hbo's "newsroom"

[birdog1960]

it started early with the scotus aca decision (funny how that acronym resurfaced suddenly). home, to the newshour with their familiar comprehensive, expert, even handed roundtable coverage and then my first viewing of "newsroom" on hbo. the soliloquy by jeff daniels' character should be required viewing for every thoughtful person. "we lead the world in only three categories: number of incarcerated citizens, number of adults who believe angels are real and defense spending, where we spend more than the next 26 countries combined, 25 of whom are allies." "sure used to be (the greatest country). we stood up for what was right. we fought for moral reasons. we passed laws , we struck down laws for moral reasons. we fought wars on poverty, not on poor people...we cultivated the worlds greatest artists and the worlds greatest economy..."

 

coincidence that this was first aired a few days before the ruling? don't know but pretty damn cool if your a progressive.

 

so in the words of a much less articulate social commentator than adam sorkin, "what say you?".

[dayman]

Not a big Sorkin fan and it screams Sorkin but I enjoyed the first episode. Interesting premise. TV is better that it exists and everyone should give it a shot. Good first episode IMO but we'll see where it goes. Clear liberal agenda but at the same time it's clear it will take shots at everything and the media first and foremost which is only productive. The media is primarily responsible for our ridiculousness political system...be it talk/cable news/what-have-you.

[dayman]

.........and if any tea party people were still watching they are no longer watching

[CosmicBills]

.........and if any tea party people were still watching they are no longer watching

[CosmicBills]

In all seriousness (no trolling intended), can anyone who watched the episode and who knows what they're talking about in regards to the Tea Party, give me their reaction? I know very little about the Tea Party other than the chest beating I hear from Tea Party folks and punchlines from those on the other side of the coin.

 

Thanks in advance.

 

Edit: I'd love to hear from people who actually watched the entire episode not just read the reviews/critiques.

Edited July 9, 2012 by tgreg99

[3rdnlng]

In all seriousness (no trolling intended), can anyone who watched the episode and who knows what they're talking about in regards to the Tea Party, give me their reaction? I know very little about the Tea Party other than the chest beating I hear from Tea Party folks and punchlines from those on the other side of the coin.

 

Thanks in advance.

 

Edit: I'd love to hear from people who actually watched the entire episode not just read the reviews/critiques.

 

I sort of watched the episode the other night. I'm not a Tea Party member but believe in what they believe in. Simply put, Sorkin portrayed all the conservatives as goofballs. One segment was on the Arizona Bill 1070 and Jeff Daniels had three people he was interviewing about it. It was pathetic how they portrayed them. Then of course they had to get the obligatory shot in at Sarah Palin for mistakenly misnaming a country.

[CosmicBills]

I sort of watched the episode the other night. I'm not a Tea Party member but believe in what they believe in. Simply put, Sorkin portrayed all the conservatives as goofballs. One segment was on the Arizona Bill 1070 and Jeff Daniels had three people he was interviewing about it. It was pathetic how they portrayed them. Then of course they had to get the obligatory shot in at Sarah Palin for mistakenly misnaming a country.

That was episode 2 -- I was asking about last night's episode The 112th Congress. My fault, should have been more clear.

[meazza]

That was episode 2 -- I was asking about last night's episode The 112th Congress. My fault, should have been more clear.

 

Watched the pilot. Seemed way too cliché.

 

Doubt I'll watch the rest of them.

[dayman]

Watched the pilot. Seemed way too cliché.

 

Doubt I'll watch the rest of them.

 

 

Pilot was ok, second episode was bad, last episode was actually good IMO it' starting to actually develop some plot.

 

 

As for the tgreg, it's a TV show. So obviously it is...what it is. But all in all, the blasting of the Tea Party morphing into nonsense and then pitching idiocy was pretty spot on if you ask me. Then again, I despise the "modern Tea Party" and the show was basically just talking about everything I've already hated the Tea Party for. It included some positives for some non-tea party conservatives and didn't mercilessly blast all the GOP...giving props to some ousted Repubs and even in a round about way John Boehner (talking about his endorsing many of the "reasonable republicans" ousted).

 

Bottom line though is the overall slant of the episode was that in 2010 a bunch of maniacs got elected to the House and as a result there failed to be a reasonable opposition party in government. Tea Party supporters are going to hate that. Hard line conservatives may feel uneasy. Many "moderate conservatives" I know in real life will agree on it (and want their party back). And obviously most left of center folk agree as well.

 

It all comes down to me on how you view the Tea Party. If you see them as what they might have once been for, or if you see them as the actual people in Congress who call themselves "Tea Party" and what has happened with their "leadership" (if you can call it that). In any event, the "Tea Party" Congress IMO (and in national approval for what it's worth) is by far the worst Congress in my lifetime, and I'm glad they called out the "grass roots" myth behind the "movement" as it grew and lost that element. All my opinion. Anyone to the right of "moderate conservative" won't agree of course. No hard feelings. But to me the show was a blow below the belt to the Tea Party but it wasn't as if it was completely baseless...it was based in the real justifiable criticism the far right has brought upon itself.

Edited July 9, 2012 by TheNewBills

[Gary M]

 

 

Bottom line though is the overall slant of the episode was that in 2010 a bunch of maniacs got elected to the House and as a result there failed to be a reasonable opposition party in government.

Because they didn't go along with Obama. :wallbash:

Edited July 10, 2012 by Gary M

[1billsfan]

http://sultanknish.blogspot.com/2012/06/why-newsroom-is-good-news-for.html

 

"The Newsroom is Sorkin's sad attempt to win an argument by rewriting history and coming up with all the comebacks that his side couldn't think of two years ago. It's the sad and pathetic spectacle of an ideology creating its own fantasy version of its reality in which it won the argument."

 

 

Just like a liberal to be lazy...

 

http://www.pastemagazine.com/blogs/awesome_of_the_day/2012/06/watch-a-supercut-of-aaron-sorkins-re-used-lines.html

[GG]

Pilot was ok, second episode was bad, last episode was actually good IMO it' starting to actually develop some plot.

 

 

As for the tgreg, it's a TV show. So obviously it is...what it is. But all in all, the blasting of the Tea Party morphing into nonsense and then pitching idiocy was pretty spot on if you ask me. Then again, I despise the "modern Tea Party" and the show was basically just talking about everything I've already hated the Tea Party for. It included some positives for some non-tea party conservatives and didn't mercilessly blast all the GOP...giving props to some ousted Repubs and even in a round about way John Boehner (talking about his endorsing many of the "reasonable republicans" ousted).

 

Bottom line though is the overall slant of the episode was that in 2010 a bunch of maniacs got elected to the House and as a result there failed to be a reasonable opposition party in government. Tea Party supporters are going to hate that. Hard line conservatives may feel uneasy. Many "moderate conservatives" I know in real life will agree on it (and want their party back). And obviously most left of center folk agree as well.

 

It all comes down to me on how you view the Tea Party. If you see them as what they might have once been for, or if you see them as the actual people in Congress who call themselves "Tea Party" and what has happened with their "leadership" (if you can call it that). In any event, the "Tea Party" Congress IMO (and in national approval for what it's worth) is by far the worst Congress in my lifetime, and I'm glad they called out the "grass roots" myth behind the "movement" as it grew and lost that element. All my opinion. Anyone to the right of "moderate conservative" won't agree of course. No hard feelings. But to me the show was a blow below the belt to the Tea Party but it wasn't as if it was completely baseless...it was based in the real justifiable criticism the far right has brought upon itself.

 

Yet it's perfectly fine for the Democratic party to be run by the lunatic leftist fringe from California?

[birdog1960]

unsurprisingly, i found the third episode to be very good. it pointed out the financial ties big media has to big money and that the news is a small part of revenue that can be sacrificed for the bigger fiscal picture. sounds about right to me. the media owner is portrayed as a liberal that nevertheless plays up to all political sides for the financial interst of her company. she's not willing to alienate the kochs even if it is only to point out that they largely fund the tea party's activities and candidates. and does anyone here dispute that? it's an important point that many of the "grass roots" tea partiers seem to ignore. i found it interesting to compare them to ginsberg and other far left activists and their total lack of acceptance by the dem establishment during their few minutes of fame.

[NoSaint]

I sort of watched the episode the other night. I'm not a Tea Party member but believe in what they believe in. Simply put, Sorkin portrayed all the conservatives as goofballs. One segment was on the Arizona Bill 1070 and Jeff Daniels had three people he was interviewing about it. It was pathetic how they portrayed them. Then of course they had to get the obligatory shot in at Sarah Palin for mistakenly misnaming a country.

 

To be fair on both fronts:

 

1) he did say that both the GOP and the early tea party were not bad, but that the tea party has gone of the rails into scary territory. As someone that leans right, I do not disagree with that. There were plenty of mind numbing tea party moments that have little to do with its true founding ideals.

 

2) the entire point was that they lost their educated speaker and had to settle for extremist goofballs, not that everyone on that side is an extremist goofball.

 

I'm still curious to see how it plays. I assume left leaning all the way but some of the hurt feelings are a but much. We will see if some of those quirky situations play out the opposite direction going forward (the well spoken lib dropping out and having a crazy OWS character fill in for instance)

 

I'll also be curious to see how they handle some of the lefts flubs. It's very early to be throwing a fit though.

Edited July 11, 2012 by NoSaint

[dayman]

To be fair on both fronts:

 

1) he did say that both the GOP and the early tea party were not bad, but that the tea party has gone of the rails into scary territory. As someone that leans right, I do not disagree with that. There were plenty of mind numbing tea party moments that have little to do with its true founding ideals.

 

2) the entire point was that they lost their educated speaker and had to settle for extremist goofballs, not that everyone on that side is an extremist goofball.

 

I'm still curious to see how it plays. I assume left leaning all the way but some of the hurt feelings are a but much. We will see if some of those quirky situations play out the opposite direction going forward (the well spoken lib dropping out and having a crazy OWS character fill in for instance)

 

I'll also be curious to see how they handle some of the lefts flubs. It's very early to be throwing a fit though.

 

We'll have to wait and see. I doubt they'll do anything like the hand of god they just dropped on the tea party but I would hope they attack the left in some areas in the future as well. If they don't they'll lose some credibility...whatever credibility they have

 

And anyway it is a tv show I read in an interview not every episode will track real news stories from the past they will have made up news stories and as they latest episode set the ground work for the show will have more than just news focus I'm sure it will evolve into a more character driven show as it gets its feet set as well as exploring "the news industry" more...all that is good (although some of the developing character archs are cringe worthy in their Sorkin dialogue and cliche cheesiness).

 

In any event the third episode should have been the second. The second episode was a disaster should have been cut.

Edited July 11, 2012 by TheNewBills

[NoSaint]

We'll have to wait and see. I doubt they'll do anything like the hand of god they just dropped on the tea party but I would hope they attack the left in some areas in the future as well. If they don't they'll lose some credibility...whatever credibility they have

 

And anyway it is a tv show I read in an interview not every episode will track real news stories from the past they will have made up news stories and as they latest episode set the ground work for the show will have more than just news focus I'm sure it will evolve into a more character driven show as it gets its feet set as well as exploring "the news industry" more...all that is good (although some of the developing character archs are cringe worthy in their Sorkin dialogue and cliche cheesiness).

 

In any event the third episode should have been the second. The second episode was a disaster should have been cut.

 

That's something I'm trying to keep in mind and is a weird balance - its not news, it's a show about news shows. Some of the natural arcs of the world will lean it left/right. The story of that election was certainly the tea party explosion, and though I lean right a lot of those people did worry me. It seems natural that a show like this would struggle a bit.

Edited July 11, 2012 by NoSaint

[KD in CA]

In all seriousness (no trolling intended), can anyone who watched the episode and who knows what they're talking about in regards to the Tea Party, give me their reaction? I know very little about the Tea Party other than the chest beating I hear from Tea Party folks and punchlines from those on the other side of the coin.

Thanks in advance.

 

Edit: I'd love to hear from people who actually watched the entire episode not just read the reviews/critiques.

I think that's the point --- neither does anyone involved in producing that episode. What I saw followed a pretty standard script:

 

1) Invent dramatic circumstances for the purpose of creating outlandish strawman.

2) Knock down strawman with sharp dialog and/or smirking humor while presenting your own POV as fact.

3) If anyone questions the realism of the content, pull out the "it's a fictional program" card.

4) Rinse, repeat.

 

In short, I saw little to make me think this show was anything but a means to preach the gospel to the left wing faithful by one of the Hollywood high priests.

 

 

That's something I'm trying to keep in mind and is a weird balance - its not news, it's a show about news shows. Some of the natural arcs of the world will lean it left/right. The story of that election was certainly the tea party explosion, and though I lean right a lot of those people did worry me. It seems natural that a show like this would struggle a bit.

This is a good point, but the show is not intellectually honest about the newsroom being a left-wing propaganda vehicle (or a right-wing propaganda vehicle if they were acting like Fox News and ripping on everything coming out of the Democratic camp).

 

As an aside, I think your own words highlight just how successful these media people are in manipulating the public. You lean conservative but the tea party worries you? Why? Like tgreg, I don't really understand the Tea Party -- I thought they were mostly committed to smaller gov't with less spending. That's scary compared to Obama, Pelosi, et al?

Edited July 11, 2012 by KD in CT

[meazza]

I think that's the point --- neither does anyone involved in producing that episode. What I saw followed a pretty standard script:

 

1) Invent dramatic circumstances for the purpose of creating outlandish strawman.

2) Knock down strawman with sharp dialog and/or smirking humor while presenting your own POV as fact.

3) If anyone questions the realism of the content, pull out the "it's a fictional program" card.

4) Rinse, repeat.

 

In short, I saw little to make me think this show was anything but a means to preach the gospel to the left wing faithful by one of the Hollywood high priests.

 

Pretty much spot on.

[NoSaint]

I think that's the point --- neither does anyone involved in producing that episode. What I saw followed a pretty standard script:

 

1) Invent dramatic circumstances for the purpose of creating outlandish strawman.

2) Knock down strawman with sharp dialog and/or smirking humor while presenting your own POV as fact.

3) If anyone questions the realism of the content, pull out the "it's a fictional program" card.

4) Rinse, repeat.

 

In short, I saw little to make me think this show was anything but a means to preach the gospel to the left wing faithful by one of the Hollywood high priests.

 

 

 

This is a good point, but the show is not intellectually honest about the newsroom being a left-wing propaganda vehicle (or a right-wing propaganda vehicle if they were acting like Fox News and ripping on everything coming out of the Democratic camp).

 

As an aside, I think your own words highlight just how successful these media people are in manipulating the public. You lean conservative but the tea party worries you? Why? Like tgreg, I don't really understand the Tea Party -- I thought they were mostly committed to smaller gov't with less spending. That's scary compared to Obama, Pelosi, et al?

 

well to the first point - is the actual newsroom intellectually honest about its leanings? if you accept it as a portrayal of reality, instead of an actual news show, it definitely gets into a different perspective to judge it from. what is tough is that by having so much of the show center around actually presenting real news, in a news setting... lines are way blurry. id be curious if there was ever a show that was so tied to real life news? im sure someones taken a shot at it, but all the news shows i can think of are straight fiction, where this one is of a historical fiction nature. i will agree, this could turn into a get out of jail free card while spoon feeding ideals to someone that wouldnt otherwise watch the news. it could be smart political work, or it could develop into a good show. we will see i guess....

 

as for the tea party stuff..... i think totally dedicating the entire hour killing it and not mentioning any other issues was extreme. no doubt. i will say that much like Daniels character outlined though, the movement seems to have a lot of way out there people getting huge backing not for ability but because they are willing to say really unfounded and to me worrisome stuff. the bachman crowd doesnt sit well with me. as someone thats moderate leaning conservative, i feel like some of them are both embarassing and terrifying. by giving a nod to worthy ideals gone awry i guess it didnt personally offend me as much as some that are still heavily invested in it. that certainly doesnt mean im jumping on obama and pelosis bandwagon either.

Edited July 11, 2012 by NoSaint

[IDBillzFan]

I think that's the point --- neither does anyone involved in producing that episode. What I saw followed a pretty standard script:

 

1) Invent dramatic circumstances for the purpose of creating outlandish strawman.

2) Knock down strawman with sharp dialog and/or smirking humor while presenting your own POV as fact.

3) If anyone questions the realism of the content, pull out the "it's a fictional program" card.

4) Rinse, repeat.

 

In short, I saw little to make me think this show was anything but a means to preach the gospel to the left wing faithful by one of the Hollywood high priests.

Exactly. And you could see this early on when a show that hasn't aired yet receives hard left buzz (including a glowing 5-star "I'm trying to find something I don't like, and can't" Dan Rather review) that is best personified watching Bridgitte Neilson get wet while watching Ivan Drago kill Apollo Creed in a boxing ring, standing up and yelling "Yes! Yes!" every time Sorkin re-uses another one of his catch phrases.

 

The funny thing about it is the left loves it when the media bust the chops of anyone not on the far left...until they're left wondering why Air America is gone and more people watch re-runs of Gilligan's Island than collectively watch MSNBC.

Edited July 11, 2012 by LABillzFan