# The Newsroom - Season 1 thread \[edited title\] **URL:** \ **Category:** Cafe Society\ **Created:** [June 24, 2012, 7:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-newsroom-season-1-thread-edited-title/626169 "2012-06-24T19:36:17Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Enderw24](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/ba9def/32.png) [@Enderw24](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Enderw24)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2012, 9:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-newsroom-season-1-thread-edited-title/626169/81 "2012-07-05T21:50:20Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2012, 9:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-newsroom-season-1-thread-edited-title/626169/82 "2012-07-05T21:56:08Z")
Well, Sorkin had to rush production - he heard Tina Fey was about to start a half-hour comedy about a news show. ---
**Author:** ![WordMan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e8c25b/32.png) [@WordMan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WordMan)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2012, 1:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-newsroom-season-1-thread-edited-title/626169/83 "2012-07-06T13:52:34Z")
> [@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. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2012, 2:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-newsroom-season-1-thread-edited-title/626169/84 "2012-07-06T14:24:02Z")
> [@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. ---
**Author:** ![Munch](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/munch/32/5281_2.png) [@Munch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Munch)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2012, 2:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-newsroom-season-1-thread-edited-title/626169/85 "2012-07-06T14:39:36Z")
> [@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) ---
**Author:** ![Zjestika](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/8edcca/32.png) [@Zjestika](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zjestika)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2012, 2:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-newsroom-season-1-thread-edited-title/626169/86 "2012-07-06T14:54:17Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2012, 3:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-newsroom-season-1-thread-edited-title/626169/87 "2012-07-06T15:04:11Z")
> [@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.’ ---
**Author:** ![jsc1953](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/5daacb/32.png) [@jsc1953](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jsc1953)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2012, 3:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-newsroom-season-1-thread-edited-title/626169/88 "2012-07-06T15:13:07Z")
> [@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). ---
**Author:** ![Wheelz](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wheelz/32/5718_2.png) [@Wheelz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wheelz)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2012, 3:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-newsroom-season-1-thread-edited-title/626169/89 "2012-07-06T15:15:10Z")
> [@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. ---
**Author:** ![Munch](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/munch/32/5281_2.png) [@Munch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Munch)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2012, 3:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-newsroom-season-1-thread-edited-title/626169/90 "2012-07-06T15:17:42Z")
> [@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. ---
**Author:** ![Zjestika](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/8edcca/32.png) [@Zjestika](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zjestika)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2012, 3:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-newsroom-season-1-thread-edited-title/626169/91 "2012-07-06T15:20:19Z")
> [@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. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2012, 3:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-newsroom-season-1-thread-edited-title/626169/92 "2012-07-06T15:22:45Z")
> [@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. ---
**Author:** ![Misnomer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/misnomer/32/14897_2.png) [@Misnomer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Misnomer)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2012, 5:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-newsroom-season-1-thread-edited-title/626169/93 "2012-07-06T17:16:48Z")
I’m a pretty big Sorkin fan – I actually liked _Studio 60_ ( :eek: ) – 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_. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2012, 5:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-newsroom-season-1-thread-edited-title/626169/94 "2012-07-06T17:19:14Z")
The show has already been renewed for a second season, by the way. ---
**Author:** ![WordMan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e8c25b/32.png) [@WordMan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WordMan)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2012, 5:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-newsroom-season-1-thread-edited-title/626169/95 "2012-07-06T17:55:04Z")
> [@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). ---
**Author:** ![Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/7cd45c/32.png) [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Elendil_s_Heir)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2012, 2:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-newsroom-season-1-thread-edited-title/626169/96 "2012-07-08T02:39:34Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![hajario](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hajario/32/171_2.png) [@hajario](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hajario)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2012, 5:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-newsroom-season-1-thread-edited-title/626169/97 "2012-07-09T05:20:51Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Finn](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dewey_finn/32/4222_2.png) [@Dewey\_Finn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Finn)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2012, 1:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-newsroom-season-1-thread-edited-title/626169/98 "2012-07-09T13:43:16Z")
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). ---
**Author:** ![Chefguy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chefguy/32/138_2.png) [@Chefguy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chefguy)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2012, 3:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-newsroom-season-1-thread-edited-title/626169/99 "2012-07-09T15:02:08Z")
> [@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. ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Finn](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dewey_finn/32/4222_2.png) [@Dewey\_Finn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Finn)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2012, 3:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-newsroom-season-1-thread-edited-title/626169/100 "2012-07-09T15:05:16Z")
But it’s a cable news show. In the real world such shows involve news commentary as with the shows on Fox or MSNBC. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-newsroom-season-1-thread-edited-title/626169.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-newsroom-season-1-thread-edited-title/626169.md?page=6)