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.
Well, Sorkin had to rush production - he heard Tina Fey was about to start a half-hour comedy about a news show.
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.
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.
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)
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.
Who cares?
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.’
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).
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 don’t believe so, but it’s still essentially the same character.
Yup - forgot to throw that in there as well, not to mention that Bradley Whitford’s character was also an addict.
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.
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.
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.
The show has already been renewed for a second season, by the way.
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).
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.
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.
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.
But it’s a cable news show. In the real world such shows involve news commentary as with the shows on Fox or MSNBC.