[Hawkian]

There's absolutely zero tension when the audience constantly knows that the characters are doing the right thing. At the very least, if these were made up news stories, then we would be in the same shoes as the characters in the room. Here, it's basically watching a bunch of guys pick the winning lottery numbers every other week. Combine that with the didacticism and it gets tiring pretty quickly.

I don't know about that, I think the 2nd episode clearly showed they're gonna demonstrate how things can go very very wrong. Just because they resolved to do better at the end doesn't mean there won't be any misfires in future episodes.

[firehawk12]

I don't know about that, I think the 2nd episode clearly showed they're gonna demonstrate how things can go very very wrong. Just because they resolved to do better at the end doesn't mean there won't be any misfires in future episodes.

Honestly, I feel like he's overcompensating for all the shit critics gave him for the fact that none of the Studio 60 skits were funny (I think it was just true to life, since SNL isn't funny either *rimshot*), so by using real news stories, critics can't attack him for being bad at faking breaking news coverage.

Even when he did the fake 9/11 The West Wing episode, it was handled with more subtlety and depth than the real news stories he's touched on so far.

[Sqorgar]

There's absolutely zero tension when the audience constantly knows that the characters are doing the right thing. At the very least, if these were made up news stories, then we would be in the same shoes as the characters in the room. Here, it's basically watching a bunch of guys pick the winning lottery numbers every other week. Combine that with the didacticism and it gets tiring pretty quickly.

Did you miss the part about how doing the right thing gets them in trouble with viewers and how calling the tea party on their bs caused issues with the 44th floor's business interests? The tension doesn't come from doing the right thing but from the fact that the right thing is the difficult path to take.

Also, Star Trek The Next Generation had nothing but perfect characters doing the right thing and it doesn't seem to be lacking in tension.

[firehawk12]

Did you miss the part about how doing the right thing gets them in trouble with viewers and how calling the tea party on their bs caused issues with the 44th floor's business interests? The tension doesn't come from doing the right thing but from the fact that the right thing is the difficult path to take. Also, Star Trek The Next Generation had nothing but perfect characters doing the right thing and it doesn't seem to be lacking in tension.

Do you really think McAvoy is going to get fired though? Maybe there's the journalistic equivalent of Bartlet lying about his MS and being impeached coming up in the later episodes of the season, but it certainly doesn't seem that way.

[Amibguous Cad]

I'm curious as well. I've never seen a show so crucified over such minutiae before. It's not like they simply dislike it or think it could be better. It's more like they are personally offended by it - which is possible (even likely), but if that is the case, the reviews aren't admitting it.

It's this

Yes, of course. The same way that the news "ignored" BP and focused instead on the stolen iphone. But it's easy to make everyone perfect when you have all the answers. I assume that real journalists aren't assholes and that if they were only asked to report on 2 year old news, they would get it right all the time as well.

Most of the reviewers are in journalism, and the show levels a ton of criticism at them. It's not exactly a surprise that they'd dislike it.

[Tim-E]

I love this show. It may be melodramatic and idealistic, but it's not like anything else on TV. I love Sorkin's style and I truly don't care if it "realistic" or not. The show's idealism is the entire point. If people aren't able to get past that, then this isn't for them.

[Sqorgar]

Do you really think McAvoy is going to get fired though?

I would not rule out the possibility. McAvoy ultimately succumbing to corporate interests would be in line with the message that Sorkin is trying to convey. He may not stay fired or he may end up working on a competing network or something, but the threat has been put out and I'd be surprised if that threat does not play out in some form (perhaps MacKenzie or Sam get fired instead).

Dramatically speaking, the exact place where McAvoy loses the good fight has been drawn in the sand. We know where the final conflict will be coming from. The closer the story gets to that line, the stronger the emotional catharsis will be.

[BertramCooper]

Most of the reviewers are in journalism, and the show levels a ton of criticism at them. It's not exactly a surprise that they'd dislike it.

TV critics rarely report news, and if they do, it's entertainment news.

The show is getting bad reviews because it sucks.

[scosher]

The show is just way too heavy-handed with its message. A little subtlety would go a long way.

They're painting this picture of a perfect idealistic newsroom that really functions more as a commentary on our current media/ratings-driven news broadcasts. What it is not is an actual television show, with engaging characters or plotlines.

The dialogue is also way too clever for its own good. It actually detracts from any realism the show may be trying to achieve. It's not that you won't find people who can be so sharp-witted in real life. It's that you won't find a whole room or office full of people who speak and banter the same way. When everyone is exchanging quick barbs to each other, you lose any character distinction and the writer's hand becomes too pronounced. It's as if everyone on Mad Men spoke like Roger.

Still going to watch though cause I'm really liking Daniels' character and it's early enough in the season for the show to still find its voice. Right now it's a bit of a contrived mess. Couldn't help but roll my eyes at the last 10 minutes of the latest episode. The camaraderie in the newsroom over getting the Giffords story right felt so forced.

[VGChampion]

Honestly, I feel like he's overcompensating for all the shit critics gave him for the fact that none of the Studio 60 skits were funny (I think it was just true to life, since SNL isn't funny either *rimshot*),

I never read reviews but did people really complain about that? I rarely find SNL skits funny though so...

[Sqorgar]

The camaraderie in the newsroom over getting the Giffords story right felt so forced.

I feel like a lot of people misread that scene. The leads all just discovered that there is a plot to fire McAvoy because his journalistic style is causing unwanted waves. This story breaks and they know the correct way to report it. However, they are getting pressure from the top to appeal to the ratings. Not a single one of them wants to prematurely announce this woman's death, but they know that if they don't, the 44th floor will hold them responsible. It's about corporate vs Real Newsmen(tm) and in this one situation, the right way of doing journalism protected them from making an embarrassing mistake - one the 44th floor was actively lobbying for.

They aren't thrilled because they were right but because Real Journalism(tm) was right. They were vindicated and the 44th floor looked like idiots. What's not to celebrate?

[zou]

TV critics rarely report news, and if they do, it's entertainment news.

So just like their colleagues in cable news then?

[firehawk12]

I never read reviews but did people really complain about that? I rarely find SNL skits funny though so...

Oh yes. It came from both comedy writers and critics actually.

I would not rule out the possibility. McAvoy ultimately succumbing to corporate interests would be in line with the message that Sorkin is trying to convey. He may not stay fired or he may end up working on a competing network or something, but the threat has been put out and I'd be surprised if that threat does not play out in some form (perhaps MacKenzie or Sam get fired instead). Dramatically speaking, the exact place where McAvoy loses the good fight has been drawn in the sand. We know where the final conflict will be coming from. The closer the story gets to that line, the stronger the emotional catharsis will be.

So far, the romantic comedy stuff has been a hollow rehash of his better relationship writing and the drama hinges on you agreeing with the very conceit of his argument. But, in the same way that I'm a "liberal" that can't stand Rachel Maddow, the way he is trying to drive the point home is so heavy handed that I can't help but roll my eyes at what he's trying to say. For all the time I spent watching and rewatching The West Wing, I never thought any of those characters were blowhards when they were giving their Sorkinesque speeches about the role of the government in America.

Most of the reviewers are in journalism, and the show levels a ton of criticism at them. It's not exactly a surprise that they'd dislike it.

Critics are not journalists. I thought we figured out this difference with the term "games journalism"!

[The Big Rig]

This show would be south better if it wasn't about characters, it was just about reporting the news. That's where the good drama is made on the show, not their half-baked character nonsense.

[Salvor.Hardin]

So at the part when Don says "It's a person..." did anyone else think that this show is so far up its own ass that it's completely unaware it was using that person's shock story to elicit bullshit emotion for two-dimensional characters running around to an old Coldplay song?

What the fuck?

[dead souls]

TV critics rarely report news, and if they do, it's entertainment news. The show is getting bad reviews because it sucks.

Exactly. That whole line of attack on critics doesn't even make any sense.

So at the part when Don says "It's a person..." did anyone else think that this show is so far up its own ass that it's completely unaware it was using that person's shock story to elicit bullshit emotion for two-dimensional characters running around to an old Coldplay song? What the fuck?

Yep. It was offensive as hell. After watching a bunch of 'frivolous' women get lectured by the show's Sorkin stand-in I thought I was ready for just about anything but that was still pretty fucking galling.

[Matt]

I never read reviews but did people really complain about that? I rarely find SNL skits funny though so...

It wasn't just that the skits weren't funny, thy were aggressively not funny. All of their ideas made me cringe.

[Daydream Sequence]

Didn't find it offensive at all. Nor did it bother me when Will tried to change the attitudes of women that thought reality TV was a good thing. Good for him. Loved the look on his face when Sam Waterstons character defended the reality shows and the TMZ-esque shows that report on them. It doesn't offend me that there's people who love that shit or that there's people like Will who detest them for loving that shit. All I care about is that Sorkin puts out interesting TV shows. Sometimes they're good, sometimes they're bad, and on a good week they're great. Last night was merely very good. I get a kick out of the anger he often generates.

I never read reviews but did people really complain about that? I rarely find SNL skits funny though so...

I quite often find SNL skits funny. Because they are funny. It was a valid complaint that the people on the show about making a comedy show hardly if ever demonstrated that they were in fact funny. It was a problem.

[Angry Grimace]

The show is just way too heavy-handed with its message. A little subtlety would go a long way. They're painting this picture of a perfect idealistic newsroom that really functions more as a commentary on our current media/ratings-driven news broadcasts. What it is not is an actual television show, with engaging characters or plotlines. The dialogue is also way too clever for its own good. It actually detracts from any realism the show may be trying to achieve. It's not that you won't find people who can be so sharp-witted in real life. It's that you won't find a whole room or office full of people who speak and banter the same way. When everyone is exchanging quick barbs to each other, you lose any character distinction and the writer's hand becomes too pronounced. It's as if everyone on Mad Men spoke like Roger. Still going to watch though cause I'm really liking Daniels' character and it's early enough in the season for the show to still find its voice. Right now it's a bit of a contrived mess. Couldn't help but roll my eyes at the last 10 minutes of the latest episode. The camaraderie in the newsroom over getting the Giffords story right felt so forced.

That isn't how Aaron Sorkin operates. You kind of knew what it would be the moment you saw his name attached to it.

[Vestal]

So at the part when Don says "It's a person..." did anyone else think that this show is so far up its own ass that it's completely unaware it was using that person's shock story to elicit bullshit emotion for two-dimensional characters running around to an old Coldplay song? What the fuck?

?!?!
Seriously?

They used a very powerful story to show how fucking bad News Organizations are fucking up nowadays, because they want to be the first to break a story doesn't matter if its right or wrong..

Yeah he said its a person.. Who has family who probably saw that she was fucking dead on the news because News Organizations have their heads SO FAR UP THEIR FUCKING ASSES that they forgot to actually fact check their shit before spewing it out.

I am pretty sure they got her blessing before using her story anyhow...

[Daydream Sequence]

?!?! Seriously? They used a very powerful story to show how fucking bad News Organizations are fucking up nowadays, because they want to be the first to break a story doesn't matter if its right or wrong.. Yeah he said its a person.. Who has family who probably saw that she was fucking dead on the news because News Organizations have their heads SO FAR UP THEIR FUCKING ASSES that they forgot to actually fact check their shit before spewing it out. I am pretty sure they got her blessing before using her story anyhow...

The sad thing is the news agencies haven't learned. Fox News and CNN both reported that Obamacare got overturned because they rushed to be first without comprehending what they were reading. The Gabbie Giffords portion of last night's show was exceptional. I'm not a fan of the overused Coldplay song though.

[Lagspike_exe]

Started watching this a week ago and I must say I love it. My favourite show in the last few years. The cast is great and I thnk they really nailed the atmosphere behind the cameras and what it means to actually make news.

[Memles]

I don't think anyone has a better right to be offended by reality TV than a television writer. I have to admit that I'm on his side on this one. In fact, I have trouble understand how anyone could ever defend reality tv as anything except a bread and circuses distraction.

But he's not attacking reality TV - in this episode, he's attacking people who watch reality TV. The way that third date is depicted is offensive because Will gets to sit there judging her with Sorkin's words, and although she ends up throwing a drink in his face, the episode absolutely believes that Will is right to be trying to civilize people who should be allowed to watch whatever they want. I'm open to an argument against reality television, but at least Studio 60's arguments to that effect happened at the executive programming level—here, Sorkin used an affection for reality TV as a fatal character flaw that Will attempts to fix, which I'd argue is a totally different issue.

I find it hard to believe that a professional critic does not consider themselves a part of journalism.

But I wouldn't consider The Newsroom, so focused on broadcast journalism, to be about the same kind of journalism that critics might be a part of. In fact, some TV critics like Time's James Poniewozik actually function as a critic OF broadcast news and journalism, which should make him more likely to get in line with the show's perspective.

[WillyFive]

This show is at it's best when it deals with news stories while the guy is on the desk hosting the show. Anything else is just slow filler (although seeing him date was pretty entertaining).

[Daydream Sequence]

This show is at it's best when it deals with news stories while the guy is on the desk hosting the show. Anything else is just slow filler (although seeing him date was pretty entertaining).

I was annoyed by everything about Alison Pill until this week. Whereas I was annoyed by her and the relationships she's involved in before, they really clicked this time. The only part of the episode that I found completely stupid (and it was completely fucking stupid) was the stuff about Big Foot.

[WillyFive]

I was annoyed by everything about Alison Pill until this week. Whereas I was annoyed by her and the relationships she's involved in before, they really clicked this time. The only part of the episode that I found completely stupid (and it was completely fucking stupid) was the stuff about Big Foot.

Yeah, that storyline made no sense. Complete filler that tried to be a funny subplot, but was completely unbelievable considering the supposed maturity of the people working there.

[JGS]

But I wouldn't consider The Newsroom, so focused on broadcast journalism, to be about the same kind of journalism that critics might be a part of. In fact, some TV critics like Time's James Poniewozik actually function as a critic OF broadcast news and journalism, which should make him more likely to get in line with the show's perspective.

Again, I agree, but this is all a case of the circle getting wider. At the end of the day, they all seem to think of themselves as reporters.

It's similar to how a scientist is a part of a macro group that may even include doctors, but none of them share an actual job description. Eventually the whole circle would get offended if science was inaccurately shown to be a bunch of voodoo.

Idk, I may be wrong about the critical reception. In the end, I have no idea how a newsroom works so this version of it could be completely accurate. I just don't buy it though. It plays like a newsroom that I haven't seen manifest on TV except at the level of Hannity or Limbaugh. It sounds like I dislike it, but I don't, just the job part of it. I'm liking the friendship stuff.

[jtb]

pretty sure the show is panned not because there's a giant conspiracy of newspeople who are protecting their craft against the evil Sorkin, it's because it's simply not very good television. the characters are paper thin and the usage of past events is smug at best, completely counter-intuitive and manipulative at worst.

I mean, if all these news events are happening in the past, and the show's been criticizing the Tea Party for months and months and months, doesn't that just disprove Sorkin's own glorification of "great white men" like Cronkite and Murrow since clearly News Night is doing fuck all to affect the course of history? It's completely pointless, lazy, and borderline insulting to the audience.

Crossing that line was the scene with Coldplay playing over the Giffords shooting, directly following a flashback from the previous episode. And that bigfoot storyline. I mean, come on. Jesus fucking Christ.

[Sqorgar]

So, I'm not the only one convinced that Olivia Munn's character is the one that's been feeding news stories to the tabloid, right? There seem to be at least 3 clues in this last episode.

I didn't think so at first, but upon second viewing with my wife, there may be something to this.

At the New Year's party, Sloan is the one who points out and suggests Will walking up to the gossip columnist. Hey look, she looks lonely. You should go introduce yourself. Also, the woman with the gun was Sloan's friend that she hooked Will up with. After she got upset, Sloan could've introduced her to TMI. The third woman didn't seem to be related to Sloan at all, but she was the one that brought up article about the New Year's Eve groping. She may have been knowingly baiting him into trying to civilize her.

If you take the assumption that Will is purposely being entrapped (as opposed to TMI simply following him around and harvesting gossip), then Sloan being responsible for the first two dates seems pretty damning. However, I'm unconvinced that this is a situation like that.

But he's not attacking reality TV - in this episode, he's attacking people who watch reality TV. ... here, Sorkin used an affection for reality TV as a fatal character flaw...

Are you suggesting that people who watch reality TV are doing anything other than taking voyeuristic entertainment from the manufactured foibles of media-created homonculi? Sounds like a fatal flaw to me.

Seriously, this is a grown woman who shows an impassioned interest in whether or not someone she's never met is having an affair with her yoga instructor? Explain to me how that is a heroic trait and not fully deserving of your judgment and scorn.

(Also, she may or may not have been baiting Will, so maybe she's not just dumb but also evil)

[JGS]

It's definitely not a protection since the professional side of it appears so ridiculous as not to have a basis in fact to begin with. There's nothing to defend. It's more like:



So I think they are being harder on it because that side is hard to believe and many of them have a passing understanding of reporting (To be fair, a show like Law & Order does the same thing but it does the fantasy better)

[Vestal]

It's definitely not a protection since the professional side of it appears so ridiculous as not to have a basis in fact to begin with. There's nothing to defend. It's more like: So I think they are being harder on it because that side is hard to believe and many of them have a passing understanding of reporting (To be fair, a show like Law & Order does the same thing but it does the fantasy better)

Have you ever worked in a newsroom???

I have, I was in the thick of things for the better part of 5 years as IT during the closing shift(Basically nose deep into everything that was happening) and I can tell you from experience that a lot of what you see on this show happens in news rooms. The screaming around for facts, of trying to get a story right.. The bickering between ideologies, the fighting between someone who wants to put a story out before its baked etc..

[Sqorgar]

pretty sure the show is panned not because there's a giant conspiracy of newspeople who are protecting their craft against the evil Sorkin, it's because it's simply not very good television.

I think a much stronger case can be made that it is good television (certainly better than the Real Housewives of New Jersey or whatever). Most of the complaints amount to little more than nitpicks and oddly specific reinterpretations. The few legitimate complaints against the show, like Sorkin repeating himself, in no way indicate that this is bad television (is The Wire bad television for repeating things from Homicide? It's new to somebody)

Words like 'preachy', 'smug', and 'arrogant' are not qualitative assessments, but reactions to the material that are based ENTIRELY on one's self image. They require a perceived inequality between the show and the viewer, so when you get butt hurt over a show's smugness, you have to realize that it is a subjective issue and not an objective one. We've entered a media era where people feel entitled to be talked down to and anything that is the least bit combative is a turn off. Sometimes, a show is meant to kick someone in the ass. Maybe you. Maybe me. But it's a quality I wouldn't mind having a little more of.

There's a good show here - maybe not a great show (yet?), but a good one. And the nitpicky general media reaction to the show seems so completely out of line with the experiences of every person I know that watches it - granted, all highly educated liberals over the age of 30. There seems to be absolutely no begrudging admission that there are any elements worthy of note or praise what so ever. It's the worst shit ever to grace a tv screen, and worse, we are told that we should be offended by every second of it.

I mean, if all these news events are happening in the past, and the show's been criticizing the Tea Party for months and months and months, doesn't that just disprove Sorkin's own glorification of "great white men" like Cronkite and Murrow since clearly News Night is doing fuck all to affect the course of history? It's completely pointless, lazy, and borderline insulting to the audience.

Wouldn't it be more insulting to suggest an alternate future where the Tea Party, which millions of people voted into office, didn't win because of a single news anchor, utopic as it may be?

[jtb]

I think a much stronger case can be made that it is good television (certainly better than the Real Housewives of New Jersey or whatever). Most of the complaints amount to little more than nitpicks and oddly specific reinterpretations. The few legitimate complaints against the show, like Sorkin repeating himself, in no way indicate that this is bad television (is The Wire bad television for repeating things from Homicide? It's new to somebody) Words like 'preachy', 'smug', and 'arrogant' are not qualitative assessments, but reactions to the material that are based ENTIRELY on one's self image. They require a perceived inequality between the show and the viewer, so when you get butt hurt over a show's smugness, you have to realize that it is a subjective issue and not an objective one. We've entered a media era where people feel entitled to be talked down to and anything that is the least bit combative is a turn off. Sometimes, a show is meant to kick someone in the ass. Maybe you. Maybe me. But it's a quality I wouldn't mind having a little more of. There's a good show here - maybe not a great show (yet?), but a good one. And the nitpicky general media reaction to the show seems so completely out of line with the experiences of every person I know that watches it - granted, all highly educated liberals over the age of 30. There seems to be absolutely no begrudging admission that there are any elements worthy of note or praise what so ever. It's the worst shit ever to grace a tv screen, and worse, we are told that we should be offended by every second of it.

I agree with most of the things Sorkin is saying (Tea Party bad, Real Housewives bad, etc.) so the implication that I'm being kicked in the ass, and therefore I'm hating on the show for being "smug"... that's it? THat's your defense? I could just as easily turn the tables on you and say you're being overly kind to the show because you agree with everything he says. That conversation clearly isn't going anywhere, so let's look at it from a different angle.

Why don't we look it from a storytelling perspective. This is a fictional television show; it's entertainment and storytelling first, preaching second. I don't really care what he has to do say (he could be making a show glorifying Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck and if it makes for captivating television, I'm all for it. I loved 24 even though it had very facist elements in it and showed that torture was always right), as long as it does it well. The cringe-worthy relationship issues, the pointless subplots, the caricatured characters (I mean, could they make Mac any dumber? and could Will be any more perfect and revered), the revisionist history of great white men... that's what I have an issue with. Along with the huge issue of preaching to the choir (because that's what he's doing...) after the fact. Which I'll address in a sec.

Wouldn't it be more insulting to suggest an alternate future where the Tea Party, which millions of people voted into office, didn't win because of a single news anchor, utopic as it may be?

As for this second part, I'm saying Sorkin's writing himself into a problem where he is proving himself wrong. I'm not saying Murrow ended McCarthyism or that Cronkite ended the Vietnam War. But I do believe that Sorkin believes (or at least argues) that. So why use real past events if you can't change the past? We know Sorkin can do fictionalized events, and do them well (see: the entire west wing) so why the retroactive commentary? I understand what he's trying to do (show everyone how it should be done; I find that pretentious and smug, maybe you find me pretentious and smug. We'll agree to disagree.) but what he's actually doing is undermining his own argument. That's what I mean by the whole revisionist history thing being unintentionally pointless on top of insulting the audience's intelligence and whose sole purpose is to make Will even more of a good guy than he already is.

finally, the cherry on a shit sundae: the countless Don Quixote references. if Sorkin bothered to read the book he'd realize the references make no fucking sense whatsoever except to say "oh hahaha he rides a donkey" and to make Will sound cultured and smart.

[JGS]

Have you ever worked in a newsroom??? I have, I was in the thick of things for the better part of 5 years as IT during the closing shift(Basically nose deep into everything that was happening) and I can tell you from experience that a lot of what you see on this show happens in news rooms. The screaming around for facts, of trying to get a story right.. The bickering between ideologies, the fighting between someone who wants to put a story out before its baked etc..

I've made it clear I haven't been in a newsroom, but I disagree that most of the things bolded actually happen in the show or at least are the main/major point of the show. They do all of those things literally in the space of two or three minutes.

On top of that & in the space of those precious minutes, they manage to insult every other news channel as doing something wrong when none but presumably NPR did. Instead of doing an in depth commentary about guns and Obama that could have been truth and unbiased, the show spends time discussing why Limbaugh is a liar. Instead of finding out how much the trip Obama takes actually costs, he again calls others liars. To me it's annoying. It's not anchor like but maybe he is supposed to be more like Hannity and less like Williams.

[Scullibundo]

I fucking LOVED this ep sans the bigfoot bullshit.

'You're a fuckin' news man Don! I ever tell you any different, you punch me in the face!'

'Okay, but we're back in thirty.'

[MintLemonade]

The show is getting bad reviews because it sucks.

And yet.... your still desperately posting in NewsroomGaf 4 weeks into this series....

I'll say it again...

Can someone please explain to me the incessant need to announce the discontinued partaking in watching a 60 minute television dramedy?

This endless sea of clichéd remarks with a pinch of entitled peril every week seems to breed wild in the Gaf forums....

Personally, if the synapses in your brain require you to post such drivel, at least take the extra effort to state why you were so disappointed. (Beyond the usual filler that seems to create a hive mind in some of these threads) The entire nature of your remarks are so overly dramatic and adolescent it's quite....



...cute.

[jtb]

And yet.... your still desperately posting in NewsroomGaf 4 weeks into this series.... I'll say it again... Can someone please explain to me the incessant need to announce the discontinued partaking in watching a 60 minute television dramedy? This endless sea of clichéd remarks with a pinch of entitled peril every week seems to breed wild in the Gaf forums.... Personally, if the synapses in your brain require you to post such drivel, at least take the extra effort to state why you were so disappointed. (Beyond the usual filler that seems to create a hive mind in some of these threads) The entire nature of these remarks are so over dramatic and adolescent it's quite.... ...cute.

your ellipses are quite....

....cute.

that aside, who cares? You're only allowed to praise things without justification, not criticize them? that's equally pointless (or should I say "dramatic and adolescent"). regardless, plenty of people (myself included) have explained the things they don't like about the show, just as plenty of people have explained the things they do like about the show.

[saunderez]

your ellipses are quite.... ....cute. that aside, who cares? You're only allowed to praise things without justification, not criticize them? that's equally pointless (or should I say "dramatic and adolescent"). regardless, plenty of people (myself included) have explained the things they don't like about the show, just as plenty of people have explained the things they do like about the show.

I'd argue hate-watchers degrade the quality of the discussion because they don't actually like the show at all. There's a pretty big gap between someone who likes the show and is criticising it and someone who doesn't like the show at all and watches it purely so they can criticise it. The person who likes the show and is criticising it brings something new to the discussion, the hate-watcher just reinforces the opinion they've had all along. I welcome and enjoy pondering criticism from people who weren't negative from very beginning.

[MintLemonade]

I'd argue hate-watchers degrade the quality of the discussion because they don't actually like the show at all. There's a pretty big gap between someone who likes the show and is criticising it and someone who doesn't like the show at all and watches it purely so they can criticise it.

+1 and beat me too it.

So rare to find an intelligent Gaffer.

[brianjones]

ive never seen mintlemonade actually have anything to say about the show

criticism is a perfectly valid form of discussion

[jtb]

I'd argue hate-watchers degrade the quality of the discussion because they don't actually like the show at all. There's a pretty big gap between someone who likes the show and is criticising it and someone who doesn't like the show at all and watches it purely so they can criticise it. The person who likes the show and is criticising it brings something new to the discussion, the hate-watcher just reinforces the opinion they've had all along.

and what if you hate it... because you disliked what you watched? I do agree that people going into anything with their opinion already formed is a huge problem (something that is increasingly affecting film and TV criticism, absolutely), but I do think that a lot of people legitimately watch the show, enjoyed some of Sorkin's work, and also do not like the show. They don't add anything to the conversation? That's pretty ridiculous, imo.

+1 and beat me too it. So rare to find a intelligent Gaffer.

your endless ad hominems don't add anything to the conversation either.

[saunderez]

and what if you hate it... because you disliked what you watched? I do agree that people going in with their opinion already formed is a huge problem, but I do think that a lot of people legitimately watch the show, enjoyed some of Sorkin's work, and also do not like the show. They don't add anything to the conversation? That's pretty ridiculous, imo.

If you hate it because you dislike what you watched you're bringing valid criticism and discussion. If you went into it hating it then you're not. I don't see why the latter bother posting. I hate-watch shows too, I just don't feel the need to make it known in the threads of those shows.

[Daydream Sequence]

They don't add anything to the conversation? That's pretty ridiculous, imo.

"It gets bad reviews because it sucks" adds absolutely zero to the conversation, yes.

"I loved it!" also adds nothing to the conversation. But you're well within your rights to have either opinion.

That's not ridiculous.

[Sqorgar]

I agree with most of the things Sorkin is saying (Tea Party bad, Real Housewives bad, etc.) so the implication that I'm being kicked in the ass, and therefore I'm hating on the show for being "smug"... that's it? THat's your defense? I could just as easily turn the tables on you and say you're being overly kind to the show because you agree with everything he says. That conversation clearly isn't going anywhere, so let's look at it from a different angle.

First, you used the word smug. I was explaining that smug is not an objective descriptor. If you have a problem with a show, that's fine, but understand how that is different from the show having a problem.

Second, I don't agree with everything Sorkin says - but I love the way he says it. His words are literal poetry. I'll also say that the one thing I like more than anything else is a good debate, and it's rare to find television that is willing to step into the ring and defend an absolute. If I'm willing to overlook some dramatic missteps here and there, it's simply because I'm not there for the drama alone. (Although I don't find the Maggie/Jim MacKenzie/Will love stories nearly as annoying as everyone else seems to - I watch a lot of tv shows and I've seen MUCH, MUCH worse and been okay with it).

Why don't we look it from a storytelling perspective.

I haven't seen any missteps that affect the greater picture. Just a few lines or character moments that are common missteps in the first FOUR episodes of just about every drama ever made.

Along with the huge issue of preaching to the choir (because that's what he's doing...) after the fact.

I don't see him as preaching to the choir. I mean, we all know that 24 hour news is shit. But what have any of us done about it? Sorkin isn't preaching what we already know. He's trying to tell us that it is far, far worse than we imagined. Maybe he's trying to shock us out of complacency. Maybe not. At the very least, he's trying to expose everyone to an alternative ideal so that we don't all sit around saying, "yeah it sucks, but that's just how it is".

As for this second part, I'm saying Sorkin's writing himself into a problem where he is proving himself wrong. I'm not saying Murrow ended McCarthyism or that Cronkite ended the Vietnam War. But I do believe that Sorkin believes (or at least argues) that. So why use real past events if you can't change the past? We know Sorkin can do fictionalized events, and do them well (see: the entire west wing) so why the retroactive commentary? I understand what he's trying to do (show everyone how it should be done; I find that pretentious and smug, maybe you find me pretentious and smug. We'll agree to disagree.) but what he's actually doing is undermining his own argument. That's what I mean by the whole revisionist history thing being unintentionally pointless on top of insulting the audience's intelligence and whose sole purpose is to make Will even more of a good guy than he already is.

They haven't won the Good Fight(tm) just yet. People are still watching Fox News. People are still voting Tea Party. They provide one voice among countless others, and they are losing viewers. I think the ultimate point of the show may be that until we change how informative programming is regulated (thus changing ALL cable news simultaneously), people can't tell the difference between real news and fake news. It's ultimately a fool's errand to attempt to change it in the current climate.

Journalism is kind of on the cusp of a new beginning. Cable news and the internet have created a very different paradigm that journalism is not respectably adapting to. As we get used to this new way of dealing with information, a new journalistic philosophy is going to be born, where things like "not all stories have two sides" will be proven and accepted as true. I think The Newsroom is the beginning of the discussion for that philosophy. It's not 100% there yet, but looking back to the highly respected journalists from before is probably a better start than the yellow journalism we seem to be drowning in now.

finally, the cherry on a shit sundae: the countless Don Quixote references. if Sorkin bothered to read the book he'd realize the references make no fucking sense whatsoever except to say "oh hahaha he rides a donkey" and to make Will sound cultured and smart.

I'm afraid that I haven't read Don Quixote, so I can't engage in this particular discussion. Though I've heard quixotic references once or twice and Newsroom's usage doesn't seem particularly out of character with how I've heard them used in the past.

[JehutyRunner]

Watched part of the first episode when it was on YouTube, but didn't watch again. That could have been it had I not given it a second chance when I watched it on Sky Atlantic.

Now, I can't get enough of it. I love how its focusing on the real-world news stories (like the BP spill, the Tucson shooting, etc) rather than purely making its own stuff up. That was the hook that brought me in - and I love this show for that reason.

Plus, I love Daniels and Waterston's characters during dramatic situations like in the last episode towards the end.

I fucking LOVED this ep sans the bigfoot bullshit. 'You're a fuckin' news man Don! I ever tell you any different, you punch me in the face!' 'Okay, but we're back in thirty.'

Ha! I couldn't tell what he said when I initially watched it. Anybody wanna make out what Charlie told Will at the end?

Will: "You tell Leona that if she wants me out of this chair, she better bring more than just a couple of guys."

Charlie: "That's exactly what I'll fucking tell her."

Will: "I'm not fucking around Charlie."

The line afterwards is what I couldn't make out.

[jtb]

I'm gonna break this up by paragraphs for readability sake. warning; semi-long response incoming

First, you used the word smug. I was explaining that smug is not an objective descriptor. If you have a problem with a show, that's fine, but understand how that is different from the show having a problem.

I only put quotes around smug because it was a specific word; it's just a thing I do. I like to keep continuity with that kind of thing. *shrug* I agree with the second part; but again we can flip that on it's head. You can be fine with something in the show, but it can still be a problem within the show. It goes both ways.

Second, I don't agree with everything Sorkin says - but I love the way he says it. His words are literal poetry. I'll also say that the one thing I like more than anything else is a good debate, and it's rare to find television that is willing to step into the ring and defend an absolute. If I'm willing to overlook some dramatic missteps here and there, it's simply because I'm not there for the drama alone. (Although I don't find the Maggie/Jim MacKenzie/Will love stories nearly as annoying as everyone else seems to - I watch a lot of tv shows and I've seen MUCH, MUCH worse and been okay with it). I haven't seen any missteps that affect the greater picture. Just a few lines or character moments that are common missteps in the first FOUR episodes of just about every drama ever made.

Sorkin's dialogue is hit and miss for me. I really enjoyed Mac and Will's cheesy exchange at the end of the pilot, I despised the anything and everything about Dev Patel and his stupid fucking Bigfoot subplot.

I guess I just inherently disagree with the debate point. I think if Sorkin wants to make a show, then it should be entertainment first, proving a point second. If proving a point is entraining, go for it... I just am very wary of Will being such a blatantly obvious stand-in for Sorkin, to the point where he has zero character flaws and is always right. That might make for a good debate (I'd disagree because he's doing the exact same thing Fox News is doing, which is showing one extremely biased side of the argument... and I like most of what Sorkin is trying to say). To me, these characters are built around the cult of Will to the point where it does get in the way of the show's ability to tell a story, because it's just unbelievable and ridiculous. Just because it's been done worse (and I totally agree that it has) doesn't excuse Sorkin to write such a lazy, one-sided love subplot that's constantly hammered into our face every couple minutes.

I don't see him as preaching to the choir. I mean, we all know that 24 hour news is shit. But what have any of us done about it? Sorkin isn't preaching what we already know. He's trying to tell us that it is far, far worse than we imagined. Maybe he's trying to shock us out of complacency. Maybe not. At the very least, he's trying to expose everyone to an alternative ideal so that we don't all sit around saying, "yeah it sucks, but that's just how it is".

Really? I'm not sure about that... I'm more saying the whole "let's civilize" aspect of it; that's really the greater trend here, going all the way back to his Northwestern rant. He believes that he is civilized, and that everyone else is not. For me, that's just such a large stumbling block because I do think he is being dishonest with the whole "Great men" aspect of it all, with the way he breezes past his Tea Party bashing with the power of hindsight. If Sorkin wants to tell and change the news, then he should make a news show, since Will is so obviously Sorkin. As it is, I do think that gets in the way of the storytelling (see above).

They haven't won the Good Fight(tm) just yet. People are still watching Fox News. People are still voting Tea Party. They provide one voice among countless others, and they are losing viewers. I think the ultimate point of the show may be that until we change how informative programming is regulated (thus changing ALL cable news simultaneously), people can't tell the difference between real news and fake news. It's ultimately a fool's errand to attempt to change it in the current climate. Journalism is kind of on the cusp of a new beginning. Cable news and the internet have created a very different paradigm that journalism is not respectably adapting to. As we get used to this new way of dealing with information, a new journalistic philosophy is going to be born, where things like "not all stories have two sides" will be proven and accepted as true. I think The Newsroom is the beginning of the discussion for that philosophy. It's not 100% there yet, but looking back to the highly respected journalists from before is probably a better start than the yellow journalism we seem to be drowning in now.

There's two parts to this that I disagree with. First, my original point is that they can never win the good fight because they will always be operating in the past and thus be completely disconnected from reality. Let's say Obama wins the election—don't tell me Sorkin/Will will try to claim credit for that with News Night 2.0. He can't. Because News Night, as much as Sorkin doesn't seem to think the rules apply to him, does not exist in reality. It exists in a historical fiction. So in that regards, he's written himself into the point where he will never be able to win. It's ridiculous and makes no sense from Sorkin.

Second, I don't see how News Night (the show within the show, not the Newsroom itself) is really any different from the other shows. It's cable, it's bashing the Tea Party. Wonderful. MSNBC does this on a regular basis too... they're not changing cable. Just because he's a registered Republican voter doesn't make him any more or less qualified to be the prosecutor. Will (and this is fueled by his delusional co-workers) has such an incredible sense of self worth that's just ridiculous, frankly. What makes him any more worthy to be the "judge in a courtroom" than anyone else—as far as I can tell, the only reason is because he's Sorkin. Why does Sorkin matter more than everyone else? I have no idea. Regardless, he's not changing anything. He's just another talking head, just with his own personal agenda rather than a corporate one, and he's been written to have no character flaws. I don't think this is progress at all.

I'm afraid that I haven't read Don Quixote, so I can't engage in this particular discussion. Though I've heard quixotic references once or twice and Newsroom's usage doesn't seem particularly out of character with how I've heard them used in the past.

that's just a personal quibble of mine. hardly deal breaker. at the end of the day, my biggest issue with this show is the characters; I think the best stories are driven by their characters. The characters here are just poorly written, and all serve to further the agenda. Because that's what Will comes across to me as: an agenda, not an actual human being, let alone an interesting one.

[nemesun]

The show as a whole is very flawed, there are some very jarring issues with the way some of the characters are being portrayed here, case in point, the way veteran war correspondent/show-runner acts like a spineless apologetic just out of college idealist nitwit. But when the show hit the right note, boy, it's a bloody firework (It’s a person. A doctor pronounces her dead, not the news.)

This show has promise, just needs a bit of fine tuning along the way.

[RatskyWatsky]

This show makes for such a fun hate watch. The intense focus on the horrible love triangles, Dev Patel's obsession with bigfoot (!), the overly dramatic ending set to 'Fix You' by Coldplay. REALLY? loooooooool (and I really like that song/band but it came off as so melodramatic and manipulative)

I did like Olivia Munn though.

[Scullibundo]

Watched part of the first episode when it was on YouTube, but didn't watch again. That could have been it had I not given it a second chance when I watched it on Sky Atlantic. Now, I can't get enough of it. I love how its focusing on the real-world news stories (like the BP spill, the Tucson shooting, etc) rather than purely making its own stuff up. That was the hook that brought me in - and I love this show for that reason. Plus, I love Daniels and Waterston's characters during dramatic situations like in the last episode towards the end. Ha! I couldn't tell what he said when I initially watched it. Anybody wanna make out what Charlie told Will at the end? Will: "You tell Leona that if she wants me out of this chair, she better bring more than just a couple of guys." Charlie: "That's exactly what I'll fucking tell her." Will: "I'm not fucking around Charlie." The line afterwards is what I couldn't make out.

Yeah, I have no idea what he says either and I've rewatched that part a few times.

[nemesun]

Charlie: Feet of fucking steels.

In reference to the conversation they had before the news broke.

Will: How many times in the past few month have I asked you if everything is topsy turvey on the top floor?
Charlie: I love you, but you've got clay feet.