to everyone. I mean, she said that she wanted everyone to know that Will didn't cheat on her, so she "accidentally" sends a message to everyone revealing that fact?

[Enderw24]

Originally Posted by WordMan

I enjoy Sorkin's craft w/r/t dialogue - the pacing, multiple layers, convening meaning in monosyllabic clusters - but he is trying to put the media on a pedastle it never consistently occupied, IMHO.

To be fair. I don't think the West Wing was ever about longing to get back to the days when the American Presidency was like the Bartlett Administration. Instead it was Sorkin's version of what the Presidency would be like if he ran the joint.

Same with The Newsroom.

[Poysyn]

I like it. I work with the media a lot, and while I don't think they are quite as good as the show wants them to be, I am enjoying it (even though I am usually the talking head).

[Marley23]

Originally Posted by Bryan Ekers

I'm kinda curious how she manages to accidentally put an asterisk into the "To" field of an e-mail she types on a phone.

The show could stand to be funnier, but there's been a weird "technology- crazy, huh?" strain to the first two episodes. The anchor thinks it's kooky that he has a blog (also - "Punjab?"), and Mac (age 40) is mystified by emails? It's hard to mix an allegedly serious look at the media with flat-out farce, and that's what happened in the second episode.

Originally Posted by Wheelz

Plus, it was a stupid e-mail that nobody would have actually written and sent in the first place.

Yes.

So then, instead of simply reporting the story and saying something like "Governor Brewer's office declined to comment at this time," they decided they had to dig up somebody to be a talking head, just because (which seems like the exact opposite of Mac's stated mission earlier in the show), and found not one, but three incredibly worthless guests.

They had to dig up a talking head because it's TV news. A no-comment from Brewer wasn't enough. They needed someone who supported the law to appear on the show and talk about it. They already had someone coming on to criticize the law, so if they couldn't get someone to speak up for the law they would have had to cancel him and then fill several extra minutes with almost no notice and their coverage of the biggest story of the day would have been lacking. (They also proposed canceling the whole segment.) They need guests. Mac wants them to have guests who have something intelligent and useful to say about the issue. Of course, after Brewer canceled they got three guests who were so spectacularly stupid that even I thought it was a little much and I think the Arizona law is terrible. I guess it is more bearable if you interpret the stupid guests as a critique of TV news show guests rather than a critique of people who supported that law, but still.

And the brilliant professional anchor who did such a masterful job of doing an entire newscast unscripted and on the fly just three days earlier can't handle a short interview with a few yokels.

He did a good job with those guests, actually. It was just bad TV because they were all braindead and none of them could explain or defend their points of view. Will carried them, practically crammed some informed comments into their mouths, and his questions were good. But the guests sucked. One of them was a racist, one was an airhead, and the third didn't understand what a metaphor is. Since they showed Will doing a perfect job with no preparation and unrealistic access to information in the pilot I thought it was fair of them to show what happens on ACN when not everything goes right. Unfortunately they submerged that in a bunch of relationship drama and other stuff.

Originally Posted by WordMan

There's an article in the NYTimes Book Review on a new bio of Walter Cronkite. It basically skewers the collective understanding that Cronkite had demonstrably greater integrity or impact on the events of the day, e.g. Influencing LBJ about pulling out of Vietnam or running for a second term.

The New Yorker did that, too. It was very interesting reading.

but he is trying to put the media on a pedastle it never consistently occupied, IMHO.

I agree. Will did the same thing with America and with the press in his tirade in the pilot.

[Dewey Finn]

Is this supposed to be a nightly network news show, or an evening news magazine? Because I got the impression that it's an hour-long show, and none of the network shows are that long. And will they address the idea that no one actually watches the network news shows?

[Marley23]

It's not network, it's cable.

[Shalmanese]

Originally Posted by Dewey Finn

And will they address the idea that no one actually watches the network news shows?

No, in this alternate reality, young people will both avidly consume TV news and also sit around their dorm rooms having informed discussions about it because young people hate the internet.

[Wheelz]

Originally Posted by Marley23

They had to dig up a talking head because it's TV news.

This actually goes to my point, even if I didn't make it too eloquently. After all the yapping about raising the level of discourse, or presenting the argument in the best possible way, or whatever other rhetoric they used, they ending up doing it this way, because.... this is the way it's done. It's circular logic. They talked a great game about doing things differently, and then made no apparent effort to do anything differently. But I don't think that's what Sorkin was trying to get across.

[Marley23]

Originally Posted by Wheelz

This actually goes to my point, even if I didn't make it too eloquently. After all the yapping about raising the level of discourse, or presenting the argument in the best possible way, or whatever other rhetoric they used, they ending up doing it this way, because.... this is the way it's done. It's circular logic. They talked a great game about doing things differently, and then made no apparent effort to do anything differently. But I don't think that's what Sorkin was trying to get across.

They did make the effort. They failed because Margaret belittled the sexual performance Gov. Brewer's spokesman. Initially they were going to have an informed critic speak against the law and Brewer speak in favor of the law she'd signed. Then they lost Brewer right before the show went on the air and they had to replace her with three extraordinarily lame guests, and Mac yelled at them because they were doing exactly what she said she didn't want them to do. Canceling or dramatically shortening the segment would have been bad journalism because it was a major story, and as Mac said, it would have been unfair to have someone criticize the law while no one supported it. So they had no choice but to go ahead with the terrible guests and the segment was a predictable disaster.

The drama in the series (the part that doesn't come from the office relationships, which I am already bored with) is the conflict between their lofty aspirations and the demands of daily TV news as a medium. Yes, they want to raise the discourse and better inform the country, but they also need to keep people watching their show because they will get fired if their ratings stink, and in any case if nobody watches the show it doesn't matter how informative it is because no one will be informed.

Or at least I think that's the idea. Like I said, in episode two they got screwed by a rather ludicrous set of circumstances and unprofessional behavior. Of course in episode one they succeeded through a rather ludicrous set of cirumstances and unprofessional behavior. The problem is that like you say, so far they've done little to support Sorkin's thesis. I disagree with you on the reason for that. Like the NPR review said, Sorkin wants to make an argument about the news but doesn't seem to care very much (or know much about) journalism.

I would say the characters need to do two things to make his point: they need to raise the discourse and blah blah blah, and they need to succeed (or fail) for real-world reasons. If they get amazing scoops through dumb luck instead of good reporting, it doesn't prove Sorkin's point and they might as well just have the characters develop superpowers or get newspapers from the future like on Early Edition. The 'real world' part also means they can't just reinvent TV news and pretend viewers love it. They need to do a better version of a real news show, which means they need to obey some of the demands of the medium.

[Enderw24]

Marley, I agree with your analysis and I'd take it a step further. I think that Sorkin's true audience for this show are the very newsmakers he's portraying.
"This is how I would have done story X" he declares. "This is how I think a news program should be run. This is how and why your show should be raising public discourse."
But if it's not grounded in reality then the underlying thesis is meaningless. We, the unwashed masses, may feel good about it. But if the journalists watch the show and say "that's lovely and all, but you clearly have no concept of how it is in the real world because of X, Y, and Z..." then it's ultimately a futile effort. Sorkin can do what he wants but he'll have no effect, which is what I think he's really after.

[Bryan Ekers]

Well, Sorkin had to rush production - he heard Tina Fey was about to start a half-hour comedy about a news show.

[WordMan]

Originally Posted by Enderw24

To be fair. I don't think the West Wing was ever about longing to get back to the days when the American Presidency was like the Bartlett Administration. Instead it was Sorkin's version of what the Presidency would be like if he ran the joint.

Same with The Newsroom.

I hear you and agree - it's just harder to sell journalism's ideals. Politics is messy but events can frame leadership and even heroism - or be more readily sold that way. Journalists need to challenge, to be willing to pursue stories that challenge ethics and current morals. It feels messier, more hard-boiled and outsider - less suitable for polishing to a heroic sheen.

Sorkin's voice can cross into jingoism when he's not careful - IMHO, jingoism lends itself more to political leanings more than journalistic integrity. Ymmv; just thinking this stuff through out loud...

Marley - I think I'm referring to the NYer article, too.

[Marley23]

Originally Posted by WordMan

I hear you and agree - it's just harder to sell journalism's ideals. Politics is messy but events can frame leadership and even heroism - or be more readily sold that way. Journalists need to challenge, to be willing to pursue stories that challenge ethics and current morals. It feels messier, more hard-boiled and outsider - less suitable for polishing to a heroic sheen.

The makers of All the President's Men would like to have a word with you. What you're saying is true: the core ideas of journalism are more about process than results - the commitment to finding the truth and informing people, for example, not to determining what people do with that information - but if the characters can articulate why their ideals matter and we see they're really committed to those ideals, I don't think the particulars really matter. (Mac summed this the ideals of journalism to an extent in the second epsiode, although she said something about informing voters, which was the wrong word.) I'm interested to see if Sorkin cares enough about the particulars of journalism to draw on them for stories. The sourcing on their Deepwater Horizon scoop was questionable, for example.

[Munch]

Originally Posted by jsc1953

Actually, it now seems like a copy of SportsNight, but with hard news instead of sports. We even have scenes inside the control room -- a SportsNight staple.

Sam Waterston = Robert Guillaume
Will & Mackenzie = Casey & Dana
Jim & Maggie = Natalie & Jeremy

Lemme adjust that a bit:

Sam Waterson = Aaron Sorkin (the drug addict) = Robert Guillaume = John Spencer
Will & Mackenzie = Aaron Sorkin and Kristin Chenoweth (post-breakup) = Josh & Mandy = Casey & Dana
Jim & Maggie = Aaron Sorkin and Kristin Chenoweth (pre-relationship) = Josh & Donna = Natalie & Jeremy
Don & Maggie = Aaron Sorkin and Kristin Chenoweth (mid-relationship)

[Zjestika]

I've watched the first 2 episodes and thought the first was entertaining enough but the second was just dismal. There were too many jokes that just didn't land, especially in the snappy dialogue. Sorkin dialogue can be great but the actors aren't doing a very good job with it, IMO. Especially Emily Mortimer. And the whole argument between new guy and dumb girl was exhausting. It reminded me of a classroom of middle schoolers reading a Shakespeare play: just reading lines with no real clue what they're saying.

And I thought it was strange that the main character is named Will because I always considered Will Bailey on the West Wing to be a Mary Sue for Sorkin, and Will on The News Room totally is. Or Sorkin can only think of so many men's names.

Also, Punjab? How quaintly old timey racist. But the guy in his 20s saying that it was a reference to the movie Annie... dude, have you met guys in their 20s? They have never heard of Annie.

[Marley23]

Originally Posted by Zjestika

Will on The News Room totally is.

Who cares?

Also, Punjab? How quaintly old timey racist.

Yeah, that was weird. They were going for 'Will is gruff and out of touch' and overshot it, landing squarely in 'Neil is complaining to HR and a letter is going in Will's file.'

[jsc1953]

Originally Posted by Munch

Lemme adjust that a bit:

Sam Waterson = Aaron Sorkin (the drug addict) = Robert Guillaume = John Spencer
Will & Mackenzie = Aaron Sorkin and Kristin Chenoweth (post-breakup) = Josh & Mandy = Casey & Dana
Jim & Maggie = Aaron Sorkin and Kristin Chenoweth (pre-relationship) = Josh & Donna = Natalie & Jeremy
Don & Maggie = Aaron Sorkin and Kristin Chenoweth (mid-relationship)

Was Isaac (Robert Guillaume) a recovering addict? I don't recall that.

Plus on the unlamented Studio 60, there was a Kristin Chenoweth clone in a post-relationship with Chandler-from-Friends. The problem with Studio 60 is that it was too much about this relationship (which was completely not interesting) and not enough about the production of the show (which was nowhere near as interesting as politics and diplomacy on West Wing).

[Wheelz]

Originally Posted by Marley23

They did make the effort. They failed because Margaret belittled the sexual performance Gov. Brewer's spokesman. Initially they were going to have an informed critic speak against the law and Brewer speak in favor of the law she'd signed. Then they lost Brewer right before the show went on the air and they had to replace her with three extraordinarily lame guests, and Mac yelled at them because they were doing exactly what she said she didn't want them to do. Canceling or dramatically shortening the segment would have been bad journalism because it was a major story, and as Mac said, it would have been unfair to have someone criticize the law while no one supported it. So they had no choice but to go ahead with the terrible guests and the segment was a predictable disaster.

You know what, you're absolutely right, now that I give it the thought.
It may be my fault that that wasn't what I took away from it at the time, but it's equally possible that the point was muddled enough and the narrative clunky enough that I was no longer engaged enough to get it.

[Munch]

Originally Posted by jsc1953

Was Isaac (Robert Guillaume) a recovering addict? I don't recall that.

I don't believe so, but it's still essentially the same character.

Plus on the unlamented Studio 60, there was a Kristin Chenoweth clone in a post-relationship with Chandler-from-Friends.

Yup - forgot to throw that in there as well, not to mention that Bradley Whitford's character was also an addict.

[Zjestika]

Originally Posted by Marley23

Who cares?

Well, I guess I do because I don't really believe that he's such a great guy even though everyone on the show keeps insisting he is. I think he's supposed to be a loveable crab, gruff like you said, but comes across to the audience as more than a bit of a prick. I'm not sure that Sorkin can see that because he's invested in the character as himself.

If you're saying who cares what his name is, fair 'nuff. Not my most clever observation ever.

[Marley23]

Originally Posted by Wheelz

You know what, you're absolutely right, now that I give it the thought.
It may be my fault that that wasn't what I took away from it at the time, but it's equally possible that the point was muddled enough and the narrative clunky enough that I was no longer engaged enough to get it.

I recognize that funny and crazy things are going to keep happening, but if there are too many distractions people may find it hard to tell if they are succeeding or not.

[Misnomer]

I'm a pretty big Sorkin fan -- I actually liked Studio 60 ( ) -- but I hated the second episode of this show. All because of the two female leads: I have absolutely no patience for Maggie, and I lost all personal or professional respect for Mac. I'll hang in there for another episode or two, but for me this might wind up being Sorkin's Dollhouse (I'm also a big Joss Whedon fan).

I, too, am surprised at the lack of regular Sorkin actors. It's kind of a nice change, though I'm happy to see John F. Carpenter (the announcer from Studio 60) in the Newsroom control room. His characters even have the same first name. Speaking of names, I'm expecting a major character named Danny to appear at any moment: Sorkin used that name on Sports Night, The West Wing, and Studio 60.

[Marley23]

The show has already been renewed for a second season, by the way.

[WordMan]

Originally Posted by Marley23

What you're saying is true: the core ideas of journalism are more about process than results.

Exactly. And yeah, the credibility of journalism as a medium for Sorkin will depend on his ability to make the inside baseball seem credible. That's his calling card for the ones that work (Sports, West Wing) and the source of failure when the voice doesn't work (Studio 60 IMHO).

[Elendil's Heir]

I loved The West Wing, An American President, A Few Good Men and The Social Network, but found Studio 60 very disappointing. (Never saw any of Sorkin's other stuff). Right now The Newsroom is starting to fall into the "disappointing" category. Far too preachy, with characters I don't particularly care about, with sitcom setups and dialogue that Sorkin could (and perhaps did) write in his sleep. The email the exec producer sent by mistake to everyone was so predictable I rolled my eyes.

So far... meh. The coming attractions look little better. Don't know that I'll tune in again.

[hajario]

That had to be the most heavy handed episode of television that I have ever seen. It was more like an editorial than a drama. I am learning that I am not a Sorkin fan, yet I am still intrigued enough for one more episode.

[Dewey Finn]

It occurred to me while listening to Will's apology at the beginning of the third episode that the character is reminiscent of Keith Olbermann; the apology was like one of Olbermann's tiresome "special comments."

Edited to add, I never did understand the purpose of the star chamber meeting with the CEO (played by Jane Fonda).

[Chefguy]

Originally Posted by Dewey Finn

It occurred to me while listening to Will's apology at the beginning of the third episode that the character is reminiscent of Keith Olbermann; the apology was like one of Olbermann's tiresome "special comments."

Edited to add, I never did understand the purpose of the star chamber meeting with the CEO (played by Jane Fonda).

I thought it was pretty obvious: they want the news to return to the usual format for network television and to stop pissing off congress critters. She threatened to fire him if it didn't happen. The fallout from that will be seen next week, apparently.

[Dewey Finn]

But it's a cable news show. In the real world such shows involve news commentary as with the shows on Fox or MSNBC.