Newsroom Recap: Why?

8 Comments

1. 1
   Jaycee
   Posted August 8, 2012 at 12:15 pm

   Yes, the post-address show should be priority number one. If this were CNN, they’d have the political panel ready to go at a moment’s notice followed by a security/terror analyst or two. (For the record, the show I produce is pre-taped, but this is what happens every time one of our live shows airs an important speech. And I don’t work for CNN.) And the idea that Biden himself would give Will (of all people) the thumbs-up is a LOAD. The White House has press people who give the word to the networks, for God’s sake.

   Also, re: press embargoes: If you want to keep getting good material from your sources, you do NOT disregard the embargo, or they will stop trusting you. I don’t care how awesome the scoop will be. If it’s a matter of national security, the source needs to make absolutely clear that the information is released at a time that wouldn’t put any involved party in harm’s way. And even if that’s not an issue, you will look like an asshole and that’s what people will remember when the emotion wears off. You’d think the “scoop” mentality would be one of the 137,000,000 problems with the media that Sorkin would make Will proselytize about, but instead he embraced it. He can’t even be consistent about his own whining.

   This show is so fucking stupid.

2. 2
   Andyourlittledogtoo
   Posted August 8, 2012 at 12:58 pm

   You know, I really loved the West Wing. That was the LAST thing Sorkin did that didn’t annoy the crap outta me. He is like that really really annoying person who seems so clever and interesting until you realize they never ever stop talking and you can’t get away. He’s that guy. He has these great ideas and amazing opportunities to do what he wants and he just RUINS them with his too-clever-to-by-half dialogue and ridiculous plot devices. HOW do you RUIN an episode about a news show covering the death of Bin Laden? I could write that in my sleep. Ted the news anchor from the Mary Tyler Moore Show could do a better job than this.

   Hate Sorkin.

   (Love your recaps though. )

3. 3
   Matt Maul
   Posted August 8, 2012 at 8:36 pm

   Sorkin’s hate for Fox News rewrote history (sorta). TWO times during the episode, Geraldo Rivera’s coverage was pointedly mocked. Mackenzie gives Will a sarcastic look when Rivera suggests the news could be about Gaddafi (which isn’t that unreasonable) and later Charlie nastily suggests that Rivera will soon claim that the U.S. has attacked Finland.

   HOWEVER, in point of fact, Rivera actually DID predict that the president’s announcement would be about Bin Laden’s death at 10:37pm that evening. This scooped Will’s announcement by about twenty minutes.

   Also, I was a bit taken back by the glee everyone felt at what was, in effect, a summary execution. Couldn’t Sorkin have included ONE character to question the morality of it. Isn’t that the sort of thing The Newsroom is supposed to do – revisit our initial reactions to events with a calmer eye? I only ask.

   FWIW, my own rants appear here: http://www.ihatethenewsroom.com/

4. 4
   Louis
   Posted August 9, 2012 at 10:37 pm

   Seriously, why hasn’t she been fired? I guess ACN doesn’t have a HR department.
   The Newsroom is actually one of the best comedies on TV………..and your recap is the cherry on top.
   Thanks for the humor.

5. 5
   vallegirl
   Posted August 10, 2012 at 10:52 am

   Thanks for confirming my suspicions, Jaycee. This wasn’t an investigative piece so there was no need to scoop anything, and I agree that the scoop mentality of the 24-hour newscycle should be part of what Sorkin rails against since it encourages inaccurate reporting. If this is what he thinks is the broadcast journalism ideal, he’s worse than the problems he rails against.

   I think Sorkin’s facility with dialogue covers up a lack of structure and development. It wasn’t so obvious in The West Wing because it was easier to accept that that was never going to be realistic but here, there’s all the casual sexism and bigotry so he’s contradicting himself on a regular basis. You can’t say on the one hand that sexism is just a natural part of the industry then tell us that this is an “idealized” version of what a newsroom is. So its either sexism is part of an idealized world or newsrooms operate with a complete lack of professionalism, discretion or intelligence. Or, most likely, Sorkin doesn’t give a shit and just writes whatever he wants knowing there will always be a core group who validates him so he never has to listen to his critics.

   And Matt, I was a bit disconcerted at the celebratory nature of the reporting. I know he included Kaley as the counterpoint to everyone else because of her personal history but it would have been nice if they didn’t stage it like it was the second coming.

   But thanks to everyone for your kind, and even your occasionally not too kind, words. I genuinely appreciate the feedback.

6. 6
   LIBelle
   Posted August 12, 2012 at 5:15 am

   I totally agree with your caption for 5/1. I remember exactly where and what I was doing when Kennedy got shot. I will remember where and what I was doing on Sept. 11, 2001 forever as well. Maybe it’s me, but I do not think the day we finally got bin Laden warrants, nor do I think it will imprint the same forever memories as Sept. 11, 2001, Nov 22,1963 or Dec. 7 1941. Those 3 dates in history were game changing. Killing bin Laden stopped him fore sure, but I do not think it has changed anything. I also think if the date 5/1 was so important to Sorkin, I would have preferred he dealt with it in a more serious manor.

7. 7
   Nicole
   Posted September 14, 2012 at 10:28 pm

   I work in the media, and I think this episode actually made some good points AGAINST “scoop mentality.” There were a couple of different points in the episode where they could have broken the bin Laden news – or attempted to – earlier than they did. When they had the FIRST source and were waiting for double confirmation. When the tweet went up that their correspondent in Washington wanted to read on-air. Hell, they could even have speculated on-air that “this is what we think it is, but there’s no confirmation.” But they waited for double confirmation, and to be told it was reportable. Charlie’s speech about making sure to report the news without doing harm, and “if we’re two minutes late, then that’s worth it” rang very true as well.

   And the casual sexism and bigotry is a very real part of working in the industry, depending on what field you’re in. I work in sports media, and that’s a male-dominated field, and of COURSE people think I don’t know what I’m doing, or I must want to hit on the players, etc, etc, etc. IF ANYTHING, Sorkin tones it down. If a man yells in a newsroom, he’s seen as strong and commanding and powerful. If a woman yells in a newsroom, she’s seen as over-emotional and surely incapable of doing her job. With Mackenzie’s penchant for going on very public rants, she would not have gotten as far as she has in her field if this were not an idealized version of events.

   Obviously, some things are blown out of proportion or dramatized because it’s a made-for-TV version of a newsroom. But I actually think the show is pretty accurate, as far as the personality types, and the discussions that are taking place, and how people interact.

8. 8
   vallegirl
   Posted September 15, 2012 at 12:30 pm

   Thanks for your insights, Nicole. I really do appreciate hearing a thoughtful rebuttal that goes beyond “Why come you hate this show so much?” And I agree that they initially made points against the scoop mentality by not rushing in with the tweet and waiting for a second source, but then muddied the water by scooping the President. If he’s walking down the corridor to give his speech, is that really the time to scoop him?
   Also, while I’m not denying the existence of casual sexism in newsrooms, Sorkin himself has claimed that this show is supposed to be a “fairy tale” about how the news “should” be reported. If that’s the case, then he sees nothing wrong with casual sexism being a part of our everyday life, if it’s in service to the “greater good.”
   If he wanted to present an accurate portrayal of a newsroom, then fine, sexism is a big part of broadcast media since there isn’t a single woman who looks like Ed Schultz in broadcast news and even Rachel Maddow has to be glammed up for her show. But they’re explicitly not creating a realistic show, so including all that casual bigotry and sexism is a flaw in the writing, not “just the way it is” since this show doesn’t purport to show the way it is in real newsrooms, but how Sorkin’s thinks it should be in newsrooms.
   And that’s always been the biggest drawback to this show for me. It’s trying to have it both ways so neither way makes sense. From a writing point of view, it has no foundation on which to build. It floats from episode to episode, and the characters behave in ways that are consistent only with the story Sorkin wants to flog us with that week. Since he hasn’t a clue, nor is he interested, in developing female characters, we get the allegedly brilliant Mackenzie either shrieking like a harpy or acting like a child, complete with baby talk, or Maggie’s utter incompetence at life being presented as a “plucky young woman making her way in the world.” And these are the heroines of the show. Sloane’s just kind of there, regardless of how fantastically Olivia Munn is portraying her, and Lisa is…what, other than Maggie and Jim’s victim? And Maggie’s own casual sexism toward her roommate and friend by basically calling her a whore had nothing to do with how newsrooms work.
   The men are only slightly better developed, mostly because we can attribute their awfulness and incompetence solely to the individuals and not to the gender in particular. But Will and Jim are horrible people, full stop. Charlie and Don are less so, but I think that’s mostly because Sorkin doesn’t care as much about those characters so Waterston and Sadoski are having more fun with their roles. Elliot is still a nebulous mass that David Harbour has managed to make engaging against all odds.
   I mostly compare this show and its lack of center to Boardwalk Empire, my other HBO show that I recap. The most likeable characters there are either a sniper with half a face who’s killed 62 people or a young Irish widow and adulterer with questionable morals who is a seething cauldron of resentment an Catholic guilt. And I love them both, as well as every other character in the cast. Even the incestuous showgirl. It is possible to create compelling and engaging people who are not likeable in the least. But Sorkin doesn’t even try. To a character on The Newsroom they’re all a series of quirks in search of a whole, and whatever humanity the characters have is a testament to the talent of the cast to make sense out of Sorkin’s tripe.
   He’s on HBO so he needn’t toe the network line and I don’t think Sorkin understands that. The Newsroom is nothing that wasn’t already on networks 15 years ago, and he could go so much further on premium cable. But he freely admits that he doesn’t know dick all about journalism, this is just him pontificating on how he thinks the world, and news, should be. And I really couldn’t care less what Sorkin has to say, because Maddow says it better and with greater intelligence and humor than he ever could.