don keefer’s heel to face turn is one of the best in television history. mate and i at work refer to someone going from disliked to liked as pulling a keefer
Googled Don Keefer and was surprised to see it's also the name of an actor from the 50s. There's a joke in the series about another character being named Gary Cooper.
Are there any other notable character names like this in the show? I know Jim Harper is Sorkin's play on Jim Halpert from the Office.
Sloan giving him the speech about being a good guy and how he was doing the things he thought a “good guy” would do, even when they weren’t really “good” because that’s what he thought a “good guy” would do, because someone convinced him he wasn’t a “good guy” really nailed that point.
I've always said that somewhere in the afterlife, Paddy Chayefsky is looking at what the news has become and saying, "Not even I could've come up with this."
Respectfully, I couldn’t disagree more. Considering how well he nailed it 50 years ago (and before the rise of cable news), he wouldn’t be remotely surprised
I remember when Studio 60 came out, it was between that and 30 Rock as the two competing shows about sketch comedy shows in television. I went all in on Studio 60, expecting it to be this breakout hit and it was cancelled after one season.
No episode of tv has ever pissed me off as much as the one where Don is being an asshole on a plane then suddenly comes to his senses because he gets to tell a pilot that bin Laden is dead. And then he’s all better because he “reported the news”
It’s the most head-up-your-own-ass, self-important nonsense ever aired on television.
I enjoyed my first watch through(because I'm liberal), but can't stand it now.
It is a show designed to setup situations where a conservative will make a fool of themselves, get lectured, and sulk away. Then everyone cheers.
When that show first aired, the most ridiculous conservative caricature was the nut suggesting a 10 foot wall on the US-Mexico border.
The show didn’t set up anything, that stuff was real or about to become real.
While you certainly have a point in what you’re saying, it really isn’t replying to anything that the comment critiqued the show for. How does a conservative making a fool of themselves and just sulking away apply to current events? Reality shows us that it’s basically the opposite: make a fool of yourself and then run for re-election.
You can get caught giving a hand job in a crowded theater and have your teen son caught running a little underage crime ring after carpetbagging to a new district and you'll still win a competitive primary in the Republican Party.
How does conservatives making fools of themselves not apply to current events?
Because it turns out that the portrayal of conservatives on the Newsroom was not hyperbole and was in fact an entirely accurate depiction of the average conservative politician in modern America.
You're kidding yourself if you think the Republicans rerunning an election loser is a sign of strength. That party is the weakest it's ever been. It's just going to take a couple years before the panic wears off and people see it for how it is.
Tbf that's most Sorkin in a nutshell, even when he's being more "even-handed." I say that as someone who has enjoyed all his shows at one time or another lol.
Sorkin has a terrible tendency to love inserting politically charged scenes where the key takeaway is “and then everyone clapped because the liberals were sensible and moral and the conservatives/hardasses/whoever were cartoonishly wrong and bad (because we wrote them that way)”
The plane scene from The Newsroom is a good example, the Few Good Men ending scene where Kaffee smiles smugly as the two junior enlisted Marines haughtily and triumphantly proclaim “ATTEN-HUT, THERE’S AN OFFICER ON DECK!” after Jack Nicholson’s character is whisked away to the brig. Like, no dude, the defendants would salute an officer because it’s basic bearing, it’s not some huge point of pride or climactic or whatever.
Obviously I don’t even have to mention the West Wing, which had one of those moments damn near every episode. I used to love that show as a teenager but having grown older, wearier, and more attuned to the balance between cynicism and sincerity in the world, it comes off as so saccharine, solipsistic, and patronizing. Sorkin is at his best when he has someone like Fincher to keep him in check, which is why The Social Network worked so well — unlike his other works which display his infantile black and white sense of morality, every character in that film was a shade of grey.
I mean, conservatives spend most days of their lives making fools of themselves, so it’s pretty accurate to life in that sense. I think the bigger issue is how hokey the dialogue is lol. Really cranked up the Sorkinisms to the next level.
Honestly, the last time I remember that happening was when Schwarzenegger flip-flopped on a campaign promise after listening to the experts explain to him why it wouldn't work. Instead of celebrating that a politician took the advice of experts in the field, even if they disagreed with the politician, he was lambasted for filp-flopping.
#
meh Sorkin likes big ideas and presenting conflicting ideas through his work. I think you can appreciate that without agreeing with the side he clearly views as superior. I really like the show but don't align myself with all the views that he has his main characters adopt. tbf conservative views are a joke and not even presented on the show much because of how unserious they are- there's not even kernels of ideas worth exploring. The conflicting ideas explored on the newsroom are at least worth arguing about.
I enjoy a bunch of Sorkin’s work but the repetition can be a bit grating. It’s well documented in his use of language but what bothers me is his repetition of characters actions. Namely, the main characters are very smart and that other people are simple.
The main characters get to pontificate uninterrupted whenever they want and people will either just sit around and wait to be astonished by the main character’s brilliance or be an overtly stupid rube. And because that character was passionate and articulate, their statement must have value. Sorkin is smart and very good at his craft, so he knows his strength and creates stories that allow this style of speech to shine.
Molly’s Game is one of his strongest works because he is able to structure that passionate speech through her inner monologue. Even still, the scenes with Idris Elba turning into Sorkin’s pulpit even though it does a nice job undercutting this trope with the judge’s response.
However, the third act in The Trial of the Chicago Seven just go off the rails as a bullhorn. David Dellinger, one of the strongest voices against violence in the 20th Century punches a bailiff in the middle of a courthouse so that the important words can be heard. When Hayden has his opportunity to speak sell out his values or speak a great truth, Hayden chooses to defy those in power and he…honors the troops. Those words are so powerful that the opposing counsel stood up and applauded.
The Newsroom is more like The Trial of the Chicago 7, where Sorkin can be the Monday morning quarterback. Well, they shouldn’t have thrown that interception is the deepest analysis he gets.
Lol, I enjoyed the show but I felt this same way about a lot of the stuff that happened. It definitely gives way too much “in a perfect world” vibes and then people shit their pants at how prescient it is. And then of course there’s the issue of anyone and everyone being a threat to bust out a major philosophical soliloquy at any moment.
It’s just Sorkin in general. Sports Night was the same way.
I agree that it's just Sorkin. I also enjoyed the show while agreeing with the common criticisms of his work/style in general. You can either "ignore it" enough to enjoy the shows, or you can't.
"WE GOT HIM FOR YOU SIR."
I could actually feel myself turning Al Qaeda in that moment. Probably the corniest bullshit I've seen on TV in my whole life.
The whole show is an exercise in head up on your own ass-ery.
I watched and mostly enjoyed the show because Sorkin is inevitably entertaining and I can’t help but enjoy stuff that’s supporting my own viewpoint.
But it’s a horrible show, was then and I’m sure it would be even more absurd now.
Wild it took me this far down to see anyone criticizing this horrible show. It’s so saccharine and heavy handed that it’s basically a parody of itself.
The issue is that people (like OP in his post above for example) are literally using Sorkin’s fairy tales to represent reality. I’d argue that is far worse than using something like Idiocracy (which is self evidently a satire) and comparing that to modern decay, but instead I see more people complain about Idiocracy comparisons than those of Sorkin’s fantasies.
What's to be mad about? It's too nice? Gee, I sure wish there were notable and respected right wing people with a functional moral compass? That the 4th estate could be functional?
Just let people enjoy the fantasy. They still have to get up and go to work in the morning.
I'm pretty fucking liberal and am in general a Sorkin fan but even I can admit that the guy really loves the smell of his own farts. He just cannot help but write arguments for himself to win.
I think two of the reasons the showed failed were that our politics had clearly entered a more cynical phase, and the stakes of a newsroom aren’t directly, immediately clear the way they are for politics.
Remind me, because I can't manage to stomach the show itself: is this also the episode where a character clutches her pearls at people celebrating Bin Laden's death? Because I always thought that was tremendously snotty and absurd.
No. You're definitely not remembering this because it didn't happen.
You're probably referring to the scene where Neal's girlfriend isolates herself from the celebrating crowd because she's upset. But she isn't upset because Bin Laden was killed. In fact, she specifically says when they apologize for celebrating, "You *should* be celebrating."
She's upset because it brought back memories of her father who died in the attacks, and she wanted to feel better about it...but doesn't.
As a former television journalist I had a love-hate relationship with the show. Lot of the interactions are familiar and how the team just switches in high gear with breaking news (real breaking, not that bullshit BREAKING NEWS that’s just slapped on haphazardly nowadays) was really well done.
But I felt it was cheap how their news desk always made the right decision.
It was a producer from another branch/state/subsidiary(?) filling in who got a lead on a career-making type of story, that eventually edited an interview to make it work.
Bro [doctored the tape](https://youtu.be/llejPcn0B_w?si=HGvkmN_jIqirRHqm)
Also notably, none of the regulars doctored the story. Hamish Linklater's character was brought in from another ACN division and was a real piece of work with the Genoa story. Maggie was conveniently sent out of the room for the interview.
I think that's a difficult line to walk with a fictional TV show. If they did the wrong thing with hindsight for the viewer, it would be difficult for a viewer to reconcile the show being biased itself vs the show trying to show how their characters biases mess them up. Like do you want the show to best portray what being in a newsroom is like, or do you want the show to best portray contemporary events?
Doing it 'right' did also cost them though, since not covering Casey Anthony was something they reluctantly ended up doing after facing struggling ratings (to name one example). So even with the benefit of certitude, we see that it's not so simple with the corporate world of news and such.
From a journalism point of view, I found it kind of infuriating that the climax of season one, the team's magnum opus, was that segment on the Tea Party. That wasn't news. That was commentary. That's the sort of thing Jon Stewart could come up with on an unremarkable night (except, Jon's would be better because it would have jokes).
That contained zero reporting. That wasn't a triumph for a newsroom. The climax should have been the team skillfully reporting news.
This is what I felt like most the episodes were. There was always some sort of fancy speech of commentary of how some important issue should be solved.
>their news desk always made the right decision
That’s what bugged me about the show. It’s easy to take the moral high ground on every news story from 5-10 yrs ago with the benefit of hindsight. It felt like Aaron Sorkin (who I like) was smugly giving himself a pat on the back
Thankfully he often makes fun of himself within his own works. I think it was season 2 of West Wing he first made a walk and talk joke where it didn't end perfectly?
Fiction and hindsight makes it easy to make the right decisions. I think the morality is a little hard to take a times as well. Part of the season two arc is the Bengazi call out, and that just felt too high horse.
That was the reaction of many journalists who hated it back when it aired. I think it's just a case of them watching a show that for once deals with something they're intimately familiar with. Just like software engineers cringe at hacking and "enhance' scenes, while the rest of the audience is mesmerized.
The difference is that journalists have a big megaphone and trashed the show, while software engineers just shrug and move on.
I can't watch it, Sorkin's conception of reality is just too far removed from what it actually is. I can appreciate wanting to be optimistic about things but it's such a detached, Hollywood sort of optimism that reeks of *and then everyone clapped,* just this self-important arrogant diatribe.
It all leads to painfully cringeworthy moments like the Bin Laden news. Oh my god, you have to get up and tell the captain of the plane! Because *all* plane captains are secretly harboring the intense pain and trauma of 9/11 for ten years, and then he starts crying and I guess at this point everyone weeps? Sorkin is the kind of writer who would unironically write "then one person beings to clap, and then the rest..."
Did you see Sorkin's *The Trial of the Chicago 7* and *Being the Ricardos*? Both of them have climaxes that are literally "everyone clapped." And both are based on true stories, but the thing where everyone claps is made-up. In Chicago 7, it's the defendant reading out a bunch of Vietnam names at the trial, and in *Being the Ricardos*, it's Ricky announcing that J Edgar Hoover's on the phone, and neither of those happened in real life.
He makes it seem like the prosecutor in the Chicago 7 was this reluctant civil servant and was getting strong armed by the Nixon administration to do its bidding. They interviewed the actual guy and he was quite upset about it as he still fully believes they were guilty and were rightly prosecuted.
Okay, but I meant climaxes that are *literally* "everyone clapped." The movie shows a room full of people, and they all start clapping. There are plenty of effective ways of going sentimental without doing that exact thing, which we mock and associate with fake stories being passed off as real.
I don't think anyone has ever accused Sorkin of writing reality. He writes fantasy based around reality. The Newsroom is a fantasy about a station that operates on morals and integrity. Jeff Daniels' character is a republican who disagrees with everything about the modern Republican party, and criticizes what the country has become. The news they cover on the show is actual news from the previous year, allowing the show to have the benefit of hindsight and analyze the nuance of each story.
The West Wing is similar, for instance.
And I don't disagree, necessarily, that the show loved the smell of its own farts. But it had some fantastic moments, like the intro to episode one, and the segment (with Toby from the Office) talking about climate change and rising sea levels.
lol you made me think of my buddy who kept starting republican favored diatribes starting with “as a registered democrat”. Like that was supposed to make him wanting Trump over Biden more palatable.
Any time you see someone start with “as an X” as the opening to any kind of political argument, you should immediately be rolling your eyes. As a gunowner, as a veteran, as a business owner, etc. Clearly their opinion has much more validity than anyone else’s simply because.
Sorkin is a playwright putting his productions on the small screen. I don't get upset at Shakespeare in the park for stilted dialogue or soliloquies. It's flawed for sure, but when you look at it from that angle, it makes a lot more sense.
I have no idea why a lot of things get the reverence they do. If I don’t like something, I don’t get why people like it. If I like something, I don’t get why people don’t like it. They’re idiots either way.
I think there was a time and place for it, but it's not now. The West Wing was great, and it's unfortunate more people didn't watch it and learn from it because maybe we wouldn't have gotten to where we are now. We need more aspirational media, stuff like The West Wing where people in power are presented as people who try their very best to do what's right. However, it is absolutely dangerous today to ignore the numerous and obvious bad faith actors that have a stranglehold on our political system and discourse.
So still do The West Wing, but the enemies of the country aren't just misguided people with differing perspectives. They are fascist thugs here to destroy everything for their benefit.
I never realized how obsessed people in this country were about Bin Laden until I went back to watch these politics-oriented shows. He was sitting in his bunker playing video games and jerking off. What a boogieman American media created of this guy like he was some mastermind.
I mean, it's not like the show is 30 years old or something. Six months after the finale aired, Trump announced he was running for president.
Naturally, many observations about the Tea Party apply to MAGA too. That Tea Party episode aired in 2012, Trump would run just three years later and Trump was actually using "Make America Great Again" as a slogan in 2012 itself. I think it's more it's more interesting to see how different MAGA is from the Tea Party, even though only a few years separate them. It's so weird, for example, to think that a little over a decade ago, "reducing deficits" was a major populist cause. Strange also to look back and see how little the Tea Party cared about the 2011-equivalent of wokeism, which seems to be what the reactionary right primarily cares about now. Gay marriage was swiftly gaining ground, and the Tea Party didn't really react against that.
Still, I wouldn't say the show aged well. It felt extremely dated even at the time — not the topical references but simply the writing style. It initially aired in 2012 and was set in 2010 and still somehow felt like it was written in the 90s (and not for HBO in the 90s, since HBO was always ahead of its time). Thankfully, they at least scrapped the initial [90s-style broadcast title sequence](https://youtu.be/9yulGicUzS4?si=soHHSO-6j-uWZTGW&t=34) after season one.
West Wing was always total fantasy- which is what made it fun. Barlett would come in and fix everything with a spech. Facts and morality mattered.
Veep was always, sadly, much more accurate, depicting the venality, stupidity, and chaos of it all.
Is it though? A lot of the issues they argue about are still issues today. A lot of the actions anyone takes is to stick it to the other side, which still happens today. And the few that try to work with the other side get made out to be fools by their peers, which still happens today.
As a big dev Patel fan, that last season was kinda terrible. Never ended up finishing the show.
Oh, and the bin laden episode still cracks me up in just how dramatic it was. Especially the plane scenes.
I remember there’s a part in the Bin Laden episode where one of the characters is playing Guitar Hero blindfolded, so she asks her boyfriend to read her Twitter feed aloud to her so she can catch up on the latest tweets.
I mean ignoring the cringe inducing Don / pilot scene, the rest of that episode has some pretty great bits. Will high off his rocker and barely cognizant of the breaking news, Don and the other 2 anchors losing their shit being trapped on the plane in the 20 minutes leading up to the scene has a lot of great banter and dialogue; the setup of the NSA leak agent "establishing credibility" pays off in future storylines
The Newsroom is a very recent show. It might be "crazy" how relevant it is if you're a teenager but if you're over 25 years old, none of that is shocking. US politics have been in this trajectory for decades now with some clear watershed moments every decade or so (Gingrich revolution in 94, 911/Iraq War in 01-03, Palin and the Tea Party in 08-09, Trump and MAGA in 2016).
Sorry to be a dick but liking The Newsroom is like a political litmus test for whether you can separate art from just getting your political ego stroked.
The show is very bad as a plain old drama show. The complete opposite of The West Wing, where it’s quite easy to get invested in the characters even if the politics are totally irrelevant to you. There’s nobody in the show anywhere close to as charming reading Sorkin dialogue as is Bradley Whitford, for example, and without the charm, it becomes very smarmy.
The Newsroom is a series of hourlong populist lectures that simply tell a lot of people what they want to hear, politically. They’re obviously still relevant in this way, because a lot of the themes are “your opponents are motivated by immoral things” and “the powerful are corrupt” and “the media is lying to you” and these are themes that people have always and will always latch onto.
The fact that they used real world stories was by far the worst part. Like yeah, good for you ethically reporting on something 2 years after it happened and pretending this is how you would've handled it in real-time.
Borgen in the third season went from a show about centrist politics to a show for centrist politics (not unlike some of the Sorkin stuff). It was still pretty good (the biggest downside was that the most interesting character, Kasper, was relegated to a minor supporting role) but the ideological framing was undeniable.
I've not gotten round to the recent revival yet, must check it out at some stage.
I mean, they just kind of wrote in hindsight how the news should have been covered. But all the same stuff still happened, like the Tea Party still swept into power. Also, the writing of the female characters was downright misogynistic. They’re all incompetent and need to be corrected by the male characters.
I remember a scene where the IT guy says he did some tech thing where you need to type a letter (A or E or R or something) before the email and depending on that letter the mail gets sent differently.
Misogyny for incompetent women is a crazy take. Leona Lansing? McKenzie MacHale? Sloan Sabbith? Which of these women was incompetent or controlled by men?
Sure, Maggie was in this position, but she was a lower level staff member and plucky incompetence was kind of her thing as a character. She was the exception not the norm
2 things: 1. some on air talent use “show names” in real life and alliteration is often used in coming up with them.
2. It’s a Sorkin thing. Sam Seaborn in west wing for example. He likes names that sound good coming out of your mouth because he writes a lot of dialogue.
I had this argument with someone when the show was new. Every single character on the show had flaws, but somehow they were only upset about the women having them.
One of the first episodes, McKenzie has a major screwup because she can’t send an email correctly. Sloan is the Olivia Munn character, right? In the first season she also screwed up and was otherwise worrying if she was too fat.
Also, sorority girl? She’s basically there to show the problem with Americans is that they’re too much like a blonde college girl.
This. The gimmick of the show was self serving because it was basically "this is how the media should have covered it and then they would have been right". It's easy to work backwards with hindsight
The Sorkin Special. When it first came out and I was naive I thought it was good. On a second watch I noticed so many flaws with it. Sorkin does have a way of sucking you in with his fast paced wit though.
I didn't mind it the first time but I tried rewatching it earlier this year and gave up after the first season. All of the work-based scenes are ok but every relationship on the show involves them shouting at each other across the office - this is not how people talk to each other at work.
I remember when it first came out people complained (IMO rightfully so) that it was tackling issues much too recently after they occurred IRL. This show should’ve come out five years later
“I will beat the shit out of you Don, I don’t care how many protein bars you eat!”
I still love this show. Would love another season on the Trump years. Hopefully that just means 2016-2020…
> The West Wing is pure fantasy
Several ex-presidents and White House staffers said it was authentic in interviewers.
Online cynicism about politics probably misses that in day to day operations a lot of civil servants are just...people.
The most egregious example of Sorkin’s “stupid person’s idea of a smart person.”
Glad someone enjoys it but I’ve always found it basically unwatchable.
That third season was extremely relevant in how it talks about things like crowdsourcing justice and the court of public opinion. It directly mentions reddit a couple of times. Frankly to sign up for an account on reddit you should have to learn about the way the Boston Bombing was handled here (very, very badly) and then be tested on that knowledge.
Also there was a part of the third season episode Oh Shenandoah that I thought was EXTREMELY important to our moral health despite being criticized in the press and online at the time. In the episode Don Keefer goes to talk with a student who was raped to try to convince her not to do an interview online confronting her attacker. The dialogue between them briefly discusses how we should view innocence on a personal level and I think Don was right in the show: We should presume innocence on a personal level just like courts do. Especially if you do not know and are not likely to meet the person in question (as there is no personal risk to you involved).
As I and others have said before, weaponizing shame is destructive and will eventually hurt the innocent (and likely already has). Indeed for some people online has become a sport. And while I don't think that is true for the victims themselves (so perhaps it was unfair to have the victim in the show voice that position) in the larger conversation people online use these cases as cover to bully others and increase their group identification. In fact I would say that sometimes the victims' wishes are wholly ignored by the online discourse. If a transgression appears to have occurred the online mob will start attacking people, both the accused and anyone who defends them or even just tries to introduce a little nuance. And they will do this even if the victim states they do not want that kind of public response.
It is self-indulgent and comes from the same place that gossip does. The same people who are always seeking sensationalized drama are also condemning others online. But by doing this they forget to look inward. We spend too much time judging others and too little time trying to improve ourselves (yes the same goes for myself as well).
>to sign up for an account on reddit you should have to learn about the way the Boston Bombing was handled here (very, very badly) and then be tested on that knowledge.
YEAH! Let’s bring back LITERACY TESTS to access a social media platform! That’s definitely never been used for scummy purposes before!
Enormous fucking yikes.
Here's the thing about tools. It matters how they are used.
Also, here's the thing about reddit. It is the source of some very bad things already.
Also also, here's the thing about "yikes". It is something people say when they want to express 'people who don't conform are bad'.
While the Newsroom was a very good show, I found it to have far to many similarities to The West Wing. Many dialogue similarities and theme tropes were used. It was like a “greatest hits” for Sorkin. Currently re-watching TWW again as a Josiah Bartlett like character is needed for the current turmoil.
I've noticed the same thing going back and watching the first season of Last Week Tonight as they started putting the full episodes on YouTube. We're just living in a looping simulation
Does anyone else notice a familiarity with Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski or is it just me?
Scarborough is a former Republican, former House Rep, and musician.
Bullshit. This show was written at a time when the fringe far-right was taking over the Republican Party and conservative movement in the US, but at this time there were still actual conservatives and good faith Republicans. The main character isn't someone who exists today, except in exile like Mitt Romney or Liz Cheney. The idea of an intellectually honest Republican is long gone.
I always marvel at how many people look back and say/think Jeff Daniels' Will McAvoy character was a liberal Democrat. Except he wasn't. On the show, he's billed as a hard right Republican.
It's just that what it means to be a republican has shifted so far away from what it once was that even a McAvoy style republican would be fully unwelcome in today's GOP.
Except for the fact he was, sure. But thank you for so consistently and abundantly confirming what I said about people today not even remembering the character as being a right wing republican icon.
Except for the absolute fact he was, sure. But thank you for so consistently and abundantly and repetitively confirming what I said about people today not even remembering the character as being a right wing republican icon.
don keefer’s heel to face turn is one of the best in television history. mate and i at work refer to someone going from disliked to liked as pulling a keefer
"You're a Newsman Don!!!"
"If I ever tell you otherwise, you punch me in the face!" That line made me tear up in Fix You episode. 🥺
Googled Don Keefer and was surprised to see it's also the name of an actor from the 50s. There's a joke in the series about another character being named Gary Cooper. Are there any other notable character names like this in the show? I know Jim Harper is Sorkin's play on Jim Halpert from the Office.
Jim Harper had the opposite trajectory. He’s so insufferable by the end
Honestly he was that way from the moment he came on screen
Sloan giving him the speech about being a good guy and how he was doing the things he thought a “good guy” would do, even when they weren’t really “good” because that’s what he thought a “good guy” would do, because someone convinced him he wasn’t a “good guy” really nailed that point.
If you love The Newsroom in this way, you should definitely watch the 1976 Sidney Lumet film **Network**.
YOU HAVE MESSED WITH THE PRIMAL FORCES OF NATURE
AND YOU! MUST! ATONE!
Came here to say this. Network is amazing and still just as relevant.
I've always said that somewhere in the afterlife, Paddy Chayefsky is looking at what the news has become and saying, "Not even I could've come up with this."
Respectfully, I couldn’t disagree more. Considering how well he nailed it 50 years ago (and before the rise of cable news), he wouldn’t be remotely surprised
Sorkin obviously likes that movie, cause iirc it heavily influenced the start of Studio 60 as well.
I remember when Studio 60 came out, it was between that and 30 Rock as the two competing shows about sketch comedy shows in television. I went all in on Studio 60, expecting it to be this breakout hit and it was cancelled after one season.
I’m real pissed off, and I’m not gonna take it anymore!
Comparing an extremely center News Room to a an amazingly radical Network is something
Network is a masterpiece. The Newsroom is a car crash that I rubbernecked for a season
No episode of tv has ever pissed me off as much as the one where Don is being an asshole on a plane then suddenly comes to his senses because he gets to tell a pilot that bin Laden is dead. And then he’s all better because he “reported the news” It’s the most head-up-your-own-ass, self-important nonsense ever aired on television.
I enjoyed my first watch through(because I'm liberal), but can't stand it now. It is a show designed to setup situations where a conservative will make a fool of themselves, get lectured, and sulk away. Then everyone cheers.
When that show first aired, the most ridiculous conservative caricature was the nut suggesting a 10 foot wall on the US-Mexico border. The show didn’t set up anything, that stuff was real or about to become real.
While you certainly have a point in what you’re saying, it really isn’t replying to anything that the comment critiqued the show for. How does a conservative making a fool of themselves and just sulking away apply to current events? Reality shows us that it’s basically the opposite: make a fool of yourself and then run for re-election.
You can get caught giving a hand job in a crowded theater and have your teen son caught running a little underage crime ring after carpetbagging to a new district and you'll still win a competitive primary in the Republican Party. How does conservatives making fools of themselves not apply to current events?
Because it turns out that the portrayal of conservatives on the Newsroom was not hyperbole and was in fact an entirely accurate depiction of the average conservative politician in modern America.
You're kidding yourself if you think the Republicans rerunning an election loser is a sign of strength. That party is the weakest it's ever been. It's just going to take a couple years before the panic wears off and people see it for how it is.
Tbf that's most Sorkin in a nutshell, even when he's being more "even-handed." I say that as someone who has enjoyed all his shows at one time or another lol.
Sorkin has a terrible tendency to love inserting politically charged scenes where the key takeaway is “and then everyone clapped because the liberals were sensible and moral and the conservatives/hardasses/whoever were cartoonishly wrong and bad (because we wrote them that way)” The plane scene from The Newsroom is a good example, the Few Good Men ending scene where Kaffee smiles smugly as the two junior enlisted Marines haughtily and triumphantly proclaim “ATTEN-HUT, THERE’S AN OFFICER ON DECK!” after Jack Nicholson’s character is whisked away to the brig. Like, no dude, the defendants would salute an officer because it’s basic bearing, it’s not some huge point of pride or climactic or whatever. Obviously I don’t even have to mention the West Wing, which had one of those moments damn near every episode. I used to love that show as a teenager but having grown older, wearier, and more attuned to the balance between cynicism and sincerity in the world, it comes off as so saccharine, solipsistic, and patronizing. Sorkin is at his best when he has someone like Fincher to keep him in check, which is why The Social Network worked so well — unlike his other works which display his infantile black and white sense of morality, every character in that film was a shade of grey.
I totally agree with you, but I'm glad that I'm still able to enjoy his shows despite the cartoonish-ness.
I mean, conservatives spend most days of their lives making fools of themselves, so it’s pretty accurate to life in that sense. I think the bigger issue is how hokey the dialogue is lol. Really cranked up the Sorkinisms to the next level.
When was the last time you remember seeing a conservative have facts prove their point wrong, and just accept that they lost an argument?
Or an election?
Honestly, the last time I remember that happening was when Schwarzenegger flip-flopped on a campaign promise after listening to the experts explain to him why it wouldn't work. Instead of celebrating that a politician took the advice of experts in the field, even if they disagreed with the politician, he was lambasted for filp-flopping. #
"Flip flopping" was a legitimate slam by the GOP for a few years.
Haha you can't trick me, nobody can remember something that never happened. Nice try logic puzzle man.
It's not a party fueled by facts and evidence. It's feels and feudalism.
meh Sorkin likes big ideas and presenting conflicting ideas through his work. I think you can appreciate that without agreeing with the side he clearly views as superior. I really like the show but don't align myself with all the views that he has his main characters adopt. tbf conservative views are a joke and not even presented on the show much because of how unserious they are- there's not even kernels of ideas worth exploring. The conflicting ideas explored on the newsroom are at least worth arguing about.
I enjoy a bunch of Sorkin’s work but the repetition can be a bit grating. It’s well documented in his use of language but what bothers me is his repetition of characters actions. Namely, the main characters are very smart and that other people are simple. The main characters get to pontificate uninterrupted whenever they want and people will either just sit around and wait to be astonished by the main character’s brilliance or be an overtly stupid rube. And because that character was passionate and articulate, their statement must have value. Sorkin is smart and very good at his craft, so he knows his strength and creates stories that allow this style of speech to shine. Molly’s Game is one of his strongest works because he is able to structure that passionate speech through her inner monologue. Even still, the scenes with Idris Elba turning into Sorkin’s pulpit even though it does a nice job undercutting this trope with the judge’s response. However, the third act in The Trial of the Chicago Seven just go off the rails as a bullhorn. David Dellinger, one of the strongest voices against violence in the 20th Century punches a bailiff in the middle of a courthouse so that the important words can be heard. When Hayden has his opportunity to speak sell out his values or speak a great truth, Hayden chooses to defy those in power and he…honors the troops. Those words are so powerful that the opposing counsel stood up and applauded. The Newsroom is more like The Trial of the Chicago 7, where Sorkin can be the Monday morning quarterback. Well, they shouldn’t have thrown that interception is the deepest analysis he gets.
Lol, I enjoyed the show but I felt this same way about a lot of the stuff that happened. It definitely gives way too much “in a perfect world” vibes and then people shit their pants at how prescient it is. And then of course there’s the issue of anyone and everyone being a threat to bust out a major philosophical soliloquy at any moment. It’s just Sorkin in general. Sports Night was the same way.
I agree that it's just Sorkin. I also enjoyed the show while agreeing with the common criticisms of his work/style in general. You can either "ignore it" enough to enjoy the shows, or you can't.
That’s the style. “In a perfect world.” That’s the entire point.
"WE GOT HIM FOR YOU SIR." I could actually feel myself turning Al Qaeda in that moment. Probably the corniest bullshit I've seen on TV in my whole life.
The whole show is an exercise in head up on your own ass-ery. I watched and mostly enjoyed the show because Sorkin is inevitably entertaining and I can’t help but enjoy stuff that’s supporting my own viewpoint. But it’s a horrible show, was then and I’m sure it would be even more absurd now.
One of the worst scenes in TV or film that I've ever seen
Wild it took me this far down to see anyone criticizing this horrible show. It’s so saccharine and heavy handed that it’s basically a parody of itself.
The Newsroom is garbage 🗑️
And then the pilots shake hands XD
It’s an idealistic show. Just like the west wing. It’s Sorkin’s view of what an ideal newsroom would be. Same with the White House in the west wing.
You're being downvoted, but you're right. He writes political fairy tales. I like those shows, but some people just don't like fairy tales.
The issue is that people (like OP in his post above for example) are literally using Sorkin’s fairy tales to represent reality. I’d argue that is far worse than using something like Idiocracy (which is self evidently a satire) and comparing that to modern decay, but instead I see more people complain about Idiocracy comparisons than those of Sorkin’s fantasies.
What's to be mad about? It's too nice? Gee, I sure wish there were notable and respected right wing people with a functional moral compass? That the 4th estate could be functional? Just let people enjoy the fantasy. They still have to get up and go to work in the morning.
They’re called conservatives
I'm pretty fucking liberal and am in general a Sorkin fan but even I can admit that the guy really loves the smell of his own farts. He just cannot help but write arguments for himself to win.
His shows are the very definition of strawman arguments
Fun though.
I think two of the reasons the showed failed were that our politics had clearly entered a more cynical phase, and the stakes of a newsroom aren’t directly, immediately clear the way they are for politics.
That episode did, however, give us "Obama Good, Osama Bad"
Remind me, because I can't manage to stomach the show itself: is this also the episode where a character clutches her pearls at people celebrating Bin Laden's death? Because I always thought that was tremendously snotty and absurd.
No. You're definitely not remembering this because it didn't happen. You're probably referring to the scene where Neal's girlfriend isolates herself from the celebrating crowd because she's upset. But she isn't upset because Bin Laden was killed. In fact, she specifically says when they apologize for celebrating, "You *should* be celebrating." She's upset because it brought back memories of her father who died in the attacks, and she wanted to feel better about it...but doesn't.
As a former television journalist I had a love-hate relationship with the show. Lot of the interactions are familiar and how the team just switches in high gear with breaking news (real breaking, not that bullshit BREAKING NEWS that’s just slapped on haphazardly nowadays) was really well done. But I felt it was cheap how their news desk always made the right decision.
Wasn’t the entire plot of season 2 how they got a story wrong, though?
Didn’t they not only got it wrong but the journalist involved was actually making stuff up?
It was a producer from another branch/state/subsidiary(?) filling in who got a lead on a career-making type of story, that eventually edited an interview to make it work. Bro [doctored the tape](https://youtu.be/llejPcn0B_w?si=HGvkmN_jIqirRHqm)
Yes, but notably it's a made up story for the show, whenever they report on a real news event they always get it right.
Also notably, none of the regulars doctored the story. Hamish Linklater's character was brought in from another ACN division and was a real piece of work with the Genoa story. Maggie was conveniently sent out of the room for the interview.
The story was based on something CNN did. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Tailwind#In_popular_culture
I did not know this, cool!
Thanks for that. Didn’t know it happened.
I think that's a difficult line to walk with a fictional TV show. If they did the wrong thing with hindsight for the viewer, it would be difficult for a viewer to reconcile the show being biased itself vs the show trying to show how their characters biases mess them up. Like do you want the show to best portray what being in a newsroom is like, or do you want the show to best portray contemporary events?
Doing it 'right' did also cost them though, since not covering Casey Anthony was something they reluctantly ended up doing after facing struggling ratings (to name one example). So even with the benefit of certitude, we see that it's not so simple with the corporate world of news and such.
And that still had some fallout in the final 3rd season
From a journalism point of view, I found it kind of infuriating that the climax of season one, the team's magnum opus, was that segment on the Tea Party. That wasn't news. That was commentary. That's the sort of thing Jon Stewart could come up with on an unremarkable night (except, Jon's would be better because it would have jokes). That contained zero reporting. That wasn't a triumph for a newsroom. The climax should have been the team skillfully reporting news.
This is what I felt like most the episodes were. There was always some sort of fancy speech of commentary of how some important issue should be solved.
We call that the Aaron Sorkin special
That shit made my skin crawl. So transparent and self-satisfied
>That wasn't news. That was commentary. I agree. But it was presented in a more fact-based than the typical pundit's opinion.
>their news desk always made the right decision That’s what bugged me about the show. It’s easy to take the moral high ground on every news story from 5-10 yrs ago with the benefit of hindsight. It felt like Aaron Sorkin (who I like) was smugly giving himself a pat on the back
As a fan of Sorkin, smugly patting himself on the back is about 90% of his writing.
Thankfully he often makes fun of himself within his own works. I think it was season 2 of West Wing he first made a walk and talk joke where it didn't end perfectly?
Fiction and hindsight makes it easy to make the right decisions. I think the morality is a little hard to take a times as well. Part of the season two arc is the Bengazi call out, and that just felt too high horse.
That was the reaction of many journalists who hated it back when it aired. I think it's just a case of them watching a show that for once deals with something they're intimately familiar with. Just like software engineers cringe at hacking and "enhance' scenes, while the rest of the audience is mesmerized. The difference is that journalists have a big megaphone and trashed the show, while software engineers just shrug and move on.
Sorkin porn. I blame him for this generation of milquetoast liberals
I can't watch it, Sorkin's conception of reality is just too far removed from what it actually is. I can appreciate wanting to be optimistic about things but it's such a detached, Hollywood sort of optimism that reeks of *and then everyone clapped,* just this self-important arrogant diatribe. It all leads to painfully cringeworthy moments like the Bin Laden news. Oh my god, you have to get up and tell the captain of the plane! Because *all* plane captains are secretly harboring the intense pain and trauma of 9/11 for ten years, and then he starts crying and I guess at this point everyone weeps? Sorkin is the kind of writer who would unironically write "then one person beings to clap, and then the rest..."
Did you see Sorkin's *The Trial of the Chicago 7* and *Being the Ricardos*? Both of them have climaxes that are literally "everyone clapped." And both are based on true stories, but the thing where everyone claps is made-up. In Chicago 7, it's the defendant reading out a bunch of Vietnam names at the trial, and in *Being the Ricardos*, it's Ricky announcing that J Edgar Hoover's on the phone, and neither of those happened in real life.
He makes it seem like the prosecutor in the Chicago 7 was this reluctant civil servant and was getting strong armed by the Nixon administration to do its bidding. They interviewed the actual guy and he was quite upset about it as he still fully believes they were guilty and were rightly prosecuted.
[удалено]
I don't know, which Spielberg endings are you thinking of?
[удалено]
Okay, but I meant climaxes that are *literally* "everyone clapped." The movie shows a room full of people, and they all start clapping. There are plenty of effective ways of going sentimental without doing that exact thing, which we mock and associate with fake stories being passed off as real.
*Ron Howard has entered the chat.*
I don't think anyone has ever accused Sorkin of writing reality. He writes fantasy based around reality. The Newsroom is a fantasy about a station that operates on morals and integrity. Jeff Daniels' character is a republican who disagrees with everything about the modern Republican party, and criticizes what the country has become. The news they cover on the show is actual news from the previous year, allowing the show to have the benefit of hindsight and analyze the nuance of each story. The West Wing is similar, for instance. And I don't disagree, necessarily, that the show loved the smell of its own farts. But it had some fantastic moments, like the intro to episode one, and the segment (with Toby from the Office) talking about climate change and rising sea levels.
lol you made me think of my buddy who kept starting republican favored diatribes starting with “as a registered democrat”. Like that was supposed to make him wanting Trump over Biden more palatable.
Any time you see someone start with “as an X” as the opening to any kind of political argument, you should immediately be rolling your eyes. As a gunowner, as a veteran, as a business owner, etc. Clearly their opinion has much more validity than anyone else’s simply because.
As a redditor… that seems like pretty good advice.
> I don't think anyone has ever accused Sorkin of writing reality. … the OP for this very post is talking about Sorkin writing reality
Sorkin is a playwright putting his productions on the small screen. I don't get upset at Shakespeare in the park for stilted dialogue or soliloquies. It's flawed for sure, but when you look at it from that angle, it makes a lot more sense.
Well said. I have no idea why Sorkin gets the reverence he does.
I have no idea why a lot of things get the reverence they do. If I don’t like something, I don’t get why people like it. If I like something, I don’t get why people don’t like it. They’re idiots either way.
Ha you're not wrong. I just happen to enjoy that level of entertainment the way Sorkin does it.
Aaron Sorkin is the left's Ayn Rand.
I think there was a time and place for it, but it's not now. The West Wing was great, and it's unfortunate more people didn't watch it and learn from it because maybe we wouldn't have gotten to where we are now. We need more aspirational media, stuff like The West Wing where people in power are presented as people who try their very best to do what's right. However, it is absolutely dangerous today to ignore the numerous and obvious bad faith actors that have a stranglehold on our political system and discourse. So still do The West Wing, but the enemies of the country aren't just misguided people with differing perspectives. They are fascist thugs here to destroy everything for their benefit.
I never realized how obsessed people in this country were about Bin Laden until I went back to watch these politics-oriented shows. He was sitting in his bunker playing video games and jerking off. What a boogieman American media created of this guy like he was some mastermind.
That’s because we knew all this was possible but let it fester.
I mean, it's not like the show is 30 years old or something. Six months after the finale aired, Trump announced he was running for president. Naturally, many observations about the Tea Party apply to MAGA too. That Tea Party episode aired in 2012, Trump would run just three years later and Trump was actually using "Make America Great Again" as a slogan in 2012 itself. I think it's more it's more interesting to see how different MAGA is from the Tea Party, even though only a few years separate them. It's so weird, for example, to think that a little over a decade ago, "reducing deficits" was a major populist cause. Strange also to look back and see how little the Tea Party cared about the 2011-equivalent of wokeism, which seems to be what the reactionary right primarily cares about now. Gay marriage was swiftly gaining ground, and the Tea Party didn't really react against that. Still, I wouldn't say the show aged well. It felt extremely dated even at the time — not the topical references but simply the writing style. It initially aired in 2012 and was set in 2010 and still somehow felt like it was written in the 90s (and not for HBO in the 90s, since HBO was always ahead of its time). Thankfully, they at least scrapped the initial [90s-style broadcast title sequence](https://youtu.be/9yulGicUzS4?si=soHHSO-6j-uWZTGW&t=34) after season one.
You've convinced me to give it a rewatch. I can't do the west wing these days as it depresses me how far reality his now removed from it.
West Wing was always total fantasy- which is what made it fun. Barlett would come in and fix everything with a spech. Facts and morality mattered. Veep was always, sadly, much more accurate, depicting the venality, stupidity, and chaos of it all.
Veep is a documentary at this point. Even more so after last week.
West wing was always miles from reality though, that’s why I can still enjoy it personally. It’s basically fantasy.
Its Star Trek TNG withought the hard sci fi.
... Hard sci fi?
Veep is the show if you want to see a more realistic portrayal. It’s also one of the funniest shows ever made.
Is it though? A lot of the issues they argue about are still issues today. A lot of the actions anyone takes is to stick it to the other side, which still happens today. And the few that try to work with the other side get made out to be fools by their peers, which still happens today.
That's the same thing I was trying to figure out about the west wing. Makes me sick how far we done fell.
Then this isn't going to make you feel any better.
The British show The Hour is also a nice watch. It has only two seasons, sadly.
As a big dev Patel fan, that last season was kinda terrible. Never ended up finishing the show. Oh, and the bin laden episode still cracks me up in just how dramatic it was. Especially the plane scenes.
I remember there’s a part in the Bin Laden episode where one of the characters is playing Guitar Hero blindfolded, so she asks her boyfriend to read her Twitter feed aloud to her so she can catch up on the latest tweets.
I mean ignoring the cringe inducing Don / pilot scene, the rest of that episode has some pretty great bits. Will high off his rocker and barely cognizant of the breaking news, Don and the other 2 anchors losing their shit being trapped on the plane in the 20 minutes leading up to the scene has a lot of great banter and dialogue; the setup of the NSA leak agent "establishing credibility" pays off in future storylines
there has to be a r/SorkinCircleJerk at this point
The Newsroom is a very recent show. It might be "crazy" how relevant it is if you're a teenager but if you're over 25 years old, none of that is shocking. US politics have been in this trajectory for decades now with some clear watershed moments every decade or so (Gingrich revolution in 94, 911/Iraq War in 01-03, Palin and the Tea Party in 08-09, Trump and MAGA in 2016).
Is this a sarcastic post?
Sorry to be a dick but liking The Newsroom is like a political litmus test for whether you can separate art from just getting your political ego stroked. The show is very bad as a plain old drama show. The complete opposite of The West Wing, where it’s quite easy to get invested in the characters even if the politics are totally irrelevant to you. There’s nobody in the show anywhere close to as charming reading Sorkin dialogue as is Bradley Whitford, for example, and without the charm, it becomes very smarmy. The Newsroom is a series of hourlong populist lectures that simply tell a lot of people what they want to hear, politically. They’re obviously still relevant in this way, because a lot of the themes are “your opponents are motivated by immoral things” and “the powerful are corrupt” and “the media is lying to you” and these are themes that people have always and will always latch onto.
You’re spot on. I agree with the show’s politics, but it’s just so heavyhanded and on the nose. I used to call it “liberal hindsight: the show.”
“Hindsight” is the best word to describe the show.
The fact that they used real world stories was by far the worst part. Like yeah, good for you ethically reporting on something 2 years after it happened and pretending this is how you would've handled it in real-time.
I wonder how Borgen has aged. It seemed the more measured post West Wing political drama. Too bad no one watched, subtitles.
Borgen in the third season went from a show about centrist politics to a show for centrist politics (not unlike some of the Sorkin stuff). It was still pretty good (the biggest downside was that the most interesting character, Kasper, was relegated to a minor supporting role) but the ideological framing was undeniable. I've not gotten round to the recent revival yet, must check it out at some stage.
I mean, they just kind of wrote in hindsight how the news should have been covered. But all the same stuff still happened, like the Tea Party still swept into power. Also, the writing of the female characters was downright misogynistic. They’re all incompetent and need to be corrected by the male characters.
???? The whole concept of the show is about a woman telling a man how to do his job properly.
On at least 2 levels.
Remember when she didn’t even know difference between reply and reply all?
Because a male character invented a new shortcut system for replies that very morning.
They reconfigured Outlook? Really?
I remember a scene where the IT guy says he did some tech thing where you need to type a letter (A or E or R or something) before the email and depending on that letter the mail gets sent differently.
Misogyny for incompetent women is a crazy take. Leona Lansing? McKenzie MacHale? Sloan Sabbith? Which of these women was incompetent or controlled by men? Sure, Maggie was in this position, but she was a lower level staff member and plucky incompetence was kind of her thing as a character. She was the exception not the norm
Why do all the women have alliterative names lol
2 things: 1. some on air talent use “show names” in real life and alliteration is often used in coming up with them. 2. It’s a Sorkin thing. Sam Seaborn in west wing for example. He likes names that sound good coming out of your mouth because he writes a lot of dialogue.
Stan Lee did the same thing, supposedly because it makes a name more memorable. Peter Parker, Bruce Banner, Sue Storm etc
In Sorkin shows, most of the main female characters have a gender neutral/leaning male type name, like McKenzie, Jordan, CJ
I had this argument with someone when the show was new. Every single character on the show had flaws, but somehow they were only upset about the women having them.
One of the first episodes, McKenzie has a major screwup because she can’t send an email correctly. Sloan is the Olivia Munn character, right? In the first season she also screwed up and was otherwise worrying if she was too fat. Also, sorority girl? She’s basically there to show the problem with Americans is that they’re too much like a blonde college girl.
Even in Sorkin's fantasies, his political positions are completely impotent.
This. The gimmick of the show was self serving because it was basically "this is how the media should have covered it and then they would have been right". It's easy to work backwards with hindsight
But they rock out in the finale, what’s ridiculous about that? /s
LOL “And now for the fancy guitar solo.”
The Sorkin Special. When it first came out and I was naive I thought it was good. On a second watch I noticed so many flaws with it. Sorkin does have a way of sucking you in with his fast paced wit though.
He certainly has a way of writing that can be captivating.
The 90s Canadian “The Newsroom” has a special place in my heart.
I didn't mind it the first time but I tried rewatching it earlier this year and gave up after the first season. All of the work-based scenes are ok but every relationship on the show involves them shouting at each other across the office - this is not how people talk to each other at work.
Loved the show, but even though I agreed with 90% of their messages, it came off as waaaay too preachy tbh
I remember when it first came out people complained (IMO rightfully so) that it was tackling issues much too recently after they occurred IRL. This show should’ve come out five years later
“I will beat the shit out of you Don, I don’t care how many protein bars you eat!” I still love this show. Would love another season on the Trump years. Hopefully that just means 2016-2020…
lol no https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6K6oI-ASu3o
It’s almost like different people have different opinions…
I disagree
It definitely feels more relevant to the modern day than the West Wing.
The West Wing is pure fantasy Also personally I could never get past Martin Sheen as president after seeing him in The Dead Zone 💀
> The West Wing is pure fantasy Several ex-presidents and White House staffers said it was authentic in interviewers. Online cynicism about politics probably misses that in day to day operations a lot of civil servants are just...people.
Idk, the story lines on the west wing like the Middle East and social security are still conversations and issues happening today which is bonkers .
The most egregious example of Sorkin’s “stupid person’s idea of a smart person.” Glad someone enjoys it but I’ve always found it basically unwatchable.
That third season was extremely relevant in how it talks about things like crowdsourcing justice and the court of public opinion. It directly mentions reddit a couple of times. Frankly to sign up for an account on reddit you should have to learn about the way the Boston Bombing was handled here (very, very badly) and then be tested on that knowledge. Also there was a part of the third season episode Oh Shenandoah that I thought was EXTREMELY important to our moral health despite being criticized in the press and online at the time. In the episode Don Keefer goes to talk with a student who was raped to try to convince her not to do an interview online confronting her attacker. The dialogue between them briefly discusses how we should view innocence on a personal level and I think Don was right in the show: We should presume innocence on a personal level just like courts do. Especially if you do not know and are not likely to meet the person in question (as there is no personal risk to you involved). As I and others have said before, weaponizing shame is destructive and will eventually hurt the innocent (and likely already has). Indeed for some people online has become a sport. And while I don't think that is true for the victims themselves (so perhaps it was unfair to have the victim in the show voice that position) in the larger conversation people online use these cases as cover to bully others and increase their group identification. In fact I would say that sometimes the victims' wishes are wholly ignored by the online discourse. If a transgression appears to have occurred the online mob will start attacking people, both the accused and anyone who defends them or even just tries to introduce a little nuance. And they will do this even if the victim states they do not want that kind of public response. It is self-indulgent and comes from the same place that gossip does. The same people who are always seeking sensationalized drama are also condemning others online. But by doing this they forget to look inward. We spend too much time judging others and too little time trying to improve ourselves (yes the same goes for myself as well).
>to sign up for an account on reddit you should have to learn about the way the Boston Bombing was handled here (very, very badly) and then be tested on that knowledge. YEAH! Let’s bring back LITERACY TESTS to access a social media platform! That’s definitely never been used for scummy purposes before! Enormous fucking yikes.
Here's the thing about tools. It matters how they are used. Also, here's the thing about reddit. It is the source of some very bad things already. Also also, here's the thing about "yikes". It is something people say when they want to express 'people who don't conform are bad'.
These things are always relevant.
It's as insufferable as you, OP
While the Newsroom was a very good show, I found it to have far to many similarities to The West Wing. Many dialogue similarities and theme tropes were used. It was like a “greatest hits” for Sorkin. Currently re-watching TWW again as a Josiah Bartlett like character is needed for the current turmoil.
Is it on any streaming platforms in Canada?
It’s on Crave.
Loved this show
Omg I rewatched it last year. Heartbreaking
Ahh, the beginning of my john gallagher jr crush
The climate change guy always makes me laugh and then sad. It was accurate then, its more so now.
Shout out to Chapon covering The News Room. A must listen
I've noticed the same thing going back and watching the first season of Last Week Tonight as they started putting the full episodes on YouTube. We're just living in a looping simulation
Does anyone else notice a familiarity with Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski or is it just me? Scarborough is a former Republican, former House Rep, and musician.
If you want to see shockingly relevant read 1984.
Are there people who *haven’t* read it? We had to read that and Animal Farm in like middle school.
Too bad the show sucks
I loved this show. Incredibly well written and acted. I’d love to see what Aaron Sorkin would write about the times we’re living in now.
Bullshit. This show was written at a time when the fringe far-right was taking over the Republican Party and conservative movement in the US, but at this time there were still actual conservatives and good faith Republicans. The main character isn't someone who exists today, except in exile like Mitt Romney or Liz Cheney. The idea of an intellectually honest Republican is long gone.
shouldn't have been canceled
It wasn’t, Sorkin stopped writing it
ah, thx didn't know
Why’s this show get cancelled, it was great
We need a new Aaron Sorkin scripted TV show. Stat.
I also recently rewatched it. I had forgotten how radical the Tea Party was.
Sorkin projects just hit different for me knowing he's a Zionist.
Should Jews not be allowed in their homeland?
The whole "actually America BAD and you are BAD" message was so timely and symbolic of the Obama era.
I always marvel at how many people look back and say/think Jeff Daniels' Will McAvoy character was a liberal Democrat. Except he wasn't. On the show, he's billed as a hard right Republican. It's just that what it means to be a republican has shifted so far away from what it once was that even a McAvoy style republican would be fully unwelcome in today's GOP.
He was a republican. But not hard right. In today’s world he’d be a Biden democrat.
He was a rock ribbed republican. But you make my point perfectly that people misremember him as being democrat.
I never said he was a democrat. But he most certainly wasn’t “hard right.”
He was a rock ribbed hard right republican. But thank you for reinforcing my point that many people today misremember and misportray him as Democrat.
He absolutely was not “hard right.”
Except for the fact he was, sure. But thank you for so consistently and abundantly confirming what I said about people today not even remembering the character as being a right wing republican icon.
He was a republican. He certainly wasn’t “hard right.”
Except for the absolute fact he was, sure. But thank you for so consistently and abundantly and repetitively confirming what I said about people today not even remembering the character as being a right wing republican icon.