Follow TV Tropes

Following

Discussion YMMV / TheNewsroom

Go To

You will be notified by PM when someone responds to your discussion
Type the word in the image. This goes away if you get known.
If you can't read this one, hit reload for the page.
The next one might be easier to see.
Severen Since: May, 2010
Aug 2nd 2012 at 5:24:38 PM •••

"Tropes Are Tools: With regards to the Writer on Board example. For (most) liberals, it's well-written intellectual porn of the most satisfying kind. For conservatives, it's yet another show they can point at as they wail about "the liberal agenda". Everyone's happy."

No, they're not.

I can't even begin to describe the massive Unfortunate Implications of this post. Most conservatives I know are not happy to have this show around simply to point fingers at it. Rather, they'd prefer see a well-written show that isn't full of Strawman Political and Fox News Liberal archetypes aimed at them. They don't point fingers at shows like this because they're happy; they do it because they're angry. They're angry at constantly being portrayed in a blatantly Strawman fashion and, for once, would like to see something different.

But, as we all know, conservatives are all petty, stupid and illiterate, and are only capable of deriving joy from insulting and harming others, and it takes a well-educated liberal to appreciate true art. Seriously, this post is beyond offensive; it's full-blown insulting. The post is also quite slanted, implying that liberals are happy because they have a good, intelligent show to watch, while conservatives are happy because they get to be petty and wail about a "liberal agenda" (which the post seems to imply is a figment of said conservative's imagination). I also can't help but notice that the "most" in parentheses is only included with "liberals", implying that while liberals are a diverse lot, conservatives are all the same.

And liberals wonder why the political climate is so divided right now.

Edited by Severen Hide / Show Replies
RoseAndHeather Since: Aug, 2011
Aug 2nd 2012 at 5:41:36 PM •••

Whoa, hello Completely Missing The Point.

1. Most of that post was snark. I'm sorry if you missed it, but it was.

2. Sorkin is very, very well known for pandering to a liberal point of view, and has never pretended to do anything else. If the show even pretended to be unbiased in the matter, sure, you'd have an excellent case for Unfortunate Implications existing. I'd join you. But it never pretends to be anything other than liberal fantasy intellectual porn. I can understand the conservative frustration with the lack of unbiased representation in fiction - hello, I have to listen to Fox News all day, and I'm getting sick of the lack of unbiased representation on my news channels - but if conservatives want unbiased representation, why the hell are they looking for it in an Aaron Sorkin show?? That's like someone picking up a Nora Roberts novel and complaining that there's not enough focus on the mystery and too much on the romance!

This show is designed to pander to a liberal perspective. I never once stated that the liberal agenda didn't exist. It does, as far as this show is concerned, anyway. In fact, I openly acknowledged it on the main page! "Basically, Aaron Sorkin has a liberal agenda visible from space." I'm sorry if that upsets you, but it's not unfortunate implications to acknowledge the truth of an author's biases. The fact that Sorkin is a master of dialogue, and thus the show truly is "well-written", does not erase those biases. Sorkin is using these tropes as tools, and for his target audience, they work.

As for the rest of your accusations - I can only assume that you're pissed off about something other than a blatantly politically slanted television show with a small-to-middling audience that will likely last no more than a couple of dozen episodes before being cancelled, as the trend has been for all of Sorkin's shows lately, because if you honestly believe that this show, as opposed to a show written by someone who has not based his career on writing exactly this sort of frothy liberal political porn, is going to singlehandedly redeem the conservative character on television, I want whatever you're smoking.

I'll take off the snark because it obviously hit you in the wrong place, although I would like to make it clear that it has nothing to do with any alleged unfortunate implications and everything to do with the fact that I hate upsetting people, even if they are of a completely opposite political ideology and one with which I vehemently disagree on every conceivable point. But the trope stands.

Edited by RoseAndHeather I serve at the pleasure of President Pritchart.
Severen Since: May, 2010
Aug 4th 2012 at 8:52:51 AM •••

Okay, first off, you've completely missed the point (either that, or you're deliberately taking me out of context). I wasn't talking about the show; I was talking about the post.

"Most of that post was snark. I'm sorry if you missed it, but it was."

Snark can be offensive as well, especially if it's a blatant lie.

"This show is designed to pander to a liberal perspective."

I know that.

I'm well aware of Sorkin's politics and penchant for naive idealism. And I never even implied that conservatives were looking for unbiased material in this new show, or anything by Sorkin. The majority of your post is rambling nonsense, ranting about a complaint I never made.

What I was angry about was the post of TropesAreTools that implied that "conservatives are happy to have another liberal TV show to point fingers at and complain about the liberal agenda". This is a massive untruth, not to mention full of Unfortunate Implications: that conservatives are petty, mean and, as I mentioned earlier, only derive happiness from pointing fingers at opponents and complaining about them. So, the claim of "everyone's happy" is just plain false.

"I have to listen to Fox News all day"

Really? How is that? Is someone putting a gun to your head and forcing you to watch the network? Short of that, there's no way your complaint could be true.

RoseAndHeather Since: Aug, 2011
Aug 4th 2012 at 11:23:35 AM •••

Uh, it's true because I live in one of the most conservative areas of the country, and guess what's playing as background noise everywhere I go?

And as for the topic of your rant - that was snark. It was not meant to be taken literally. Anyone who would mean for it to be taken literally is a blind idiot. I may detest conservatives and everything you stand for, but I have no clue what conservatives think about this show. Quite frankly, I don't care. It was a flippant remark that was not meant to be taken seriously, and the fact that you still believe it was means that it is not, in fact, me who is completely missing the point.

You're trying to turn this into a political debate. It is not political debate. It was a joke. And I'm done. I don't have to justify myself to you.

I serve at the pleasure of President Pritchart.
Severen Since: May, 2010
Aug 4th 2012 at 2:21:28 PM •••

"Uh, it's true because I live in one of the most conservative areas of the country, and guess what's playing as background noise everywhere I go?"

Funny. I live in a relatively conservative area, and I'm not forced to watch Fox News wherever I go. Maybe it's because I don't pay attention to what's on cable news, even if it's playing in the background. Do you really have to pay attention to any television that happens to be on in the area? I sure don't.

"I may detest conservatives and everything you stand for"

Me? I'm sorry, but when did I, personally, identify as conservative? I may stick up for them, because I have a number of conservative friends, but I've never identified as such.

"You're trying to turn this into a political debate."

It was already a political debate. The very existence of this show is meant to inspire political debate.

And don't give me this crap of "it's just a joke". Jokes can range an entire spectrum, and, at least half of the time, are meant to offend. Consider the work of comedians like Lenny Bruce, George Carlin, and Bill Hicks. They made jokes that were specifically intended to offend supposedly reactionary forces of the status quo. Whether or not they do so is a matter of personal opinion, but the idea that no one should be offended by a joke is completely absurd.

And personally, I don't care whether or not this "joke", as you put it, was meant to offend. The fact is, it doesn't belong on this wiki, wether in the YMMV section, or not.

Edited by Severen
blackcat MOD Since: Apr, 2009
Aug 4th 2012 at 2:42:28 PM •••

Moderator speaking: This is an awful lot of hooting and hollering about whether or not a trope should be on the page. Everyone back up about ten paces and make the discussion about the trope and the show. Your opinion and your opinion of other people's opinions are not the topic to be discussed. If you find you can't do that then walk away from the page. Continuing the discussion in the present vein and allowing it to escalate into a war will result in loss of edit privileges.

Severen Since: May, 2010
TwilightChronicles Since: Jun, 2011
Nov 8th 2013 at 12:41:51 PM •••

I think at least Don/Sloan should be Fan-Preferred Couple because A) they were not established from the beginning like Will/Mac and Jim/Maggie, and B) people shipped them even before they started teasing it, although admittedly, a lot of those were just looking for Ship Mates to Jim/Maggie.

CaptainCrawdad Since: Aug, 2009
Nov 9th 2012 at 1:00:48 PM •••

Removed:

  • Unfortunate Implications: Some have noticed a sporadic, inconsistent tendency to be degrading towards women, but it's not so much really bad as it is just kinda weird and most likely unintended given this is Aaron Sorkin we're talking about.

This is a lot of hedging and waffling around a pretty strong accusation without any explanation. If someone supports this trope, could you re-add it with some kind of example so people know what you're talking about?

Hide / Show Replies
Jordan Since: Jan, 2001
Nov 9th 2012 at 7:53:51 PM •••

Would it be acceptable to post an article on that topic? Because I remember coming across several articles noting all of the sexism in the show. Like this one, for instance.

I'm asking because I'm not sure how Unfortunate Implications examples work now that it isn't a YMMV trope (or is it?)

Edited by Jordan Hodor
RoseAndHeather Since: Aug, 2011
Mar 3rd 2013 at 12:06:31 AM •••

Yeah, you have to cite Unfortunate Implications examples now. If you've got an outside source saying the same thing, go ahead and post. (Whether the articles are right or not is a whole other can of worms, but fortunately that doesn't matter in this context.)

I serve at the pleasure of President Pritchart.
Kaywinnet Since: Dec, 2009
Sep 3rd 2013 at 10:27:03 AM •••

Okay, I re-added it - I haven't edited in a while, but given the sheer volume of critcism and debate about The Newsroom's portrayal of gender, it was really bugging me that there wasn't anything on it. How is it now?

Severen Since: May, 2010
Mar 3rd 2013 at 12:01:20 AM •••

Deleting this political Natter:

  • Harsher in Hindsight: Will is very upset that the Republican Party blocks his effort to moderate a Republican Primary debate in which he would proactively hold the candidates accountable for their talking points. In real life, during the 2012 Presidential Debates, moderator Candy Crowly was harshly criticized by right-wing pundits for pointing out during the debate that one of Romney's talking points was factually incorrect.

Crowley admitted almost immediately afterward that she, not Romney, was in fact wrong on the subject, and that it was wrong to interject like that. Also, "right-wing pundits" were far from the only people harshly criticizing her for that screwup (try every fact-checker on the internet).

Seriously, does the person who added this example even keep up with the news?

TrollBrutal Since: Nov, 2010
Feb 20th 2013 at 12:13:51 PM •••

Removed

  • What The Hell Casting Agency: Japanese fluency and in-universe fanservice reasons aside, Olivia Munn's diction is not very clear, which makes her an odd choice for an anchor because sometimes she is barely intelligible on-air.

No bashing involved or meant. Seems to be highly subjective and not sufficiently clear-cut, the in-universe reasons do count for something after all... To be readded if the ask the troper query says so or anyone else concurs on the unintelligible part or a solid review on the subject is found etc. Some professional remarks talk about miscast parts, but Sloan's is not included in the pack as far as I know.

Edited by TrollBrutal Hide / Show Replies
RoseAndHeather Since: Aug, 2011
Feb 20th 2013 at 1:56:33 PM •••

I didn't have a problem understanding her diction whatsoever, and that's a problem I've had with people in my day-to-day life. That seems more like a personal thing than an example of WTHCA.

I serve at the pleasure of President Pritchart.
Top