hbo's "newsroom"

[drnykterstein]

But when you close an episode with the President, who's currently campaigning for his life, delivering a speech about his greatest foreign policy accomplishment over the closing credits -- it's more than just "leaning" left. It's a full on ad for Obama.

 

Yes. But it was also some damn fine TV and I was glad to watch it again and be reminded of a very happy day for all of us.

[OCinBuffalo]

Sometimes I wonder if Sorkin is an idiot or a genius. Not WRT writing. Clearly he's a genius there.

 

However, every time Hollywood puts something like this show out, they have to know now that Rush Limbaughs of the world will pounce, or they are the biggest idiots of all time. Or...are the really that affected, and living in their own little world? Who knows?

 

Thus, if Sorkin's agenda is to socialize unwitting viewers to the liberal POV, then he's clearly an idiot. All he is accomplishing is giving the right's machinery more fuel, and socializing a hell of a lot more people to the conservative POV than he could ever hope to gain. If he's trying to reinforce the base...all he is doing is growing the other side's, not to mention reinforcing the very Republican machine his show decries. Nothing says "listen to my radio show" as well as: "see I was right, the media is biased."

 

However, if Sorkin's agenda is to get Rush Limbaugh et al talking about his show....for free? Then, he's a genius. He's reaching a massive audience, via the Howard Stern model, who will tune in...just so they can be the 54th caller on Monday to say how much they don't like it.

 

Without speaking to Sorkin directly, and observing his answers, it's really hard to say. Of course, as long as we have expert subtex interpreters around...maybe we don't need body language/listening skills?

[drnykterstein]

Rush Limbaughs of the world will pounce

 

fat bald old white men pouncing ... nasty

[TakeYouToTasker]

Rush has actually lost a ton of weight.

[CosmicBills]

Sometimes I wonder if Sorkin is an idiot or a genius. Not WRT writing. Clearly he's a genius there.

 

However, every time Hollywood puts something like this show out, they have to know now that Rush Limbaughs of the world will pounce, or they are the biggest idiots of all time. Or...are the really that affected, and living in their own little world? Who knows?

 

Thus, if Sorkin's agenda is to socialize unwitting viewers to the liberal POV, then he's clearly an idiot. All he is accomplishing is giving the right's machinery more fuel, and socializing a hell of a lot more people to the conservative POV than he could ever hope to gain. If he's trying to reinforce the base...all he is doing is growing the other side's, not to mention reinforcing the very Republican machine his show decries. Nothing says "listen to my radio show" as well as: "see I was right, the media is biased."

 

However, if Sorkin's agenda is to get Rush Limbaugh et al talking about his show....for free? Then, he's a genius. He's reaching a massive audience, via the Howard Stern model, who will tune in...just so they can be the 54th caller on Monday to say how much they don't like it.

 

Without speaking to Sorkin directly, and observing his answers, it's really hard to say. Of course, as long as we have expert subtex interpreters around...maybe we don't need body language/listening skills?

What's hilarious is you think Hollywood and Rush Limbaugh are separate. Rush is nothing more than a paid entertainer. Just like Sorkin.

 

Thinking that Hollywood is a singular entity is just proof that you still have no idea what you're talking about.

[NoSaint]

 

What's hilarious is you think Hollywood and Rush Limbaugh are separate. Rush is nothing more than a paid entertainer. Just like Sorkin.

 

Thinking that Hollywood is a singular entity is just proof that you still have no idea what you're talking about.

 

Bingo.

 

Sorry OC but you totally missed the boat there.

 

[OCinBuffalo]

What's hilarious is you think Hollywood and Rush Limbaugh are separate. Rush is nothing more than a paid entertainer. Just like Sorkin.

 

Thinking that Hollywood is a singular entity is just proof that you still have no idea what you're talking about.

Do yourself a favor, and re-read my....subtext....post. Wait. No,...subtext...don't, I may be...subtext...able to pull this...subtext...off again.

 

Bingo.

 

Sorry OC but you totally missed the boat there.

 

I expect Tgreg to eventually figure this out.

 

You on the other hand? I suppose I have either no expectations, because I really don't know, or low expectations.

 

But, it's nice knowing I'm 2 for 2 so far.

Edited August 11, 2012 by OCinBuffalo

[CosmicBills]

Do yourself a favor, and re-read my....subtext....post. Wait. No,...subtext...don't, I may be...subtext...able to pull this...subtext...off again.

 

 

 

I expect Tgreg to eventually figure this out.

 

You on the other hand? I suppose I have either no expectations, because I really don't know, or low expectations.

 

But, it's nice knowing I'm 2 for 2 so far.

You're giving your post more subtextual credit than it's worth.

[OCinBuffalo]

You're giving your post more subtextual credit than it's worth.

 

Edit: Alright, alright, this is becoming boring.

 

Dude, I thought you would catch on...when I specifically used the word in the last sentence, and referred to "interpreters".

 

I would think that the words: radio, audience, tune in, and Howard Stern, would be enough for anyone to know that I fully understand that Rush Limbaugh is an entertainer, especially somebody in the friggin industry. After all, these aren't the IT gibberish words that we use in my industry, are they? I guess I was wrong. But, really, hopefully it's clear that this was not the intent of the post.

 

Saying subtext was.

 

Just think about it objectively, like I do. Do you really think anybody, doing any sort of gig, would be able to stay on the air for as long as Limbaugh has...if we wasn't "entertaining"? How about for just 1, 3 hour show? Oh, we have an example, don't we? Air America. No talent, no "art" = gone.

 

So obviously, they are what they are. Now(for some more fun, because this is a multi-layered thing I've done here), do you think that Sorkin is just looking for a free plug, or not?

Edited August 11, 2012 by OCinBuffalo

[CosmicBills]

 

Edit: Alright, alright, this is becoming boring.

 

Dude, I thought you would catch on...when I specifically used the word in the last sentence, and referred to "interpreters".

 

I would think that the words: radio, audience, tune in, and Howard Stern, would be enough for anyone to know that I fully understand that Rush Limbaugh is an entertainer, especially somebody in the friggin industry. After all, these aren't the IT gibberish words that we use in my industry, are they? I guess I was wrong. But, really, hopefully it's clear that this was not the intent of the post.

 

Saying subtext was.

 

Just think about it objectively, like I do. Do you really think anybody, doing any sort of gig, would be able to stay on the air for as long as Limbaugh has...if we wasn't "entertaining"? How about for just 1, 3 hour show? Oh, we have an example, don't we? Air America. No talent, no "art" = gone.

 

So obviously, they are what they are. Now(for some more fun, because this is a multi-layered thing I've done here), do you think that Sorkin is just looking for a free plug, or not?

Sorry, I just saw this response... I was going to bump the thread to see if anyone watched the finale last night. I did but I wasn't exactly in the best head space to absorb it (read:not sober).

 

As for your post here, I fully admit I forgot what we were talking about in this conversation. Apologies. What are you asking about Sorkin wanting a plug? I'm not sure what you're asking there ...

 

Cheers

[The Big Cat]

Newsroom as I understand: what began as veiled hints at liberal sympathy has since spiraled into a full-on leftist manifesto against the right.

 

Accurate?

[CosmicBills]

Newsroom as I understand: what began as veiled hints at liberal sympathy has since spiraled into a full-on leftist manifesto against the right.

 

Accurate?

I don't think the sympathy was ever veiled.

[dayman]

I don't think the sympathy was ever veiled.

 

If by veiled he means a full on hour devoted to blasting the Tea Party in the 2nd or 3rd episode then...yes it was veiled. I like Newsroom though, it's a pretty good show. Started rough but got better.

[The Big Cat]

I don't think the sympathy was ever veiled.

 

If by veiled he means a full on hour devoted to blasting the Tea Party in the 2nd or 3rd episode then...yes it was veiled. I like Newsroom though, it's a pretty good show. Started rough but got better.

 

Ha fair enough. I suppose I held on to a sliver of faith that it had a corner to turn.

 

Always hated Sorkin, always will, not shocked by this in the slightest.

[OCinBuffalo]

Sorry, I just saw this response... I was going to bump the thread to see if anyone watched the finale last night. I did but I wasn't exactly in the best head space to absorb it (read:not sober).

 

As for your post here, I fully admit I forgot what we were talking about in this conversation. Apologies. What are you asking about Sorkin wanting a plug? I'm not sure what you're asking there ...

 

Cheers

Simple as I can say it:

 

If Soorkin believes he is "shaping opinion" with his show, and that he socialize people to liberal views.....he is an unmitigated moron.

 

That's because...Rush Limbaugh's show is primarily based on "catching them in the act". Thus, Soorkin is only succeeding...in propagating a radio show/Fox News/Breitbart.com/internet-TEA party meme =

Hollywood is unfair in it's portrayal of conservative and libertarian views

and uses caricatures, rather than characters, in that portrayal.

 

The problem is: size of audience. When Rush Limbaugh says something...5x the people hear it, than when Soorkin says something.

 

As such the true outcome...is socializing 5 people towards conservative views....for every 1 towards liberal.

 

Now...if Soorkin understands this dynamic...and knows that feeding the machine...means in essence: free advertising (a plug) for his show, and If Soorkin is intentionally using this dynamic to attract Rush Limbaugh's audience, which is at least 5x larger than his, to his show...then he is a genius.

 

So the question for you is: which do you think it is? Or...can it be a little of both?

Edited August 28, 2012 by OCinBuffalo

[drnykterstein]

Newsroom as I understand: what began as veiled hints at liberal sympathy has since spiraled into a full-on leftist manifesto against the right.

 

Accurate?

 

Yeah that last episode is something to think about. What if a Brian Williams type news show really did what the fictional ACN show did? Would that be correct? I can't argue with the facts that were presented. But, it did seem dishonest in presentation to me. There are more aspects to the Tea-Party than what was presented.

Edited August 28, 2012 by conner

[CosmicBills]

Simple as I can say it:

 

If Soorkin believes he is "shaping opinion" with his show, and that he socialize people to liberal views.....he is an unmitigated moron.

 

That's because...Rush Limbaugh's show is primarily based on "catching them in the act". Thus, Soorkin is only succeeding...in propagating a radio show/Fox News/Breitbart.com/internet-TEA party meme =

Hollywood is unfair in it's portrayal of conservative and libertarian views

and uses caricatures, rather than characters, in that portrayal.

 

The problem is: size of audience. When Rush Limbaugh says something...5x the people hear it, than when Soorkin says something.

 

As such the true outcome...is socializing 5 people towards conservative views....for every 1 towards liberal.

 

Now...if Soorkin understands this dynamic...and knows that feeding the machine...means in essence: free advertising (a plug) for his show, and If Soorkin is intentionally using this dynamic to attract Rush Limbaugh's audience, which is at least 5x larger than his, to his show...then he is a genius.

 

So the question for you is: which do you think it is? Or...can it be a little of both?

It's neither.

[OCinBuffalo]

It's neither.

In that case....he needs better PR people, and also better marketing people.

 

He doesn't have to deal with this....he can just flutter about being an "artist".

 

But, somebody does.

Edited August 30, 2012 by OCinBuffalo

[CosmicBills]

I don't know Sorkin so I can't speak for him. But I'd find it very surprising if his goal was to socialize anyone with any particular view. He's focused on telling the best story he can in the most compelling way he knows how. The job is hard enough as is -- even thinking of it as some sort puzzle piece in Sorkin's nefarious plot to turn America on to liberalism is just silly.

 

It's almost as silly as saying Rush's audience is 5x bigger than Sorkin's. It's nonsense.

[unbillievable]

I would call my views moderate (I've voted for both parties as president/senate/state/local) and I really loved Sorkin's West Wing, however...

...I can't stomach Newsroom.

The first episode was brilliant. I wanted to see more, then it just spiraled into far left liberal lala land. It's so biased its ridiculous.

This show is straight propaganda; And it's not even good propaganda, because he doesn't argue the other side. It doesn't make you think. It just bashes your brains in with leftist talking points.

I can't believe there are people out there who think this show is subtle, vague, or (laugh) accurate. If this was how real News was reported, we'd be better off watching Comedy Central.