hbo's "newsroom"

[DC Tom]

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?

 

In short: it's Sorkin.

[LeviF]

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.

To be fair, Gilligan's Island is a quality show in which angry lesbians are conspicuously absent.

[DC Tom]

To be fair, Gilligan's Island is a quality show in which angry lesbians are conspicuously absent.

 

 

After this post, I will never look at Ginger and Mary Ann the same way again.

[3rdnlng]

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.

 

There's nothing to fear from the Tea Party people:

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea_Party_Patriots

 

 

"The mission statement of the Tea Party Patriots is “to attract, educate, organize, and mobilize our fellow citizens to secure public policy consistent with our three core values” [5]. The three core values of the Tea Party Patriots are: Fiscal responsibility, Constitutionally Limited Government, and Free Market Economics [6]. These three principles are shared by many Tea Party organizations."

 

The tea party has no stance concerning religion and social issues. They basically say that you are on your own with that.

[LeviF]

After this post, I will never look at Ginger and Mary Ann the same way again.

You're welcome.

[NoSaint]

There's nothing to fear from the Tea Party people:

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea_Party_Patriots

 

 

"The mission statement of the Tea Party Patriots is “to attract, educate, organize, and mobilize our fellow citizens to secure public policy consistent with our three core values” [5]. The three core values of the Tea Party Patriots are: Fiscal responsibility, Constitutionally Limited Government, and Free Market Economics [6]. These three principles are shared by many Tea Party organizations."

 

The tea party has no stance concerning religion and social issues. They basically say that you are on your own with that.

 

right, and i can give a nod to that. i meant the actual people. have you listened to some of them? there are more than a couple superstars in the group that are straight up cartoon-ish in how they try to present that platform. im not worried about them forcing religion on me, im worried about them being nutty and often unqualified to execute a platform that i otherwise dont generally disagree with. thats not to say the whole movement is, but there are some top dogs that give me the heebie jeebies.

[3rdnlng]

right, and i can give a nod to that. i meant the actual people. have you listened to some of them? there are more than a couple superstars in the group that are straight up cartoon-ish in how they try to present that platform. im not worried about them forcing religion on me, im worried about them being nutty and often unqualified to execute a platform that i otherwise dont generally disagree with. thats not to say the whole movement is, but there are some top dogs that give me the heebie jeebies.

 

From what media source do you get your picture of these people? Remember the white supremicist tea party guy in Phoenix with the rifle? That was how it was reported by NBC. They didn't show his face because they would have a hard convincing anyone he wasn't black.

[NoSaint]

From what media source do you get your picture of these people? Remember the white supremicist tea party guy in Phoenix with the rifle? That was how it was reported by NBC. They didn't show his face because they would have a hard convincing anyone he wasn't black.

 

i understand the media. it doesnt mean i will ever identify with a michele bachmann politically. im not trying to dismiss the entire movement but there are some people that are the champions of it with whom i just cannot identify with or get excited about. just because i lean right doesnt mean i like every group on that side.

Edited July 11, 2012 by NoSaint

[1billsfan]

i understand the media. it doesnt mean i will ever identify with a michele bachmann politically. im not trying to dismiss the entire movement but there are some people that are the champions of it with whom i just cannot identify with or get excited about. just because i lean right doesnt mean i like every group on that side.

 

I think this is your first mistake. Why would you dismiss a true grass roots conservative political movement (devoid of "leaders" mind you) just because a person you don't like, likes them? That's weird to me. Bachman's influence to the tea party's agenda could be compared to being a flea on a donkey's you-know-what.

 

The tea party is a real "BFD". The tea party won. They haven't lost to Obama (election-wise, not SC decision-wise) since they've come on the scene. They're in control of the rudder. Libs, MSM, and the uninformed are either in denial or just don't know it. When you have a very conservative WI governor winning his recall election easily, when you have democrats bailing out of the democratic convention for the first black president in American history...well, let's just say the writing's on the wall for who will win this one in november. It won't even be close. Romney's just along for the ride.

 

BTW, I'm not an official member, just one of the millions of Americans who are with the tea party movement in spirit.

[NoSaint]

I think this is your first mistake. Why would you dismiss a true grass roots conservative political movement (devoid of "leaders" mind you) just because a person you don't like, likes them? That's weird to me. Bachman's influence to the tea party's agenda could be compared to being a flea on a donkey's you-know-what.

 

The tea party is a real "BFD". The tea party won. They haven't lost to Obama (election-wise, not SC decision-wise) since they've come on the scene. They're in control of the rudder. Libs, MSM, and the uninformed are either in denial or just don't know it. When you have a very conservative WI governor winning his recall election easily, when you have democrats bailing out of the democratic convention for the first black president in American history...well, let's just say the writing's on the wall for who will win this one in november. It won't even be close. Romney's just along for the ride.

 

BTW, I'm not an official member, just one of the millions of Americans who are with the tea party movement in spirit.

 

 

cool - i get it - still, not my thing. theres a high enough rate of "really? i mean, really?!?!" moments when i watch a wide variety of the top level people speak that i just dont dig it. tell me all you want about how its grass roots and all that jazz. it still has a group of people elected to shape policy and it had some cache in the primary and a lot of those people arent really my cup of tea. perhaps i havent found my own grassroots branch of it to get me excited yet.

 

at risk of sounding like i get my talking points from newsroom, i generally didnt feel all that outraged by how they characterized the movement on a very broad strokes level. that doesnt mean im anti-all-things-tea-party or i suddenly love obama and pelosi, but even though im someone that tends to fall right, i dont feel like its a group that well represents me - at times it does in fact even worry me.

[GG]

right, and i can give a nod to that. i meant the actual people. have you listened to some of them? there are more than a couple superstars in the group that are straight up cartoon-ish in how they try to present that platform. im not worried about them forcing religion on me, im worried about them being nutty and often unqualified to execute a platform that i otherwise dont generally disagree with. thats not to say the whole movement is, but there are some top dogs that give me the heebie jeebies.

 

The tea party movement is only three years old and is highly decentralized. By design, there is no such thing as a top dog. Sure there have been some long time conservative opportunists that captured the early support of tea partiers, when the spotlight shined, they were exposed and tossed aside. You are witnessing a possible birth of a new party and shouldn't expect perfect candidates. You're far more likely to have people jumping on the tea party bandwagon because it was convenient at the time. See the Witch Lady.

 

From the tea party's standpoint, they're ok sacrificing near-term losses to DEMs to cultivate longer term leadership. They figure they can hold out over the longer term by ridding GOP of RINOs and then sequentially picking off DEMs. As there are more conservatives than liberals in the US, they figure they can wait out a few elections, especially if DEM leadership continues down the economic sinkhole.

[Doc]

Can't stand Sorkin's stuff. My wife was begging me to watch "West Wing" with her and I swear Sorkin learned the word "recused" right before writing the script, thought it was neat, and proceeded to make every character utter it after every other word.

 

In any case, a show about a news station on HBO means about as much to the real world as "Game of Thrones." Except that at least "GoT" has T&A going for it.

[OCinBuffalo]

After reading this thread a few things jump out at me:

 

1. We have posters here, who are misunderstanding Sorkin's misunderstanding of the TEA Party...and that's

 

2. So much BS has been ascribed to the TEA party(100% the media's fault) that liberals don't know how to fight them... and that's also . Their perception of the TEA party's characteristics, and the reality, is completely incongruent. Instead of dealing with who the actual TEA party members are, and their real political beliefs, liberals are fighting caricatures, and beliefs that have been shoddily attributed to them by the media....but neither is real.

 

That's why the TEA party will succeed. Liberals are fighting against made up monsters....when the real TEA party people are elsewhere, saying something different, and much more effective.

 

3. The TEA party uses tactics and weapons that the liberals have no counter against. An example of this is first predicated on the liberal lie/belief that Sarah Palin/Michelle Bachman/(insert punching bag here) is the leader of the TEA party. Therefore, they try to use the tactic of decapitation = go after the head, the body dies, etc. What they end up doing: going after what amounts to an unintentional decoy, and elevating people like Palin to undeserved levels that make her lots of undeserved $ and power to command attention.

 

The TEA party responds by exposing yet another waste of tax money, targets those politicians responsible(or any Republican that was tacitly involved or complacent in any way), organizes voters online, and kicks their ass, without the need for fund raising.

 

Meanwhile, the liberals are still on TV talking schit about Palin, etc. They never lay a glove on the actual TEA party: the actual thing that will be killing them in the polls next election. The misdiagnosis of the TEA party is hysterical. The level of hubris required to continually misrepresent and therefore be unable to deal with the TEA party effectively? Over and over?

 

Until liberals do some real introspection, and determine who/what they are really dealing with in the TEA party, this Vaudeville act will go on, I will keep laughing at them, and the TEA party will continue to kick their asses.

 

I was a huge West Wing fan, because the writing was great. But, Soorkin/MSNBC, etc. aren't doing liberals, or their cause, any good here. The TEA party isn't who they think, and the shameful thing is: they'd rather believe their own lies, rather than go find out who they really are.

Edited July 12, 2012 by OCinBuffalo

[birdog1960]

you must, therefore be in disbelief of the romney campaign memo re the tea party. reality sucks.

[NoSaint]

After reading this thread a few things jump out at me:

 

1. We have posters here, who are misunderstanding Sorkin's misunderstanding of the TEA Party...and that's

 

2. So much BS has been ascribed to the TEA party(100% the media's fault) that liberals don't know how to fight them... and that's also . Their perception of the TEA party's characteristics, and the reality, is completely incongruent. Instead of dealing with who the actual TEA party members are, and their real political beliefs, liberals are fighting caricatures, and beliefs that have been shoddily attributed to them by the media....but neither is real.

 

That's why the TEA party will succeed. Liberals are fighting against made up monsters....when the real TEA party people are elsewhere, saying something different, and much more effective.

 

3. The TEA party uses tactics and weapons that the liberals have no counter against. An example of this is first predicated on the liberal lie/belief that Sarah Palin/Michelle Bachman/(insert punching bag here) is the leader of the TEA party. Therefore, they try to use the tactic of decapitation = go after the head, the body dies, etc. What they end up doing: going after what amounts to an unintentional decoy, and elevating people like Palin to undeserved levels that make her lots of undeserved $ and power to command attention.

 

The TEA party responds by exposing yet another waste of tax money, targets those politicians responsible(or any Republican that was tacitly involved or complacent in any way), organizes voters online, and kicks their ass, without the need for fund raising.

 

Meanwhile, the liberals are still on TV talking schit about Palin, etc. They never lay a glove on the actual TEA party: the actual thing that will be killing them in the polls next election. The misdiagnosis of the TEA party is hysterical. The level of hubris required to continually misrepresent and therefore be unable to deal with the TEA party effectively? Over and over?

 

Until liberals do some real introspection, and determine who/what they are really dealing with in the TEA party, this Vaudeville act will go on, I will keep laughing at them, and the TEA party will continue to kick their asses.

 

I was a huge West Wing fan, because the writing was great. But, Soorkin/MSNBC, etc. aren't doing liberals, or their cause, any good here. The TEA party isn't who they think, and the shameful thing is: they'd rather believe their own lies, rather than go find out who they really are.

 

So who are these actual tea party mega minds I should be on the look out for?

[OCinBuffalo]

you must, therefore be in disbelief of the romney campaign memo re the tea party. reality sucks.

Why?

 

I think this could be credible, but I I have yet to see anybody confirm it. We've seen plenty of "secret stuff from global warming denier meeting" memos from the left that turn out to be BS, so, until somebody confirms it, I am just as likely to believe it as not.

 

But, that's the point of my post: tactics. The above just confirms what I have written: you are looking for a "leader of the TEA party" to stand against a wall and shoot. None exists. Oh sure, you'll tell yourself one day that it's definitely South Carolina Senator Jim Demint, or, the next day it's Bachman, or today...it's the Koch brothers.

 

You just don't get it. Perhaps you never will.

 

I hope you don't. This way I get to keep at your struggles with an otherwise simple concept, that your hubris and delusions prevent you from grasping. You especially, with your "I am more moral than you are because I'm a progressive" crap. That's a virtual lock to make this concept untenable for you.

 

So who are these actual tea party mega minds I should be on the look out for?

Hehe...

 

Yet another post that proves my point.

 

 

 

For everybody else:

See? They just can't comprehend it, can they?

 

More evidence that the TEA party lives in their blind spot. Must be the same place where objectivity, accountability and introspection lives as well.

[NoSaint]

Why?

 

I think this could be credible, but I I have yet to see anybody confirm it. We've seen plenty of "secret stuff from global warming denier meeting" memos from the left that turn out to be BS, so, until somebody confirms it, I am just as likely to believe it as not.

 

But, that's the point of my post: tactics. The above just confirms what I have written: you are looking for a "leader of the TEA party" to stand against a wall and shoot. None exists. Oh sure, you'll tell yourself one day that it's definitely South Carolina Senator Jim Demint, or, the next day it's Bachman, or today...it's the Koch brothers.

 

You just don't get it. Perhaps you never will.

 

I hope you don't. This way I get to keep at your struggles with an otherwise simple concept, that your hubris and delusions prevent you from grasping. You especially, with your "I am more moral than you are because I'm a progressive" crap. That's a virtual lock to make this concept untenable for you.

 

 

Hehe...

 

Yet another post that proves my point.

 

 

 

For everybody else:

See? They just can't comprehend it, can they?

 

More evidence that the TEA party lives in their blind spot. Must be the same place where objectivity, accountability and introspection lives as well.

 

So you can point to no office holders, candidates or speakers that would qualify as impressive? I wasn't looking for a leader but atleast a shining star or two? (and again, I'm certainly not left of center here)

 

Or would that give away the secrets to the other side reading this?

[3rdnlng]

Why?

 

I think this could be credible, but I I have yet to see anybody confirm it. We've seen plenty of "secret stuff from global warming denier meeting" memos from the left that turn out to be BS, so, until somebody confirms it, I am just as likely to believe it as not.

 

But, that's the point of my post: tactics. The above just confirms what I have written: you are looking for a "leader of the TEA party" to stand against a wall and shoot. None exists. Oh sure, you'll tell yourself one day that it's definitely South Carolina Senator Jim Demint, or, the next day it's Bachman, or today...it's the Koch brothers.

 

You just don't get it. Perhaps you never will.

 

I hope you don't. This way I get to keep at your struggles with an otherwise simple concept, that your hubris and delusions prevent you from grasping. You especially, with your "I am more moral than you are because I'm a progressive" crap. That's a virtual lock to make this concept untenable for you.

 

 

Hehe...

 

Yet another post that proves my point.

 

 

 

For everybody else:

See? They just can't comprehend it, can they?

 

More evidence that the TEA party lives in their blind spot. Must be the same place where objectivity, accountability and introspection lives as well.

 

 

Birdog objects to any candidate that would seek the backing of a rich guy. Koch bad. Soros good. Not to mention the Hollywood fund raisers.

[OCinBuffalo]

So you can point to no office holders, candidates or speakers that would qualify as impressive? I wasn't looking for a leader but atleast a shining star or two? (and again, I'm certainly not left of center here)

 

Or would that give away the secrets to the other side reading this?

This is you:

 

This is is the TEA party:

 

This is you trying to understand the TEA party:

 

This is what the TEA party does to you while you are talking = calling them racists, rather than thinking = understanding them:

 

 

Jesus...I am considering whether I should spell it out at a 5th grade reading level. It's very difficult for me not to because one on hand I don't like ignorance, on the other, it's funny , but mostly I just feel like I'd be wasting my time. I dunno.

[OCinBuffalo]

Bah...this is just too fascinating to pass up.

 

Ok, I have an approach I'd like to try. I will post a series of statements and you will reply with true/false to each of them. I will try to make them comprehensive, so that you can actually just give a true/false, but it's not easy so don't give me crap about it. We'll see how you, or anyone else, answers them. This will give us insight into whether the basic premises of the TEA party concept can be grasped:

 

1. Groups require strong, singular leadership, and a well-defined organizational chart to be successful. This way everyone knows their role and co-operates with other members. When everyone is moving in the same direction, the group can be effective.

 

2. A political party must have a consistent message delivered by competent professionals to be effective.

 

3. A political party organizational structure will always evolve towards being based on power and money. Those who contribute the most money will always be in charge of the message and direction, and more often than not either be or select the leadership. Those that are selected derive their power from money. However, there are exceptions where an individual member's power comes from support of the group, and the money follows.

 

4. Political parties require populist leaders to fire up the rank and file. The policy wonks work for those leaders as advisers. The big donors either select the leaders, or, they select the wonks that will advise the leaders. Wonks are never allowed to lead the party. The only wonks who are, are also good populist leaders.(Think Bill Clinton or Paul Ryan)

 

5. We must have a centralized plan for a political movement. Policy must emanate from the top and be disseminated down to rank and file, so that we are all on the same page, and we don't contradict each other.

 

There, that should be good enough to get started. It will be interesting to see the answers. Well, I think so anyway I'll come back this time tomorrow and see what the answers are, and we can go from there.

Edited July 12, 2012 by OCinBuffalo