[TV] Newsroom

[Arlee]

...again though. They're asking real questions of things that happened two years ago. Not to mention, a lot of the things that people are all fired up about and asking "why didn't people ask that?!?!?!". . .actually were asked. We're just sheltered in our own worlds that we think everyone else's are similar. There isn't a single person here (or that I or probably you know) that could claim that they're as aware and educated about current events and policies as a fully staffed news room. We have full-time jobs and families that prevent us from doing so. The information is out there. . .the ones to blame are you and I for not searching it out.

The point I was trying to make was the real news should trying to inform and educate people and not focus on sensationalizing things and reporting on completely idiotic things (why do we really care about Kate Holmes divorcing Tom Cruise??). That is completely possible without a two year lead time. In fact the news used to be like that, perhaps you should look up the newscasters shown in the title credits and mentioned in episode 3 if you don't believe it is possible for a news shows to be about real news and educating people. Those guys, they were doing exactly that. I grew-up watching them do it and was always intrigued and amazed with them. It is possible... there are many reasons why it's not like that now, but one of those reasons is not that they don't have a two year lead time on stories.

[Isuckatpvp]

The point I was trying to make was the real news should trying to inform and educate people and not focus on sensationalizing things and reporting on completely idiotic things (why do we really care about Kate Holmes divorcing Tom Cruise??). That is completely possible without a two year lead time. In fact the news used to be like that, perhaps you should look up the newscasters shown in the title credits and mentioned in episode 3 if you don't believe it is possible for a news shows to be about real news and educating people. Those guys, they were doing exactly that. I grew-up watching them do it and was always intrigued and amazed with them. It is possible... there are many reasons why it's not like that now, but one of those reasons is not that they don't have a two year lead time on stories.

...again. You're not hearing me. They ARE educating and discussing issues. Just because you or I don't have 24 hours in our day to sit and watch to see when and who is talking about it doesn't mean they aren't. You CHOOSE to watch entertainment shows, just like you can CHOOSE to watch educational ones or listen to educational programs on the radio. They exist. This show is trying to present something as if it isn't there. Just because Walter Cronkite isn't on the air anymore doesn't mean that there isn't any information coming over the airwaves. In addition to that, just because someone is a loud mouth, it doesn't mean their points aren't valid either. The character Jeff Daniels is playing on the show is just as much of a bloviator and instigator as guys like Olbermann, Hannity, and O'Reilly. The only difference is that we see it through the prism of a guy who never gets it wrong. When you're always on the right side of history, it's easy to appear noble and just. . .even when you're being a dick.

I worry that this show is turning into a re-election commercial for Obama and it's getting tired. Fast.

[Endus]

...again though. They're asking real questions of things that happened two years ago. Not to mention, a lot of the things that people are all fired up about and asking "why didn't people ask that?!?!?!". . .actually were asked.

It's perhaps a little unfair to say that nobody asked those questions. However, the point being made is that they were never answered, and the media never took anyone to task for that. The news media became an industry based on gaining and keeping viewers entertained rather than informed.

And the issue is not that some people weren't aware of these kinds of things at the time. The issue is that it is (or should be) the role of the news media to get EVERYONE asking those same questions, and demanding answers. To not let public figures get away with doublespeak and outright lies. The episode last night, I thought, was right on point about this.

There was once a time when journalists needed credible sources before they took anything on the air, because you couldn't risk saying anything you hadn't double- or triple-checked. Now, news agencies deliberately hire people for ignorance, because it's not libel or slander if you're stupid and ignorant enough to actually believe what you're saying.

I worry that this show is turning into a re-election commercial for Obama and it's getting tired. Fast.

Jeff Daniels' character is an outspoken registered Republican. I don't want to drag this into political debate (even though the show is decidedly political), but the point is not "Democrats GOOD Republicans BAD". It's that the discourse being used by and for Republicans is becoming more and more demeaning and/or unethical. And while they're picking mostly on Republicans, that mostly has to do with the dates of the setting. I'm sure as time goes on, they'll deal with other issues as well. It's like the Daily Show; they don't exist to pick on Republicans, they use the material reality gives them. If the Republicans are giving them more material than the Democrats, then that's making their point for them.

I don't have a horse in the political race, really. I'm Canadian, for one, and for two, I'm a fiscal conservative and social liberal. I believe in small government, and letting people be unless what they're doing is somehow directly harmful to others. There's no political party in the US or Canada that covers my political beliefs. The "conservative" parties are socially conservative, which I see as regressivism, but fiscally just as liberal as the supposedly "liberal" parties. Since my conservative (small-c) beliefs lack anyone who stands for them, I'm forced to vote my social conscience. As such, I identify with Daniels' character pretty well.

[Isuckatpvp]

It's perhaps a little unfair to say that nobody asked those questions. However, the point being made is that they were never answered, and the media never took anyone to task for that. The news media became an industry based on gaining and keeping viewers entertained rather than informed.

And the issue is not that some people weren't aware of these kinds of things at the time. The issue is that it is (or should be) the role of the news media to get EVERYONE asking those same questions, and demanding answers. To not let public figures get away with doublespeak and outright lies. The episode last night, I thought, was right on point about this.

There was once a time when journalists needed credible sources before they took anything on the air, because you couldn't risk saying anything you hadn't double- or triple-checked. Now, news agencies deliberately hire people for ignorance, because it's not libel or slander if you're stupid and ignorant enough to actually believe what you're saying.




Jeff Daniels' character is an outspoken registered Republican. I don't want to drag this into political debate (even though the show is decidedly political), but the point is not "Democrats GOOD Republicans BAD". It's that the discourse being used by and for Republicans is becoming more and more demeaning and/or unethical. And while they're picking mostly on Republicans, that mostly has to do with the dates of the setting. I'm sure as time goes on, they'll deal with other issues as well. It's like the Daily Show; they don't exist to pick on Republicans, they use the material reality gives them. If the Republicans are giving them more material than the Democrats, then that's making their point for them.

I don't have a horse in the political race, really. I'm Canadian, for one, and for two, I'm a fiscal conservative and social liberal. I believe in small government, and letting people be unless what they're doing is somehow directly harmful to others. There's no political party in the US or Canada that covers my political beliefs. The "conservative" parties are socially conservative, which I see as regressivism, but fiscally just as liberal as the supposedly "liberal" parties. Since my conservative (small-c) beliefs lack anyone who stands for them, I'm forced to vote my social conscience. As such, I identify with Daniels' character pretty well.

To your first point, the media, much like our gov't, gives us exactly what we want/ask for. There's a reason that you see a hundred magazines on the rack talking about the Kardashians and Oprah and so on and so on. The public reads it. If they wanted to read about what is going on in Somalia or the sex trade in Africa, he media would supply that. We're a cult of celebrity now and it gets fed to us because we eat it up like candy.

The point I want to really harp on is this notion that Jeff Daniels character is a an "outspoken registered Republican". Outside of him repeating that, I'm trying to find out what his political leanings are that would suggest that. The one where he states that there isn't anything wrong with taxing the richest people in the nation? The suggestion that the Tea Party is the most radical and dangerous thing to happen to this country in ever? The lack of mentioning that the governor of Wisconsin ran on an economic platform designed to reign in and rework union contracts not to "destroy the rights of workers"? I'm not sure where his Republican leanings are. . .but maybe they'll show up this next episode with Gabrielle Giffords. I'm sure they won't talk about targets and Sarah Palin and, if they do, will probably talk about Obama and his "gun to a knife fight" comment too. Like I stated before, it's lazy. There are plenty of incidents on both sides that could AND SHOULD be covered. You want to talk about doublespeak, why not talk about Obama extending the Patriot Act, wiretaps, and increasing the power of the Justice Department to detain American citizens without cause after running on a platform against that? I mean, it's all around us. They talk of an uneducated public, and continue to feed the distractions and noise.

The show has SO much opportunity, but they're wasting it for a cheap political gain. The worst part is, this feeds directly into the whole "left wing media" nonsense too. By not presenting everything wrong with the current administration as well as the minority party, you just continue on the BS and divide even further.

Also, god damn that love triangle stuff is stupid. I'm soooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo over that. Real people don't act like that. . .and when they do it doesn't happen for nine months. Shit or get off the pot with that stuff already. Of course, they think it provides human drama so they won't. . .but my god they need to make that better.

---------- Post added 2012-07-16 at 11:50 AM ----------

Also, for the record, I don't have any issues with a show being slanted or whatever. Just don't pretend like you're above the fray. That's all. I do find the content to be a bit tedious however.

[Halicia]

The point I want to really harp on is this notion that Jeff Daniels character is a an "outspoken registered Republican". Outside of him repeating that, I'm trying to find out what his political leanings are that would suggest that.

I think last night's episode was pretty clear about the whole Tea Party debacle... he hates liars.

And I'm not sure where they came with OUTSPOKEN registered republican, because in the first episode, he was being pressed to identify his political leanings... that doesn't sound particularly outspoken to me. (although obviously this show's allowed him his voice).

Also, he's not a voter that lets someone tell him what he believes, he decides on his own, then supports the candidate or party that follows it most closely.

But again, he does NOT abide by liars.

and finally the whole 'omg, this is just an obama re-election commercial' got slowed down last night, heh. If more news shows (aside from Comedy Central) let us laugh at the lies like that, I'd be more inclined to watch them, imo.

But seriously, are people *still* taken in by the whole tea party line after it's been shown to be a total farce ?

I'd love to see a third party arise, but it's kinda frightening that the Republican party was so easily bought and paid for and cowed into submission by some faulty claim of 'grassroots' activists.

I also loved the interplay of the gossip columns last night, ratings vs reporting...

'The news doesn't decide when someone's dead, a Doctor declares it'.

[Isuckatpvp]

I think last night's episode was pretty clear about the whole Tea Party debacle... he hates liars.

And I'm not sure where they came with OUTSPOKEN registered republican, because in the first episode, he was being pressed to identify his political leanings... that doesn't sound particularly outspoken to me. (although obviously this show's allowed him his voice).

Also, he's not a voter that lets someone tell him what he believes, he decides on his own, then supports the candidate or party that follows it most closely.

But again, he does NOT abide by liars.

and finally the whole 'omg, this is just an obama re-election commercial' got slowed down last night, heh. If more news shows (aside from Comedy Central) let us laugh at the lies like that, I'd be more inclined to watch them, imo.

But seriously, are people *still* taken in by the whole tea party line after it's been shown to be a total farce ?

I'd love to see a third party arise, but it's kinda frightening that the Republican party was so easily bought and paid for and cowed into submission by some faulty claim of 'grassroots' activists.

I also loved the interplay of the gossip columns last night, ratings vs reporting...

'The news doesn't decide when someone's dead, a Doctor declares it'.

I fucking LOVED that line. See that's what I can get behind in the show.

I'd like to see them shift gears and report and the hypocrisy of both sides to TRULY show how far gone both sides are and how they're using the politics of fear to get their flock in line. I really do. It's shameful how bad it has gotten over the past. . .hell 20 years. This show does have the potential to be great, but they have to rake both sides over the coals or else they're guilty of doing what they're persecuting the news of doing. Reporting one thing and turning a blind eye to everything else.

[Halicia]

they have to rake both sides over the coals or else they're guilty of doing what they're persecuting the news of doing. Reporting one thing and turning a blind eye to everything else.

agreed, but if people can't accept a democratic black president on a TV show without screaming liberal bias, there's not much they can do about it.

I've also found the show to be somewhat ambivalent to political parties. The tea party episode was NOT anti-republican, and its not like it was untrue, either.

If you actually try to concentrate much on the issues, I haven't really found them bringing them up. Obviously gun control was an interesting bit in the last episode, but more of the sort of person that would bring a loaded gun on a first date. (blind date, maybe... but this was someone that was wellknown)

[chaud]

Great show, and since no one has mentioned it yet, it was renewed for a second season a while back. Hopefully numbers stay high enough that we get a third season, provided they don't run out of news stories to focus each episode on.

[Isuckatpvp]

agreed, but if people can't accept a democratic black president on a TV show without screaming liberal bias, there's not much they can do about it.

I've also found the show to be somewhat ambivalent to political parties. The tea party episode was NOT anti-republican, and its not like it was untrue, either.

If you actually try to concentrate much on the issues, I haven't really found them bringing them up. Obviously gun control was an interesting bit in the last episode, but more of the sort of person that would bring a loaded gun on a first date. (blind date, maybe... but this was someone that was wellknown)

Oh I didn't say the things weren't TRUE, just that the slant and focus is only hitting one side. When you present everyone who is against illegal immigration as numbskulls and idiots (not to mention totally fictional), you're doing a disservice to a real issue that a lot of people have very cogent thoughts about.

As to the crux of the show, I don't feel that it's anti-republican as much as it's pro-Obama. While that sounds like splitting hairs, there is a difference. For example, you can point out that Obama expanded the powers of the Justice Department like Bush. You can show that Obama has extended tax cuts for the wealthy. On and on. That doesn't show any bias against any of the right, but it certainly would put a knock in the armor of those who think Obama is fighting the good fight against all the wrongs that Bush created.

I'm in favor of pointing out hypocrisy and stupidity within the voting public, I just wish they'd do it against their own kind. Sorkin is an unabashed liberal, and that's totally fine. We all know it and it's not a big deal. HOWEVER, if you want to put a TV show out there that floats the idea that facts and information are more important than sexy and chasing tail, you'd better do your best to stay away from using the same tactics while hiding behind a curtain of "well, it's the truth". There's more than one side to these stories, I'd just like them to present it all. Unless someone wants to argue that the only people who have said anything incorrect have been Palin, Beck, and Limbaugh.

[Korgoth]

It's well written and the character soap aspect of it will keep me watching.

I like the idea of the show calling out previous news for how bullshit it is, and for the lies various people told the media ate up and spread, but I am at odds with it's political viewpoint that leaves the lies and bullshit of the left off limits.

Though the story I most want to see them do is the Trayvon Martin shooting. With Will putting up a picture of him at the time of his death, not 4 years earlier, and calling out every news channel, paper, website that used a child photo; called Zimmerman white, and created a racial shitstorm for the sake of ratings.

[Deleted]

Loving this show, the ending to that last episode was amazing. The cast is great Jeff Daniels in the lead really makes the show.

[TheHaunt]

ep 3 ftw!!

[Halicia]

When you present everyone who is against illegal immigration as numbskulls and idiots (not to mention totally fictional), you're doing a disservice to a real issue that a lot of people have very cogent thoughts about.

I didn't see that at all. I saw the same episode, and saw that they dropped the ball huge because the governor's office 'set them up', and the only people they had on such short notice turned out to be ignorant bigots. The 'intern turned AP' expected to lose her job over that, so how was that intended to be representative of the issue as a whole ?

As to the crux of the show, I don't feel that it's anti-republican as much as it's pro-Obama...
but it certainly would put a knock in the armor of those who think Obama is fighting the good fight against all the wrongs that Bush created.

Did you not watch this week's episode where it specifically calls out Obama for failing in every aspect of Gun Control ? An issue he campaign on, and that Bush had actually done more for Gun Control then Obama did.

You call out the liberal bias of media because you "just wish they'd do it against their own kind.", and that's exactly what they did.

There's more than one side to these stories, I'd just like them to present it all.

The funny thing though, is that 'You' only present his attacks on the republican party, call him pro-obama, and then completely ignore his attack on Obama.

Isn't that what you accuse Sorkin of ?

It's important to distinguish too, the difference between the 'takedown pieces' and the actual newsworthy pieces.

When a senator rapes and kills a prostitute, its NOT an attack on his political party to report it.

[Isuckatpvp]

I didn't see that at all. I saw the same episode, and saw that they dropped the ball huge because the governor's office 'set them up', and the only people they had on such short notice turned out to be ignorant bigots. The 'intern turned AP' expected to lose her job over that, so how was that intended to be representative of the issue as a whole ?

Yes. That's what happened. . .on a fictional television program. They didn't need to go with that story line. They could have had a heated debate and discussion with a panel of educated folks discussing real pros and cons. Instead, they went that way. That's the choice they made. I thought it was lazy.

Did you not watch this week's episode where it specifically calls out Obama for failing in every aspect of Gun Control ? An issue he campaign on, and that Bush had actually done more for Gun Control then Obama did.

You call out the liberal bias of media because you "just wish they'd do it against their own kind.", and that's exactly what they did.

They didn't call Obama out. They were using that as a point to address the lies that were being spouted by Beck, Limbaugh, and Palin. He wasn't criticizing Obama but using it in the framework of saying he's not a crazy Marxist who wants to take your rights away (which, for the record I don't think or believe in the slightest. I think some of his policies. . .much like Romney's. . .are misguided and the wrong way, but hardly evil or conspiratorial).

I'm not saying anything about liberal bias other than Sorkin has yet to produce an issue in the show that makes the left look as stupid as he presents the right. That's all. It's a fictional program that is acting under the guise as something real with substance. If the tone shifts or balances out, I'll admit that as well. I'm hopeful that it does in fact because I quite enjoy the performances of the leads (other than that shitty romance crap).

The funny thing though, is that 'You' only present his attacks on the republican party, call him pro-obama, and then completely ignore his attack on Obama.

Isn't that what you accuse Sorkin of ?

I honestly don't see any calling out of Obama at this point in time. I've heard and seen Palin, Haliburton, Beck, Limbaugh knocked. Nothing about Obama other than the gun control thing which was seeming to paint him in a positive light. The CLOSEST I've seen them get to defending something on the right was when Daniels was talking about the Tea Party and it's first start and their beliefs before they got co-opted (much like the Occupy movement did in an ironic twist).

It's important to distinguish too, the difference between the 'takedown pieces' and the actual newsworthy pieces.

When a senator rapes and kills a prostitute, its NOT an attack on his political party to report it.

Of course it isn't. Just don't ignore the senator who threw one off of a building the same week. I don't think that's much to ask for. Do you?

[Endus]

I'm not saying anything about liberal bias other than Sorkin has yet to produce an issue in the show that makes the left look as stupid as he presents the right. That's all.

The issue is that this is an inherently illogical argument, and is the kind of untruth that is precisely what the show is attacking.

You want the show to present both sides as equally flawed. That isn't a given. If one side is more flawed than the other, they will catch the brunt of the show's direction, and this is good. The idea of "balance" in media reporting is absolutely used to present misinformation; in the name of "balance" you give outright lies and bafflegab the same weight as you give the truth, and you do your audience a disservice as a result.

It isn't a Left/Right thing, or a Democrat/Republican thing. It's a lies/truth thing. If one team is lying more than the other, and getting called out for doing so, then that doesn't mean they're being treated unfairly. It means they ARE being treated fairly. I'm a small-c conservative (but not a Libertarian, so don't go there), I'm pro-gun rights (as a Canadian), I'm anti-ignorance. I don't define myself by a political party. I'm only saying these to make it clear that I'm not "pro-Obama" in any way. He's no saint. I also think he's treated unfairly by the media in general in the US, and that much of what he promised and has failed to achieve has been due to compromising with the minority party representatives to get something accomplished rather than seeing Congress locked down into filibuster after filibuster. Is that right? Probably not. I think he could have done better. But the issues he presents as a leader and a candidate are nowhere close to the kinds of ignorance spewed by the likes of Sarah Palin or Rush Limbaugh. Nor are Democrats immune to being bad people. There was that issue last year with Anthony Weiner, a Democrat who was sending unsolicited salacious pics of his crotch. The difference is that he was roundly lambasted by fellow Democrats. Republicans who act badly are more often defended, or at least excused by their political brethren. The Daily Show, with Jon Stewart, threw that one crotch image up every day for like two weeks. Shows like The Daily Show, or the Newsroom, aren't being deliberately Democrat-favorable. Jon Stewart mocks politicans. Sorkin, in the Newsroom, is attacking dishonesty and doublethink. They both target Republicans more than Democrats, because Republicans are doing it so much more.


The two parties are NOT acting equally. And "fair and balanced" is Fox News doublethink.

[Isuckatpvp]

The issue is that this is an inherently illogical argument, and is the kind of untruth that is precisely what the show is attacking.

You want the show to present both sides as equally flawed. That isn't a given. If one side is more flawed than the other, they will catch the brunt of the show's direction, and this is good. The idea of "balance" in media reporting is absolutely used to present misinformation; in the name of "balance" you give outright lies and bafflegab the same weight as you give the truth, and you do your audience a disservice as a result.

It isn't a Left/Right thing, or a Democrat/Republican thing. It's a lies/truth thing. If one team is lying more than the other, and getting called out for doing so, then that doesn't mean they're being treated unfairly. It means they ARE being treated fairly. I'm a small-c conservative (but not a Libertarian, so don't go there), I'm pro-gun rights (as a Canadian), I'm anti-ignorance. I don't define myself by a political party. I'm only saying these to make it clear that I'm not "pro-Obama" in any way. He's no saint. I also think he's treated unfairly by the media in general in the US, and that much of what he promised and has failed to achieve has been due to compromising with the minority party representatives to get something accomplished rather than seeing Congress locked down into filibuster after filibuster. Is that right? Probably not. I think he could have done better. But the issues he presents as a leader and a candidate are nowhere close to the kinds of ignorance spewed by the likes of Sarah Palin or Rush Limbaugh. Nor are Democrats immune to being bad people. There was that issue last year with Anthony Weiner, a Democrat who was sending unsolicited salacious pics of his crotch. The difference is that he was roundly lambasted by fellow Democrats. Republicans who act badly are more often defended, or at least excused by their political brethren. The Daily Show, with Jon Stewart, threw that one crotch image up every day for like two weeks. Shows like The Daily Show, or the Newsroom, aren't being deliberately Democrat-favorable. Jon Stewart mocks politicans. Sorkin, in the Newsroom, is attacking dishonesty and doublethink. They both target Republicans more than Democrats, because Republicans are doing it so much more.


The two parties are NOT acting equally. And "fair and balanced" is Fox News doublethink.

You're confusing fair and equal with ignoring. If you think that the right is doing it so much more as you said, that's your right to believe so. You're wrong, but that's ok. The show is presenting a situation that, quite frankly, is dishonest. These questions are being asked. They weren't asked when it was breaking because when a breaking news story breaks, you don't have the luxury to spend months googling information to find out company history. This show does. The news talks about it months later when no one is paying attention to it anymore. It isn't the fault of the news that the American public has a short attention span.

What most of you fail to see is that this show is more a reflection of YOU than it is of news. How many times can they talk about how people don't watch the news anymore, how they change the channel if you're not giving sexy stories, about how you watch entertainment stories more than C-SPAN before you get it that it's an indictment of the public at large? If you actually paid attention to things, they'd talk about them more. The fact of the matter is that People magazine has a larger subscription base than the Wall Street Journal. That isn't the fault of CBS, NBC, ABC, or FOX.

Back to the point that I was making earlier in regards to presenting both sides. Again, this is a FICTIONAL show. They choose which story lines they'd like to present. Ignorance runs RAMPANT on both sides of the aisle and I'd love to see them present it. When they do, I'll be the first in line to say "Bravo!" and to make sure they show that both sides were guilty of that boneheaded mistake. I mean, the President LIED to his voting base by running on a platform of undoing things Bush did in regards to civil liberties. He didn't eliminate them, he expanded the damn things. That's not something Congress has to approve, that's him giving the power to the Justice Department. Why not talk about that? Why not talk about appointing the head of GE to his energy task force right around the time he was letting go of tens of thousands of workers to send those jobs overseas while the country was bleeding out? There are a ton of examples they could use but they don't. Instead, they've gone after one side and presented the lot of them as liars and ignorant of facts. Again, it gets boring for those of us who don't engage in circle jerks while patting our friends on the back.

You say that the Republicans are stopping Obama from doing what he wanted to. I present that, outside of the health care law, you'd be hard pressed to give more than five examples of that happening. In fact, for the most part, he's gotten a lot of what he promised through. The stuff he hasn't has been equally due to Democrats saying no as it has been because of Republicans. Feel free to look for yourself. The bottom line is that this show (so far) has engaged in the same demagoguery and dividing tactics that they claim (on the show) to abhor. Nothing is going to change when you choose to paint one side as the bad guys and neglect the sytem as the true fault.

[Endus]

The fact of the matter is that People magazine has a larger subscription base than the Wall Street Journal. That isn't the fault of CBS, NBC, ABC, or FOX.

That isn't the issue. The issue is that those major networks saw that, and said "well, cheap thrills sells better than actual news, so let's do cheap thrills from here on out." That's the point Newsroom is trying to make.

It's like if the Wall Street Journal decided to be a daily version of People Magazine and just run celeb gossip and the like.

Back to the point that I was making earlier in regards to presenting both sides. Again, this is a FICTIONAL show. They choose which story lines they'd like to present. Ignorance runs RAMPANT on both sides of the aisle and I'd love to see them present it. When they do, I'll be the first in line to say "Bravo!" and to make sure they show that both sides were guilty of that boneheaded mistake. I mean, the President LIED to his voting base by running on a platform of undoing things Bush did in regards to civil liberties. He didn't eliminate them, he expanded the damn things. That's not something Congress has to approve, that's him giving the power to the Justice Department. Why not talk about that?

Because the show is set a couple years ago. It opened with the Deepwater Horizon spill, which was in April 2010. It's now up to Giffords' being shot, which brings us to January 2011. That's just halfway through Obama's Presidency. The extension by Obama of the PATRIOT Act, by comparison, happened in May of 2011.

So, quite literally, the show hasn't talked about that because, in the show's timeline, it has not happened yet.

Why not talk about appointing the head of GE to his energy task force right around the time he was letting go of tens of thousands of workers to send those jobs overseas while the country was bleeding out? There are a ton of examples they could use but they don't.

He was appointed chairman of the advisory council in January 2011, after the attack on Giffords, so again, the show hasn't reached that point yet. And the noise was being made about a decision GE made in July 2011 to relocate a factory to China. So much later than the date the show is set at currently.

Not only is the argument that they should give "equal" treatment to both sides logically fallacious, since the two sides are NOT equal, but you're attacking the show for not discussing issues that haven't happened yet.

The bottom line is that this show (so far) has engaged in the same demagoguery and dividing tactics that they claim (on the show) to abhor.

The show isn't a news program that has an expected responsibility to be egalitarian. It is a work of fiction. Bashing it for not maintaining journalistic integrity is baseless, since it isn't journalism. It's like attacking The Daily Show for being unfair; Stewart is excruciatingly clear that his show is comedy, not journalism.

Nor is pointing out truths in any way "demagoguery". Are you implying that anything they've stated in the show is inherently untrue? Focusing solely on one side of the political aisle isn't enough to make it qualify. And, as we've already seen, the issues you're taking them to task for not addressing do not exist in the show's timeline, since this week's show ended on or shortly after January 8, 2011, in its timeline, with the attack on Giffords, and everything you've mentioned occurs after that point.

[Isuckatpvp]

That isn't the issue. The issue is that those major networks saw that, and said "well, cheap thrills sells better than actual news, so let's do cheap thrills from here on out." That's the point Newsroom is trying to make.

It's like if the Wall Street Journal decided to be a daily version of People Magazine and just run celeb gossip and the like.



Because the show is set a couple years ago. It opened with the Deepwater Horizon spill, which was in April 2010. It's now up to Giffords' being shot, which brings us to January 2011. That's just halfway through Obama's Presidency. The extension by Obama of the PATRIOT Act, by comparison, happened in May of 2011.

So, quite literally, the show hasn't talked about that because, in the show's timeline, it has not happened yet.



He was appointed chairman of the advisory council in January 2011, after the attack on Giffords, so again, the show hasn't reached that point yet. And the noise was being made about a decision GE made in July 2011 to relocate a factory to China. So much later than the date the show is set at currently.

Not only is the argument that they should give "equal" treatment to both sides logically fallacious, since the two sides are NOT equal, but you're attacking the show for not discussing issues that haven't happened yet.



The show isn't a news program that has an expected responsibility to be egalitarian. It is a work of fiction. Bashing it for not maintaining journalistic integrity is baseless, since it isn't journalism. It's like attacking The Daily Show for being unfair; Stewart is excruciatingly clear that his show is comedy, not journalism.

Nor is pointing out truths in any way "demagoguery". Are you implying that anything they've stated in the show is inherently untrue? Focusing solely on one side of the political aisle isn't enough to make it qualify. And, as we've already seen, the issues you're taking them to task for not addressing do not exist in the show's timeline, since this week's show ended on or shortly after January 8, 2011, in its timeline, with the attack on Giffords, and everything you've mentioned occurs after that point.

Ugh. I grow weary of this discussion now. I'm not bashing the show. I've already said I enjoy the performances and I love the idea of what the show is doing. I said that by limiting it to one side of the aisle, it's going to get boring and predictable quite fast. Forgive me for not giving an example of something that happened before 2010. When I have several hours to do such, I'll give you some if you'd like. It's like the grammar police retort. You get my point but go after the particulars.

You feel that the right has cornered the market on idiocy. That's fine. I happen to have a more pragmatic view and see it happening all over the place and would find a television show that heaps blame on the system and the politics of fear rather than a particular party who is the flavor du jour much more engaging. Again, AND HOPEFULLY LOUD ENOUGH FOR YOU TO HEAR, maybe they change course and get more into the heart of things. I hold little hope for this however.

[Edeen]

The pilot has so far been miles above the other episodes, as it had believable character development / presentation, and not silly love triangles. That being said, this show is still intriguing, and the two leads (Daniels and Mortimer) are quite good. They just need to take away some, if not all, love triangles. I get that they would want one to keep some drama coming, but two at the same time?

I'll be watching, and hoping for it to improve somewhat. If not, it's still an entertaining piece of TV, though currently not up to HBO's usual standard.

[Endus]

Ugh. I grow weary of this discussion now. I'm not bashing the show. I've already said I enjoy the performances and I love the idea of what the show is doing. I said that by limiting it to one side of the aisle, it's going to get boring and predictable quite fast. Forgive me for not giving an example of something that happened before 2010. When I have several hours to do such, I'll give you some if you'd like. It's like the grammar police retort. You get my point but go after the particulars.

That's interesting, since it's PRECISELY what you were doing, and I merely responded in kind. Your issue was that they didn't handle certain particulars from the Democrats, that everything they had done in the first few episodes had targeted Republicans. Which wasn't true, it targeted right-wing extremists, which isn't the same thing. In fact, when they dealt with illegal immigration, it was a major plot point that they didn't get the reasoned right-wing Republican viewpoints and were stuck with the right-wing wackos. And sure; the left wing has wackos, too. But people on the left tend, in general, to recognize them as wackos and distance themselves from them, whereas on the right, you get people with highly influential radio shows who'll draw connections between Bain Capital and the villain in the new Batman movie as if this were some left-wing conspiracy against Romney. That guy's not just not recognized as a wacko, he's a major player for the Right in the US.

You've declared that a TV drama failed to meet its obligation to treat both parties with equal disdain, without establishing that both were equally DESERVING of disdain, or that a TV drama has any such obligation in the first place. That's the issue. This doesn't mean the Democrats are lily-white saints and never do anything bad. It just means Republicans are more relevant to the point the show is making, and easier to find supporting examples to insert into the plot.