The Newsroom

New HBO show coming June 24. Staring Jeff Daniels. It's a show about a news anchor that loses his shit in an interview and goes off one what America sucks and the downward spiral his career takes.

2 minute long trailer

edited 29th Apr '12 9:52:24 PM by vanthebaron

It's been done. Still, looks worth a watch.

I have a feeling a lot of people will be comparing it to Network

Yeah, but I have a feeling that will pass though. For one thing, it's Sorkin, which means it will be more idealistic than Network by a fair bit.

I'm intrigued by this show. I think it has a lot of potential.

I'm wary about Sorkin writing about TV again. He's very proud of his insider's viewpoint, but too often it turns into a seminar on how the whole business works.

First episode just ended. It definitely has potential, and certainly makes me wish we had reporting like that when the BP oil spill was happening.

There's still the question of whether it will live up to the potential it has, but the first episode was a positive step.

Oh good lord I missed having a good Sorkin show to follow. (I grew up on West Wing, so.)

I definitely thought the first episode started off strong. Struck the usual Sorkin balance of interpersonal drama and political walk-and-talk. So far I'm not super sold on the Will/Mackenzie dramatangle. I'm much more interested in Maggie's whole mess. She reminds me of Donna in the best ways (and I'm a big fan of Alison Pill).

Can't wait for next week.

~Duk

So, HBO has the first episode up on Youtube.

Only eleven minutes in, but looking good. I always do like Sorkin.

Question: Is the whole thing just a vehicle for Sorkin to rant at length about his political and social beliefs and have everyone applaud them, and does it portray the idea of a journalist being really opinionated and partisan as a good thing?

Dude, I don't care if it is a rant. I'm just starving for some words in a speech that work.

I teared up in the rant sparked by the "greatest country" question, and I'm not even a US-ian, anymore.

On the latter issue, Sorkin seemed to be decrying newsmedia's lack of critical edge when going after all parties, mistaking factual coverage for flacid reporting that seeks to appease everyone. (And I'm sure he'll inevitably go after the more partisan, spectacle based trends, I'm sure.) He's pushing for actual, relevant news, rather than partisan propaganda.

And on the former, yeah, of course — though Jeff Daniel's character is shown to be demonstrably wrong on several points, so he's not really a mouthpiece for anything. Plus, if The West Wing's anything to go by, Sorkin's left wing. Daniel's claims to be right.

(Anyone who says this show is bashing Millennials is plain wrong and have clearly haven't watched past the credits sequence.)

That said, my grip on politics isn't the strongest. Check it out for yourself, you tell me!

Daniels' character calls the girl who asked the question "a member of without a doubt the worst period generation period ever period!"

Let's not act like the accusation has no merit whatsoever.

Oh, yeah, totally. I can see why they'd say that. They're still wrong.

That accusation just plain ignores that three Millenials effectively saved the day, aided by a Gen Y, so it can't be bashing them. Plus that ending throws the protag's earlier statement into doubt, and suggests that perhaps his view on the issue isn't necessarily the show's view.

I'm thinking it's the same critical approach you're meant to take to the protagonist of Girls, or Veep.

edited 30th Jun '12 12:14:24 AM by Nicknacks

Okay, there's an entry on the YMMV page that accuses the show of using Straw Politicians to represent the Tea Party. While I agree that the portrayal of the Tea Party is obviously negative, are they really made of straw if the representation is accurate?

Yeah, I adjusted it. The show certainly shows the worst of the Tea Party, but really, there's not much else to show...

Although take my words with a grain of salt, I'm a dyed-in-the-wool Maddow liberal.

Nice correction. That could have been an edit war pretty easily. Way to go.

Thank you. :D

@Nick: initially, I just found it more funny then anything, since going by his age, Will seems to be a Baby Boomer.

Given that half the cast seems to be Millennials and Gen Y's who keep the show running, Will comes across as kind of a curmudgeon who isn't as smart as he thinks, is called on cussing out the college girl by pretty much everyone, and it's a Sorkin work, I'm going to hedge a bet that Will's view will change as the show goes on.

edited 12th Jul '12 12:07:54 AM by ZeiqthePyro

Sorkin really likes pointing out the Golden Mean Fallacy so far. I have a feeling that as the show goes on (and starting already), it's going to become his go-to excuse whatever he wants to argue something, as in "this is one of those issues where there is no compromise or middle ground, because my views are the right ones!"

edited 12th Jul '12 6:48:40 PM by unfound

I think last weeks ep was all the more powerful because Will (a right winger) was calling the tea party out. If he was left wing it would have just been bashing.

Sorkin is pointing the Golden Mean Fallacy all the time because it's something that modern news outlets love to use when they don't want to appear "biased", even when one side is clearly wrong, and this show is essentially a critique of the media and the impact it has on society.

Now granted, Sorkin will likely use this to soapbox the righteousness of his own opinions and views on what X, Y, and Z should be, but that's a feature of his works, not a bug.

edited 15th Jul '12 1:49:59 PM by ZeiqthePyro

Fuck me the last 10 minutes were fucking intense.

the end made my heart happy. YOU TELL THE MUD SLINGING BITCH WHAT'S WHAT WILL!

They're going at a pretty brisk pace, aren't they? They've already cleared 2010 and are making their way through the Arab Spring. At this rate they're going to catch up to current events some time in their second season.

...On a more controversial note, I kinda want to add the Big Bad trope to the page, because that's what they seem to be presenting the Koch brothers as. Their actions as presented in the show certainly point in that direction, but the problem is that they're real people. On the other hand, my attempts to check their facts online haven't found any clear contradictions. Is it acceptable to make a semi-real life entry in a "No Real Life Examples Please" trope if the entry emphasizes that they are merely presented that way in the story? I'm pretty sure it would be okay if it were a real person used in a work of historical fiction, but this particular show is sticking to a policy of being very strongly based on truth.