By djariya at 2012-07-08


Synopsis:



Episode 3 of 10

Promo:

<object width="512" height="288"><param name="movie" value="http://www.hbo.com/bin/hboPlayerV2.swf?vid=1266505"></param><param name="FlashVars" value="domain=http://www.hbo.com&videoTitle=Ep. 3: Preview&copyShareURL=http%3A//www.hbo.com/video/video.html/%3Fautoplay%3Dtrue%26vid%3D1266505%26filter%3Dthe-newsroom%26view%3Dnull"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.hbo.com/bin/hboPlayerV2.swf?vid=1266505" FlashVars="domain=http://www.hbo.com&videoTitle=Ep. 3: Preview&copyShareURL=http%3A//www.hbo.com/video/video.html/%3Fautoplay%3Dtrue%26vid%3D1266505%26filter%3Dthe-newsroom%26view%3Dnull" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="512" height="288"></embed></object>

Loved the pilot...but some of these characters are starting to get really annoying. The dialogue sounds too written sometimes, not natural.

I like it but it lacks authenticity. It feels like a fantasy newsroom show.

Well that looked odd... did anybody notice

Written by
Aaron Sorkin & Gideon Yago

Yeah, the guy from MTV

I like it, but I agree that it does feel like its not natural. The way some on the actors talk, just seems overacted.

Loved the Jesus and Moses joke. lol

Good, because that's what they're shooting for.

Also, I HAVE BUSINESS BEFORE THIS CONGRESS!!!

When was Inception released?

D

July 2010

July 18, 2010

There are some things I'm seeing that I don't really like, but they're overridden by the things I like. I really wish there were a prominent news program aspiring to be what this one is. And I also think they're doing a good job covering some of the reasons why we don't have it.

The show is still entertainment, though, and can only cover so much. For instance, the bargain with America over to get airwaves in exchange for providing information (news) left out a few things. Here are two examples:

1) Cable and satellite aren't beholden to those deals
2) Even if it were forbidden to have advertising during news, there'd still be nothing to enforce the quality of the news.

I really liked the aspect of this episode that dealt with the politics of doing the news. Powerful people who are offended can make life difficult. And even the so-called "idiots" can have a long memory when elevated to positions of power. Sometimes having principles doesn't win. As Jane Fonda was pointing out, should a corporate entity put the whole corporation at risk for an subsidiary which brings little to the table? I'm engaged enough to want to see how that particular stuggle plays out in this fantasy world (I already know how it plays out in the real world).

I care about the people/relationships stuff a lot less than the news stuff. I don't care about the past relationships, breakups, dating meet-ups, etc. I just sit through that stuff to see the issues surrounding presenting the news. The bits of investigative journalism, prioritizing, etc. is what sells it for me.

I'm also OK with people essentially saying, "You know who gives me the right to be the one to make the decision? Me." And the codocil is, "If you lose faith in my ability to do that, change the channel." I'm tired of people spinelessly backing away from making decisions because of the whole, "Who died and left you boss," contingent. Ideas should always be challenged, but it's pretty spineless to be afraid to say you think 2+2=4 because someone else believes differently. I say if he can make a reasoned case for his view, fine. But if not, screw it. Let him find someone else to present his quackery. American society would only benefit from having the populace elevated rather than their information sources dumbed down.

I like it when Daniels and Waterston are on screen but I really don't like any of the other characters except the IT/Blogger guy.

I feel like i'm watching the Jim/Pam/Roy romance thing again.

And THAT'S what this show is all about. How does it happen? Can it happen? What happens when someone tries to change the status quo. I think people are expecting some kind of window into the world of real life TV news and that's not what this is at all. The West Wing was a political fairy tale, and this is the same thing except the scenario is "What if the news was actually the news?"

The Pam/Jim/Roy thing is unfortunate for people who want the show to focus entirely on its core story, but just reading through Twitter last night as the show was on, there's a good chunk of the audience who loves all those scenes.

I thought that was another solid episode. I'm not crazy about the telegraphed inter-office relationship between Maggie and Jim either but when the scene started where she is having the panic attack I started off by rolling my eyes and ended up really liking it. It wasn't some little scene thrown in just to move this relationship along, I got to see another side of both characters that actually made me care for them.

I loved everything in the boardroom with Sam Waterson. The Rocky II analogy. Actually there were movie refrences made all over this episode.

Looking forward to where Sorkin takes us.

I think it was a solid episode. I get the criticism about the dialog style, but since I'm a fan of the West Wing so I'm used to hearing it. It's basically the same criticism about Joss Whedon shows and Tarantino movies; some creators have a particular "voice" the same way musicians and artists have signature sounds or styles. I know it going into the show.

I like the Tea-Party bits, sorta made me sad really, but it was good to see someone say it on TV.

The talk about the Koch brothers is interesting. I'd never even heard their names before, but now there's an ABC News article about them too.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics...ihDVfw.twitter

God, I love this show. It makes one realize how lazy/sloppy the writing is on most other series. I just love the style of conversation...yes, no group of coworkers are EVER this sharp and witty, but as a piece of entertainment, I just find THE NEWSROOM a whole lot of fun to watch. In both its idealism and its humor, it's a lot like Sorkin's WEST WING.

I've heard that Jeff Daniels character may be based on Keith Olbermann? Don't know if that's true or not (I think Sorkin denied it, but that might just be for legal reasons), but I can certainly see the similarities.

I kinda love to hate this show. And hate to love it too.

Yeah, there are some scenes, some parts, where I almost climax, but other parts... oh, God!

Yep, they are all over my news ticker at work. I dare say the show just gave us a new political boogeyman.

http://www.sfgate.com/business/bloom...me-3693610.php

The Koch brothers have long been thought of as a political boogeyman. This just may be the first time the masses have been made aware of them.

Anyone who regularly watches the news channels already knows who they are.

If you google them you will see they have been a boogeymen a lot longer than a couple of days.

Yes, I'm surprised more people haven't heard of them.

Daily Show and Colbert have been bringing up the Koch Bros. for a while now.

As for the show, I can do without the relationship stuff. I'm not adverse to the idea of having relationship stuff on the show, just the way they've been handled so far have been very lame. If they have to do it, they should bring it to the level of the the news stuff, otherwise, they should drop it.

It kind of seems like you climaxed twice.

Olbermann is liberal. Will McAvoy is conservative. I don't see them being alike or mirror images. My perception of Olbermann at this point is one of a polemicist, though I never watched his show enough to be an expert on the matter.

I have this thing in life where a point isn't any more valid because it's presented with indignation (or profanity, yelling, etc.). Ranting can be entertaining to watch, but has the unfortunate by-product of making me more standoffish to the ideas presented. Because when people get highly emotional, they tend to lose the reasoned approach of open mindedness, balance, fairness, etc. I've seen that with Olbermann, but so far not with Will McAvoy.

It would surprise me if Olbermann is the model because I don't really get into him and I quite like McAvoy. BTW, McAvoy's popular. Olbermann?

In regards to the relationship stuff, this show is doing exactly what it is supposed to be crusading against: focusing on the superficial and less on the actual issues. The personal stuff may technically get less screen time than the political (I don't really know) but its the relationship stuff on the show that is making more of an impact. The stuff with his ex is just getting in the way of what should be the meaty journalism.

That was well "said."

I'm pretty liberal and I never thought of Olbermann as being like Rush or even O'Reilly as far as using foul language, insulting people and getting into a rage. But he was extremely emotional and loud about things and it did tend to make him seem cartoonish, no matter how heartfelt and passionate he was about what he thought he was trying to do. It did and it seems worse now, make him less able to listen to opposing views.

As far as this show goes, I actually thought this was the best episode so far. That said, I don't see how a right-winger could watch this show and find it anything but a lecture from a liberal posing as moderate Republican. I don't know if that's what it is, but I can't see anyone who's on the right (today's right) enjoying the subject matter of the show so far.