The opening of "Newsroom" on HBO is a scathing attack on the MSM. No wonder the same outlets were

[still_one]

not too favorable in their impression of this series

That there would actually be a network who would devote 1 hour of their time to real news

[AlexanderHeidegger]

1. Turning Political Criticism into Entertainment is Resignation

Watch Press TV, based in Tehran, and help get it on US television screens.

www.presstv.ir

[RKP5637]

2. I've watched Press TV a number of times and have found it quite excellent. n/t

[Tom Ripley]

3. Yes, it's The Dilbert Syndrome

[TheWraith]

5. Spamming for Iranian state-run media. Lovely.

When they execute men for being gay, does PressTV say anything? Even one whisper? No? Screw you then.

[UnrepentantLiberal]

14. Welcome to DU, Alexander.

Bye, Alexander.

[malaise]

20. Huh? n/t

[Odin2005]

22. Obvious Spam is Obvious.

[TheWraith]

4. This is the first episode that felt to me like real, pure Sorkin.

The previous two were good, but felt a little bit staged, like he had to artificially construct the characters. This one had the same feeling I got with the first episode of Studio 60.

[still_one]

6. The critics are panning it because it is too close to comfort for them. The more I hear them

criticize it the more I realize how good it is.

I hope it lasts. I would love to know what the ratings are

[stopbush]

11. Maybe they're panning it because it's unwatchable.

I've tried, but it's one of the phoniest TV shows I've seen in a long time. Stagey, preach-ey (and preaching to the choir), it's the kind of thing that brings tears to the eyes of those who believe that the conspiracy theories are finally going to be proven true for all to see.

People don't talk like that, newsrooms are NOT exciting places and the overall smugness of the show is appalling.

Did I mention that the acting is terrible?

Sorkin at his absolute worst.

[freshwest]

13. Lucky me, no cable so I miss this but I suspect your analyst is on target.

If HBO wanted to have a real news show, they would. Instead what this show is going to do, as they know it will, divert people away from criticizing who they claim to criticizing.. And as OTT entertainment . Operative word, entetainment. It's entertainment vs entertainment again.

[Tunkamerica]

16. My favorite new show.

Last edited Mon Jul 9, 2012, 04:23 AM - Edit history (1)

the acting isn't terrible and if news rooms were edited down to an hour for every few weeks of real time they would be exciting. Also, it's a fictional show. This newsroom IS exciting and this is how these people act.

According to tonight's show: 5 months in 3 hours.

[joshcryer]

18. I kind of agree with you with regards to its phonyism.

I still can't take the lead guy seriously. It's definitely playing in to an underlying resentment toward commercial news. I do think that commercial news fails in many regards (outside of newswire media where I do think individuals try to tell the story without bias), but I'm not totally convinced Newroom is showing the narrative as well as it could.

Then again, it's entertainment for the sake of entertainment and the soundbites and the overall narrative it is pushing is going to sell well, and fulfill that hole that is lacking in commercial news, so I can't condemn it on that count.

Overall, yeah, it's not as great as it appears. It'd be so much better if the "newsroom" and it's narrative filled a more convincing role, but then it'd lose its entertaining aspects off the bat. As far as I'm concerned though it's a basic Sorkin narrative. He's not deviating from his dramatic flair, imo.

[TalkingDog]

25. So do you think the Mary Tyler Moore show was a more or less accurate portrayal?

Because I've never and I do mean never seen a show that has portrayed any profession in an accurate light.

But then again I've never had cable. So maybe all the accurate portrayals of real life are on there and I'm stuck watching human conflicts framed within a set and setting that lend heightened drama to the story line.

[stopbush]

26. The review in New Yorker got it right, IMHO.

Here: http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/television/2012/06/25/120625crte_television_nussbaum?currentPage=all

A few money lines:


"Sorkin is often presented as one of the auteurs of modern television, an innovator and an original voice. But he’s more logically placed in a school of showrunners who favor patterspeak, point-counterpoint, and dialogue-driven tributes to the era of screwball romance."

"Sorkin’s shows are the type that people who never watch TV are always claiming are better than anything else on TV."

"The shows’ air of defiant intellectual superiority is rarely backed up by what’s inside—all those Wagnerian rants, fingers poked in chests, palms slammed on desks, and so on. In fact, “The Newsroom” treats the audience as though we were extremely stupid."

"There are plenty of terrific actors on this show, but they can’t do much with roles that amount to familiar Sorkinian archetypes. There is the Great Man, who is theoretically flawed, but really a primal truth-teller whom everyone should follow (or date). There are brilliant, accomplished women who are also irrational, high-strung lunatics—the dames and muses who pop their eyes and throw jealous fits when not urging the Great Man on. There are attractively suited young men, from cynical sharpies to idealistic sharpies, who glare and bond and say things like “This right here is always the swan song of the obsolete when they’re staring the future paradigm in the face.”

Read more http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/television/2012/06/25/120625crte_television_nussbaum#ixzz209BDgOQh

[sabrina 1]

27. The New Yorker doesn't speak for the viewers. To be expected the MSM and

its cohorts in print would not like any show that even hints at the dismal state of our 'News' media, rated now at #47 in the world' free press chart. Shameful for a democracy.

The show is not meant to be real, it is a show, entertainment, that is all, but it's entertaining to see the defensiveness of what is meant to be our 'news media'.

The people like it, that's all that counts.

[stopbush]

28. If by "it's not meant to be real," you mean it's pure fiction, I can agree.

Would that the other posters in this thread were in on the joke.

[sabrina 1]

30. It's not pure fiction since it deals with actual issues, but it is a classic way, used by

entertainers throughout history, including Shakespeare, to talk about topics that are forbidden when spoken about in any other venue.

And it helps get people who haven't thought about these things before, mainly because of the censorship in our actual media, to start doing so.

This kind of entertainment is as old as the news and entertainment themselves.

Shakespeares actors were terrible also, but they got the message he wanted to deliver, delivered.

I think it's a great idea, should be used way more often to combat the censorship we are subjected to here.

Oh yeah and I think they are in the joke, the joke is on the 'news' media, which is why they do not like it.

[stopbush]

29. BTW - the near-universally bad reviews of this show in the media

have nothing to do with defensiveness.

Why do you assume that a reviewer pointing out the OBVIOUS shortfalls of this show has a defensive agenda? People call them as they see them.

[sabrina 1]

31. Lol, when did MSM reviewers ever speak for the actual viewers?

Have you ever met any of these people? Talk about 'elitists' for the most part, and they know which side their bread is buttered on.

Some of the most popular movies have been slammed by the 'critics'. It's an old-fashioned concept, and a very authoritarian one also, to have on person appointed to speak for the masses. And the fact that they get it so wrong so often, should have made them obsolete by now.

Polls on major publications would be more accurate, let the people speak for themselves, rather than some snot-nosed, arrogant critic who thinks s/he speaks for the rest of us. Thank you very much, I am not in the least bit impressed by critics, their opinions are worth as much as anyone else's.

[TalkingDog]

35. You failed to answer my question. I'll make it a bit easier.

Name a show, any show (on broadcast TV, cause... no cable as said) that portrays any given profession in an accurate light.

I don't care if you don't like it. I don't care if it's over-acted, underacted, badly acted or trite (It's TV. Which is to say most of it is trite.)

It's just that I prefer not to have my intelligence so brazenly insulted. More valid criticisms, less straw-man arguments, please. Otherwise, I got no dog in this fight.

Badly framed criticisms are to me as this show is to you; irritating at best, insulting at most.

[Riverman]

38. Elites Always Belittle the Mirror Holder

BTW - the TV viewer is largely stupid, including me! I just can't tell what is real and put-on, can't tell when I've been lied to or taken for a fool or both. My ironworker Dad who left high school to go to work during the depression in NYC, referred to the TV as the "Idiot Box" as far back as the 50's. He said of politicians and other mouthy people seeking attention for themselves: "Empty barrels make the most noise." He was a smart man, I wish I had listened to him more, rather than looking to the Idiot Box to inspire me.

I don't have HBO, but have seen Sorkin and Jeff Daniels interviewed on several shows and the tape of the Daniels character in front of the college audience. Everything said in the rant was factually accurate. Yes, Sorkin says his goal is to "entertain the audience for an hour." If he didn't say that, he would not get on the air. I loved "The West Wing." But, after all I am a liberal, commie, pinko, fag - so I must be stupid to think that the media is at its best when educating the audience. If it takes doing so in an entertaining way, then great. Didn't Sesame Street do that?

[catbyte]

33. Your panning of the show is a tad preach-ey, stopbush

Christ on a cracker, lighten up. It's teevee.

I actually like it, except I cringed reliving the LA oil spill and Election Night 2010. PTSD.



Diane
Anishinaabe in MI & mom to Taz, Nigel, and new baby brother Sammy, members of Dogs Against Romney, Cat Division
"Dogs Aren’t Luggage--HISS!”

[Fawke Em]

34. Newsrooms are pretty exciting during breaking news,

but, yeah... I don't think I ever had my editor soapbox that much.

[dixiegrrrrl]

36. HBO has signed season 2 already.

Good on them.

[nadinbrzezinski]

7. You are going to make me get HBO?

I'll have to check iTunes.

[Seedersandleechers]

8. Someone on an earlier thread said you

can get it on youtube.

[nadinbrzezinski]

9. Yeah, but I do like to support creatives

I am one.

[Bluenorthwest]

23. God how I love you for saying such a thing....but the first one is free!

I think you would love the Newsroom, and HBO is offering up the first full episode at the following link. You should feel free to watch it there, and if you do like it, sign up and tell your provider why you did so.
http://www.hbo.com/the-newsroom/index.html

[William769]

10. I love this show!

And this past episode was AWESOME!

[MrSlayer]

12. Tonight's show was even better than the pilot.

Just outstanding.

[UnrepentantLiberal]

15. Cool.

I can watch the episodes I missed on my HBO Android app.

[Tunkamerica]

17. also: "Cheryl, Mike: Are the Koch brothers average Americans whose voices are being drowned out by

lobbyists and special interests? I'm confounded."

[kentuck]

19. It's like opening up a can of worms...

...and exposing the MSM as too corporate-linked to tell the truth.

As in last night's episode, when the Jane Fonda character wanted the Jeff Daniels character to turn down the criticism on the Tea Party congressmen because she had to work with them in her job as head of the network. They had lost 7% share with their previous show. She has threatened to fire him if he doesn't tone it down.

In this respect, this is a very interesting and informative show. Oh, if it were only real? It gives an insight into what could be...

[Atman]

21. That is exactly why this show is so good.

Some may poo poo the acting, but that's beside the point. This is about changing the narrative on certain major news issues from that which the media fed us at the time. It's keeping issues like the BP oil spill and the Koch brothers in the narrative and not allowing the mainstream news outlets send them down the memory hole. At some point, the writers will cross some line which will piss off the corporate masters and thats when the fun begins.

[JackRiddler]

24. The problem is that it turns to shit two minutes later.

Last edited Mon Jul 9, 2012, 01:57 PM - Edit history (1)

The stirring speeches end and then you have to sit through an hour of soap opera about unbearable fast-talking yuppies and their supposed relationship problems. This show, the characters and the situations are unbelievably fake, slick and trite.

Like West Wing, it's a fantasy for the powerless. In recent decades US government has completed a descent into soft totalitarianism and pervasive, open corruption. The supposed democratic institutions have become mostly irrelevant and the politicians are not only whores but strive hard to be clowns. But there was West Wing, into the darkest of the Bush years, showing you thoughtful, smart people in the White House struggling with their consciences and the complexities, not to mention an intellectual Republican of integrity bridging the partisan divide, blah blah blah bullshit! This is to American liberals what Harlequin romances are to the loveless, or what Marvel Comics are to frustrated teenage nerds.

In the Newsroom the surface has a lot of verisimilitude but the content is unreal. The corporate media is long past its moral nadir and on the way to obsolescence. Here is the same concept as in West Wing, with a fantasy that a network TV show is full of good people who, despite their foibles and problems, work hard to bring you the truth and present the news with integrity.

Except, these characters! Unbearable.

[Ruby the Liberal]

32. +1 I don't like it.

I *loved* the BP and Teahadist scenes, but the whole 20-something "we broke up, we are back together, we broke up, we are back together" coupled with the whole 50-something fake "sexual tension" (NO chemistry between those two, no matter how hard they try) is like watching a really bad episode of General Hospital. Reminds me of the first season of 24 when the terrorism guy's daughter was in trouble every 15 minutes so they could fill time and you just wanted her character to get on a slow Cruise to nowhere for the rest of the show.

Hopefully, that HUGE (and annoying) chunk of time they are filling with relationship "drama" will work its way out of the script sooner than later and more focus can be done on the actual newsroom element of the story.

[JackRiddler]

37. Funniest comment on this thread was from The New Yorker

"Sorkin’s shows are the type that people who never watch TV are always claiming are better than anything else on TV."