They weren’t first, though (and I don’t think 20 minutes would have changed that). Everybody else was already reporting it, but Charlie was insisting that they not do so until the White House said it was OK to. So it had something to do with integrity or something, I guess, but the point got a bit muddled along the way.
Weren’t the others just guessing? They had legitimate confirmation from the White House.
Maybe I’m just being dense here, and I’m not a news junkie, so there’s also that, but why is this obviously a bigger deal? Again, what would be the benefit to the public at large if they knew Bin Laden was dead 20 minutes before the president told them?
The whole mission of NewsNight 2.0, if I recall correctly, is to provide factual information to the public to inform them of the issues at hand so they can make intelligent voting choices. How does this further that end?
WordMan had some good answers on why being first can be important, but none of them really apply in this particular case.
God, she’s even hotter to me now!
If I understood correctly, they did have confirmation, and from more than one source, which was why the Washington anchor was upset that she wasn’t being allowed to report it.
What they were waiting for was the WH to say it was “reportable”, which I took to mean essentially “permission”. Charlie’s Desert Storm anecdote was about being responsible with news that may potentially affect national security.
But meanwhile, Will was stoned, Maggie was being insane, Neil’s girlfriend was being all angsty, and Don was acting like an ass on a plane, so I think much of the impact of Charlie’s stand was lost in the crowd.
I just caught up on watching. My first two thoughts were that the zany Maggie simply doesn’t fit in; the second is that I’m bored of the bipolar Don and his swings from asshole to human and back again.
Otherwise I still like this show a lot.
I just rewatched all the episodes with my wife, and I’m more okay with Maggie and Don. Really fun show.
The story is getting more interesting. Some good subplot development.
I just wanted to SLAP Maggie for going on and on and on about the need to cover the Casey Anthony story to bring ratings up. And her sulking pouty attitude about it was completely unprofessional. Everybody knows that advertising and ratings are the name of the game in commercial television. Wishing it weren’t so doesn’t make it not so. If you don’t like it, work for NPR (which is where I get all of my news-- I’ve given up on TV news-- NPR and a few internet sites). What a big baby.
And the shouting. Must there be so much shouting?
I’m loving Will’s bodyguard. He is waaay yummy, possibly the most attractive man on the show.
I thought last week’s show was pitch perfect, and I was surprised people were so down on it. (Did I already post that? I forget. If I did. Forgive me.) I think it was the best of the season. It handled the romantic subplot pretty well. Jim and Maggie were being pretty stupid for most of it, but the roommate was logical and made sense. The drug thing was sort of dumb, but they didn’t go too far with it, and it had some gags that worked out. Great all around.
Tonight’s episode had some excellent moments and the whole thing with the NSA is very interesting. (Loved the bit with Charlie in the library. Both the funny part and the dramatic one.) But, mixed in there was some glaring awfulness. Sloan shoving the other guy against the wall NOT for saying she had slept to the top, but for the fat ass comment. Come on, man. I know she is supposed to be clueless, but that doesn’t even work in that context. Just stupid.
I’m still watching and looking forward to it.
I agree!
You mean Mac, right?
YIKES!! Of course, I meant Mac. My bad. :eek:
Looks like boss bitch and her evil progeny are about to take a beat-down. Kind of a clumsy plot device, though. Why would an NSA employee bother with a newscaster, or even care, for that matter? Or was this just more Sorkin exposition on the evils of government?
This is a pretty cynical question. He would “bother” in order to get the story out. If you can’t figure out why he would care, I can’t explain it to you.
Well, it’s happened so many times in the history of the agency. :rolleyes:
Forgot to mention: I really liked seeing Will smoking. I grew up in a day when everyone smoked and it was the epitome of sophistication. A man lighting a woman’s cigarette while locking eyeballs with her was blatantly and yet subtly erotic.
I know it’s bad for us now (it wasn’t then, right?), and today is about as politically correct as clubbing gay baby seals, but I enjoyed seeing it.
It must be hard to find actors who can smoke credibly onscreen these days–who know how to hold the ciggie and flick the ash with authenticity.
I remember hearing that even in high school acting class, 101. “If you don’t smoke, don’t bother trying to fake it.”
What’s funny is that I now DO smoke, and apparantly still look like I’m trying to fake it. 
I barely inhale, must hold it oddly because I’ve never had any kind of nic stains on my fingers despite chain smoking, and actively avoid even my own smoke. Apparantly it looks like I’m inhabited by a ghost trying to torture me with smoking. But I’ve only got 10 years in; gimme time!
BTW…Very glad to see David Krumholtz get some air. That man is just beautiful, rawr!
For whatever reason, I never watched any of the earlier Sorkin shows, so this is all news to me. That montage that showed him repeating his favorite lines over and over was hilarious, though.
I’ve sorta liked it from the beginning, or, more correctly, saw that it had potential to grow on me. I gave it a 3 week hiatus during the Olympic coverage, and just caught up on the last 3 episodes on my DVR this weekend. I think it’s starting to hit its stride for me, except for one very big thing: I hate the way he has accomplished, talented women frequently turning into 7th graders — usually when it comes to matters of romance, but it also showed up with Sloane going nuts over the “does my butt look big” thing, and with Mac’s failure to understand the concept of “Reply all” (Seriously? In 2012?). Women aren’t going to reach their level of accomplishment if they’re that stupid and childish. On the male side, we’ve only seen the Bigfoot thing come close.
I seriously love the interaction between Will and his bodyguard, though, and I also like the interaction between Will and his psychiatrist. If they can just stop treating women like they’re children, I think I’ll really like this show.
And, to weigh in on the opening credit music discussion ---- I really like it.
I like the show and it is growing on me.
Just wondering - I think I would like this show better if it didn’t discuss real news from back in those days. I think it sort of distracts from the storyline, as you know how that news story is going to end. I think it would be more fun to watch with fictional news stories, so you didn’t have an idea how that bit of news would grow or die, or how important bits of information might be. Using the real news sort of puts a damper on my interest in how that news is covered, as I know what will happen and how it ends.
Still, nice pacing and good actors and great characters. They could make the women a bit less needy and lose a bit of the romance subplots.
Another wise voice rings in.
Also, could Mac go one episode without yelling? No? Okay then.
I know that it’s just Sorkin preaching, but would any station looking to make money seriously think that the RNC or DNC would agree to such a debate format? As in ever? My fondest wish is that all networks would refuse to air such vapid events as presidential debates unless they could ask tough questions and hold people to specific answers. Ain’t ever going to happen as long as ratings drive the material.