The Newsroom.

Ever eaten a fruit roll up that still had the plastic attached? Something like that.

 

No.

But it still sounds better than a processed cheese square with the plastic still attached.

 

That was an awesome episode. From "what it means to be a journalist" storyline to the Will's verbal smackdown and the happy ending, this episode reminded me of the good ol' days of The West Wing. More of this please.

 

Having caught up with the show, Will is just Matt Albie with the substance abuse problem replaced with womanising. That's my big concern. Right now, the show is okay, but it's closer to Studio 60 than The West Wing and it looks like it's going to make the same mistakes as that show. For example, Studio 60 was suffocated by its continual focus on the non-relationship between Matt and Harriot, and The Newsroom is making the exact same mistake with Will and MacKenzie. It's almost the exact same formula, a couple that had an acrimonious split, spent some time apart, forced to work together, develop love/hate relationship. What's worse is that Sorkin has doubled down on the romantic crap with the Jim/Maggie/Don love triangle. Not a single episode has gone by where both of those romantic storylines weren't touched upon, and that same problem is what killed Studio 60 for me. Sorkin needs to dump that stuff and focus on the news.

Because it was really badly written. There wasn't even a story to that episode, the fact that they were giving a lecture was the story.

 

I am a nonpartisan who hates both sides. Does this show go after dems too for Obama's executive power grabs, wars, war on whistleblowers and Wall Street funders too or is it a partisan hack show which only goes after one side?

 

But that's the inherent trap, innit? Because the show's about real-world news, it feels relevant. But because it's set in the real world two years ago, we know it'll never really change anything; it'll just always doodle around the margins. With The West Wing, the gang may not have been in the real world per se, but they could get s*** done.

 

I wouldn't say that it's overly partisan. Or maybe I should say it's not overtly partisan. There are obviously definite leftist leanings in the writing, the topics being covered and the conclusions being drawn, but since they're using the Tea Party as the foil/baseline for comparison, even Ronald Reagan would be considered a rainbow-flag waving liberal communist by today's standards. Makes for easy pickings, really. The real challenge is painting in shades of gray which they arguably haven't even tried to do. Perhaps that's why they are gathering together a whole new writing team.

 

Back when he was beaning Russians, even I chanted USA as Haxsaw Jim Duggan told me to the first few thousand times... However I then began to notice as an attentive 10 year old that he drew the crowd into a frenzy screaming "USA, USA, USA" no matter who he was fighting, even other Americans as yokel and Hillbilly as Jim was.

If they can't colour a fight as epic good vs evil, if we lose this your children will be used as kindling for the bastards I'm the only chance you have to stop... Why should I care?

Did they mention the 20 years of prosperity, economic growth and security the Empire felt under the rule of palpatine? NO. They just killed him because he had the "wrong" religion, and made sure after the fact that they controlled the narrative. It was all probably a subconcious allegory for why there will never be a Jew in the White House.

Hell, in the beginning, after he was bawling on about Power Converters, Luke started droning on about how he wanted to be a Stormtrooper. I assume that TIE Fighter pilots are still Storm Troopers?

YES THEY ARE!

 

^^^ I can understand the need to paint a rosy picture of good vs. evil, and Star Wars is an excellent vehicle for that, as you point out. Newsroom, however, is supposed to be about real life. A 20-20 cautionary and idealistic retrospective of what the news media and politicians should have done, yes, but still very grounded in real events. Real life is never pure black and white - good vs. evil. It's all about the gray.

The best villains in movies and tv shows always have a righteous angle to them. They don't believe they're evil. It's the other guy who has wronged them. Remember why everyone likes Khan? Moral ambiguity makes for interesting story-telling, and good drama, which is why Nu Battlestar was popular. 'Course, some could argue they took that a little too far, but that's a conversation for another thread.

Newsroom has its feet now. It's time to start going after some things that aren't so easily cut-and-dry as Palpa...er...the Koch Brothers and their Tea Party lackeys. Time to move into the big leagues and live up to the promise of the pilot episode's stated mission. It has great potential to do so. They need to start living up to that potential, now, or pack it in. Else the quaint preachyness is going to start sounding like the teacher in Charlie Brown shows - whah wha waaahh wu whannh. They deserve better than that, and so do we while watching it.

 

I want to like the show but i am not a partisan hack and i want to see some ideological diversity.They should hire a couple of lbertairan writers for the show and go after both sides. Untill then i cannot watch this. They would actualy win viewers instead of losing them considering how low public trust is in the US government.

 

Don't be silly.

That would require Aaron Sorkin to actually share a writing credit's royalty check.

 

Since you've mentioned "partisan hack" twice now, why don't you talk about the ways in which it is partisan and in which ways the writers are hacks.

The perspective of the show is Sorkin's, which is primarily from the left of the Democratic party, but the main character is a sympathetic socially moderate conservative much like Vinnick from the last couple seasons of the West Wing, essentially the kind of Republican that liberals wished still existed in politics because they aren't just about "god, guns and gays."

Most of the outright criticism and commentary on the show is shining a very unflattering light on the Tea Party, and by association the Republican party; but, it is primarily from the heavy heart of our "hero" who laments what his party has become and not portrayed as gloating by a liberal/democrat.

Considering this is like the fourth such sympathetic Republican character (and one that is again portrayed as smarter than most of the people around them) Sorkin has created, I can't see where any hackish partisanship has appeared. There surely have been opportunities to go after Obama that have been skipped, but I'm not sure if that is intentional or if such debates simply don't have thematic impact and/or would require too much screen time to accomplish fairly with too little interest in doing so. The Tea Party members they brought on the show were shown as earnest and well-meaning if naive, and the thread as carried through for several episodes. To take on the Obama administration would probably require as much if not more time dedicated to that plot.

I imagine next season will get into Occupy a bit, which will give them a nice target for criticizing the left.

Come to TNZ, lets see where you really stand.

 

I am already posting more then enough on Perspectives.com about politics.

What are his policy positions that indicate that he is a David Frum republican?

I only saw one segment in which he said that that the Koch brothers are giants compared to Soros. Are you kidding, Soros funds the DNC, Moveon, the hungarian Socialist Party and who knows what else. He also broke the Bank of England.

My prediction is if they go after dems it won't be because Sorkin wants to do it.

 

Obama was criticised for being worse on gun-control than Bush was, but that was part of a scene criticising the Tea Party types for their unfounded fear that Obama is a socialist that's trying to take their guns.

Yeah, that's a big problem with the format, and it was especially noticeable in the third episode when Will went on a 6 month crusade against the Tea Party, yet they still won the election. If the point of the show is that the news has a duty to inform the electorate so they can make better decisions then it's not working, because the result is that the better-informed electorate voted for the same people. The show needs the freedom to convey its message and tying it into the real world wont allow them to do that. Hopefully they'll drop that angle in season 2.

 

They took a shot at the Obama gov't gutting the DoJ going after the banks. That was the whole thing evolving Mack's boyfriend and his appearances on the news. He brought Will the story.

And they didn't attack the idea of the tea party. They were attacking the facts that many of the tea party members were on the uninformed side of topics and that the "movement" was hijacked by big money corporate interests and they didn't even know it. Will was saying that the tea party was like the lefts hippies in the 60's, but in that case the democrat party ignored the radical elements of it.

 

I agree. I've been watching the show but in my mind, it is not yet near the level that The West Wing had, even this early in its run. The fact that the main character is said to be a Republican member seems to be only to attempt to give more power and credibility to the left-leaning views that the show (through him) is espousing. Who's criticism of an organization would you take more strongly: an outsider waving his fists around wildly or an inside member expressing dissention.

Yet still, the politics is the most interesting part of the show. What is becoming increasingly difficult to tolerate is the retardedly juvenile behaviour of the characters including two love triangles that are often painful to witness.

 

Would you be able to list your co-workers' political stance with more than broad strokes? Your average citizen doesn't have stances on policy, they have a vague philosophy and judge such specifics as they come. Will isn't a politician, he is a newsman who has mostly tried to play agnostic for most of his career for the sake of appearing impartial. Here in California I've often been surprised when friends tell me they're Republican because they are on the surface the perfect example of a moderate Democrat, and usually it is dependent on such simple things as who their Dad voted for or what news was on in their household growing up. Moderate Democrats and Moderate Republicans really aren't all that far apart at all, they simply took a stance at some point and feel the need to hold it. McAvoy says he is a Republican and has mostly voted republican and that is all that is necessary for now, and still leaves them room to establish his specific philosophy in later episodes as it becomes convenient.

 

Yeah, while I'm annoyed by Will's RINO schtick, the way the characters (particularly the women other than Sloan) are written is the main problem I have with this show.

 

Venardhi posted:

If he works as a political reporter probably yes.

I give this one a shot, i will see where it goes.