Season finale review: 'The Newsroom' - 'The Greater Fool': What kind of year has it been?
Will reacts badly to the magazine article, and Don has a proposal for Maggie
Jeff Daniels and Terry Crews in "The Newsroom" season finale.
A review of "The Newsroom" season finale coming up just as soon as I show you my recipe for beef stew...
"Nothing's harder than doing something for which you know you're going to take shit." -Charlie
This entire season of "The Newsroom" was in the can before any of it aired on television, and some critics of the show have suggested that if it hadn't been, Aaron Sorkin might have had the opportunity to course-correct in response to some of the complaints. I don't think that's the case. First, "Studio 60" — for which Sorkin took nearly as much grief as he has for this show — was still in production when the response to it went south, and for the most part none of the things people were complaining about changed. Second, Sorkin respectfully but strongly disagreed with most of "The Newsroom" complaints when he appeared at press tour a few weeks ago.
And third, "The Greater Fool" suggests he knew in advance what many of the criticisms of this show would be(*), and he didn't much care because he felt tilting at windmills was the entire point of the project.
(*) There were no meta responses to the complaints about sexism or clumsy romantic comedy, but those have been issues he's struggled with on all of his shows, rather than being specific to "The Newsroom."
Brian's cover story for New York feels very much like the coverage "The Newsroom" wound up attracting, accusing Will and "News Night" 2.0 of naivete, narcissism, condescension, and a host of other sins that the HBO show has been said to have committed. And at multiple points in the finale — when Lisa, for instance, is out to dinner with Maggie and tells her she's gone nowhere in a year — characters suggest that for all of their idealism and virtue and hard work, they've accomplished precious little over the last year-plus. And that has to be the case, because this show doesn't have the ability to change the history it takes place in. It can't retroactively make the rest of the news media stop focusing on Casey Anthony. It can't in hindsight lead all moderate Republicans to rise up as one against the Tea Party. It can't change Arizona's immigration law, can't stop the flow of oil in the Gulf, can't prevent Gabby Giffords from being shot in the head. Maybe Sorkin believes that the show's mission to civilize can have an affect on the real world going forward — that perhaps if enough of what he considers to be right-thinking Republicans watched this season, they might finally start objecting to the Tea Party — and this will be reflected in the show's third or fourth seasons. Given how dug in everyone's position is on matters political and financial, I don't see that happening — I can't imagine anyone watching this show for very long if they didn't already agree with Sorkin and/or Will McAvoy — and as a result, "The Newsroom" can't be looked at as an agent of social change and entirely as a vehicle for entertainment.
And it's there where the show was so often frustrating this season. As I've said, I agree with many of the points Sorkin has been making about how screwed up our political system is,(*) and how morally bankrupt the media that covers it is. But I also think "The Newsroom" has fallen down repeatedly on questions of characterization, narrative cohesion and other basic issues that are essential whether you're telling stories about very real social issues or doing something like "Game of Thrones."
(*) You guys have all been excellent at not turning the comments section for this show into political flamewars, and I am very grateful for that. Let's try to keep things civil in discussing the finale, as well. I suspect going into any real depth in reacting to Will comparing the Tea Party to the Taliban will get ugly in a hurry, but we'll give it a try and see what happens.
On the sexism front, I was relieved for about 30 seconds when it seemed like Sloan was telling Don exactly what was wrong with him, because the gender roles have gone almost entirely the other way throughout this season, and here finally was a woman wisely telling a man what was what about himself. But then it turned out that her speech wasn't so much driven by a keen insight into Don's character as by Sloan having an unrequited crush on the guy that will turn our irritating love rhombus into a pentagon. Oh, well. At the very least, her lecture to Will about the true meaning of the article/episode title wasn't driven by any feelings of romantic longing. (That we know of, anyway.) And the love pentagon scenes also featured Maggie going on an epic rant about the utter lack of realism on "Sex and the City," which, while true, is the sort of stone that the writer of this glass, proudly unrealistic drama probably should not be throwing.
And Jennifer Johnson, the stupid sorority girl from the pilot — who must always, always, always be referred to by Will as "girl" — has just been so enchanted by the work that "News Night" has done over the last year-plus that she wants nothing more than a job where she can learn from this great and important man, even though he's also a colossal ass who publicly, nationally humiliated her.
Because regardless of Will's many, many, many character flaws, this work they're doing — which, as Sloan notes to Don, has seemingly accomplished nothing — is just that important. It's important enough that paragons of journalistic virtue Will, Mac and Charlie would be willing to cover up evidence of an incredible violation of both the law and journalistic ethics all in the name of continuing to do the show they want. Never mind that if Reese's activities ever got out — and they likely would sooner or later, based on how the News Corp. scandal went down — then all of our heroes' public credibility goes away forever, because they knew about this and didn't speak out because it would be personally beneficial. Yes, they shut down the tabloid (and cost a lot of people jobs in a horrible economy, but based on the characters' view of TMI, they probably don't much care about anyone who would work there), but Reese goes largely unpunished and there's no public accounting of the crimes committed.
As with every episode of this show, there were individual moments — Charlie's reaction to Hancock's suicide, Will finally getting out of bed and back to work, Leona's reaction to realizing they were just bluffed — that lived up to the talent of everyone involved in making "The Newsroom," and it's for those reasons that I'll come back next season despite all the agita so much of it gives me.
I understand wanting to believe in the message here. I just wish I didn't dislike so many of the messengers.
What did everybody else think?
Alan Sepinwall may be reached at sepinwall@hitfix.com
Trending Now on HitFix Boards
| Topic | Started By | Latest Post | Replies |
|---|---|---|---|
| sepinwall |
6 days ago
|
2
|
|
| sepinwall |
16 days ago
|
1
|
|
| Discuss Scripted Dramas on HitFix Message Boards » | |||
News From Our Partners
-
Baz Luhrmann Passed on Directing 'Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone'
Someone Just Paid $1.5 Million to Sit Next to Leonardo DiCaprio in Space
Tim Curry Is Fine After Suffering a Massive Stroke: Report
-
Cannes Film Festival: Cannes 2013, Day Ten: The big wrap-up, including Jim Jarmusch's fantastic vampire film
Hear This: “Second Best” reflects a pivotal moment all serious bands face
Watch This: The wages and the fear remain high in William Friedkin’s Sorcerer
-
Weekly Ketchup: Fox and Marvel Both Courting Quicksilver for Comic Blockbusters
Critics Consensus: Fast & Furious 6 is Certified Fresh
Red Carpet Photos with Vin Diesel, Michelle Rodriguez, Gina Carano and More
-
The Telefile - The Most Heinous Person on Reality TV This Week
The Telefile - Does Someone Have to Go?: Work Sucks.... If You Are On This Show
The Telefile - Save Me: Lightning Strikes NBC
-
What to Watch This Weekend: Orphan Black, Behind the Candelabra, and Arrested Development's Netflix Debut
Do These Four New Arrested Development Clips Get You Excited for the Show's Return? (VIDEO)
Arrested Development Q&A: Alia Shawkat on Maeby, the Return of the Show, and the Canonization of Mitch Hurwitz
-
Mega Man X Trailer: The Blue Bomber Busts His Way to Wii U Next Week
The Wrap Up: Charlie Sheen Gets a New Name For 'Machete Kills'
New 'Man of Steel' TV Spot: "Why Did You Send Me Here?"
-
Babble.com: 8 Parenting Lessons To Learn From 'Arrested Development'
WATCH: New 'Arrested' Clip You Probably Haven't Seen
What Is Up With Rob Lowe's Face? The Actor On His Crazy 'Candelabra' Role
-
'Star Wars: Episode VI': What's Its Legacy... And Its Future?
'Arrested Development' Season Four: Eight Things To Remember
'Fast & Furious 6': The Reviews Are In!
Get Instant Alerts on What's Alan Watching
Latest Posts
-
Steven Soderbergh biopic about Liberace is HBO's best movie in yearsFriday, May 24, 2013
-
Will gets lost in a case, and Lecter tries to protect Abigail HobbsThursday, May 23, 2013
-
Announcing this summer's blog rewatch seriesThursday, May 23, 2013
-
The Dunphys and Pritchetts head to Florida for the funeral of Phil's momThursday, May 23, 2013


Comments
Option 1
Comment instantly as a guest GuestOption 2
Option 3
Login or create a HitFix account Login Signup- 1
- 2
- 3
Next 151 CommentsBryan Cook
August 27, 2012 at 2:09PM EST Reply to CommentRe: the reference to the American Taliban, that's actually the premise of a book by Markos Moulitsas (creator of the Daily Kos blog) by the same name. It's not exactly an original idea. That's all I will say about it. Not interested in discussing the validity of the statement.
Blaaaa Such an obvious conclusion Can't be original. The tea party has been around for a while and I'm surprised I didn't think of the comparison until Will MacAvoy pointed it out. But the fact is people in the USA watch far more than they read as I am certain many members of. The tea party don't know how to read. The point is Sorkin made that concept known to many more people by using the medium of television.
August 29, 2012 at 5:33AM ESTMiken
August 27, 2012 at 2:13PM EST Reply to CommentI watch it to be entertained. I was entertained.
uscue Reply to comment...
September 3, 2012 at 9:26AM ESTuscue Same here. I don't get the argument that because it's based in the real world that nothing can change. I don't personally care if at any point in the series they change the media and American politics. All I care about is seeing an entertaining and behind-the-scenes take (even if they have the use of hindsight to write a better storyline) on major news events.
September 3, 2012 at 9:30AM ESTI'd like this show if the writing was the same and based on the news cycle of the 60's. It's just entertaining to see how this group spins its wheels in trying to continue its 2.0 attempts.
BlitzMark Exactly. Well said Miken
September 5, 2012 at 1:07AM ESTfloretbroccoli
August 27, 2012 at 2:14PM EST Reply to CommentI was more than a little puzzled by Hope Davis's situation. She needed a second source before she could publish that Will was high on the air. But her first source was an illegal phone hack. So having two sources is essential, even if one of them is illegal?
sepinwall She needed A source, because she couldn't base a story on the illegal hack. If she had been told about Will being high in some other way, she wouldn't have needed a second source. Publishing when that was the only way for her to know could have tipped Will to the hack.
August 27, 2012 at 2:16PM ESTfloretbroccoli Ah. So she was being less than truthful when she said she needed a SECOND source. Shocking.
August 27, 2012 at 2:18PM ESTRoy Her need for a second source wasn't journalistic integrity, but simply that they couldn't cite the first. TMI doesn't need two sources to run with a story, they need one they can cite.
August 27, 2012 at 2:21PM ESTRoy Oops. Should've refreshed.
August 27, 2012 at 2:22PM ESTAdam What's strange about that situation is that by telling a journalist that she had a first source, and Hope knew her first source was illegal and likely dangerous to talk to, she set in motion the events that led to her losing her job. She should have either probed to get a second source or left the story alone, but the one thing she shouldn't have done is told the person whose phone was hacked. Even if Hope knew that the message was deleted the last thing she should have done was tell MacKenzie. And her guilty conscience wasn't a very credible motivation.
August 27, 2012 at 4:42PM ESTCJ I agree with Adam about the guilty conscience being a motive. Once I realized the first source was a hack I figured she was trying to trick Mac into saying something about it.
August 27, 2012 at 5:54PM ESTAlso, she had no way of knowing that they would shut down the magazine when they went to Mac.
TSillanpaa By telling McKenzie that she had the information and that it was an impeccable source...she did tip them off in a way. Did they not figure out she got the info from a phone hack...thus she needed a 2nd source...when they all knew that the tabloids don't care about getting 2nd sources. She tipped McKenzie...I just didn't get the quick change in her motives.
August 30, 2012 at 1:25AM ESTuscue I don't think she knew that the staff was in any way aware that there was the possibility that they were being hacked. Remember, they only knew because Solomon told Charlie ... if Solomon had no reason to try and get his story on the news, Mac and the rest would have no way of knowing about a hack and thus wouldn't have come to the conclusion that her voicemails were hacked as Source #1.
September 3, 2012 at 9:36AM ESTHope knew they couldn't run a story based on the hack alone, and I don't think she was attempting to trick McKenzie. I think she knew this story would be the tipping point and didn't hate Will to the point that she wanted him to lose his job. But she also wanted to keep her job so she was telling McKenzie that if anyone came forward with information that she would be forced to write the story. Sure they would wonder what the first source was, but in her mind they would forever be suspicious of everyone that was in the room (because as far as she knows, no one at ACN has absolutely any possible way in 'already' knowing they were being hacked. Unfortunately for her, Charlie already knew).
Buffalo Anyone think that it wasn't a hack that gave her the message. Maybe, he was stoned and simply dialed the wrong number and left the message on the wrong voice mail. That's why confirmation was necessary, she couldn't tell if it was a prank?
September 4, 2012 at 7:51PM ESTLJA
August 27, 2012 at 2:17PM EST Reply to CommentThe Sex and the City stuff felt particularly cheesy in light of the fact Sorkin has/had been dating Kristin Davis.
While acknowledging the flaws, I did like the finale, and most of the first season overall.
Meg I was thinking the same thing. Sorkin is always tapping his love life for this sort of thing, and Maggie's rant felt very much like he was recreating an exact argument he had with Davis about the show or something. Just like the Christianity stuff with the Christian character from Studio 60 who was a stand-in for Sorkin's ex Kristin Chenowith.
August 27, 2012 at 3:27PM ESTAP The sex and the city stuff felt particularly cheesy because it ended with Maggie being chased down the street by her crush, and then kissing passionately on the side walk. It was meta, ripped seemingly directly from a SatC episode - but it wasn't meant to make fun of SatC, that scene kept in line with the silliness of the sex-quadrangle that's been occurring the whole season.
August 28, 2012 at 12:04PM ESTWhat a farce.
TSillanpaa You really thought about Aaron Sorkin dating Kristin Davis while that scene unfolded? Way to go! I'm not nearly that quick.
August 30, 2012 at 1:26AM ESTFartattacker69696969
August 27, 2012 at 2:17PM EST Reply to CommentI loved this season. I understandnthe criticism but think the show is amazing, aside from it being a little too quirky at times.
Other Scott
August 27, 2012 at 2:31PM EST Reply to CommentThis is one of those shows where if I could just do a better job turning my brain off I think I could get to a point where I really enjoy it. I'm not quite at that point yet. My primary reaction to last night:
"Really, Sloane? You're going to drag yourself into this mess?"
So, how many episodes until Neal is involved in the love polygon?
Adam "wasn't driven by any feelings of romantic longing. (That we know of, anyway.)"
August 27, 2012 at 4:48PM ESTHow have Sloane and Will not hooked up by now? I didn't see it until this episode but she idolizes him, he has a special interest in her, she's smart, pretty, single and works at the show. She seems like she would be interested in the older, rich, handsome, star news anchor than the network producer with the on-again off-again romance with the flighty girl on staff. In real life they would have dated for six months and it would be awkward at work forever, right?
Mike Yep, that was my reaction too Scott. Seems like Sorkin won't accept that he actually had one character I quite liked on the show in Sloan, and decided, let's cut her off at the knees as well. Now we're down to just Leona and Charlie (and realistically, with Jack McCoy being one of the biggest initial influences that got me interested in my current career path, there's really nothing he can do to corrupt Sam Waterston for me).
August 27, 2012 at 7:15PM ESTZEKE "Seems like Sorkin won't accept that he actually had one character I quite liked on the show in Sloan, and decided, let's cut her off at the knees as well."
August 27, 2012 at 9:56PM ESTAgreed.
jonnybgoode I was asking the same thing a couple weeks ago. Neal is definitely gonna jump Sloane's bones, and Sloane is gonna end up being friends with Neal's girl. Watch...
August 28, 2012 at 12:32AM ESTap Haha, the second she admitted her crush to Don, I immediately yelled out, "WHAT!?"
August 28, 2012 at 12:05PM ESTTo me, at least, that came out of NO WHERE.
MBM9 Sloan and Will haven't hooked up yet because he secretly knows how stupid she really is. Turned down another job that would've paid $4 MILLION ?!? What an idiot. Now all she has going for her is her looks.
August 28, 2012 at 4:20PM ESTI am so done with this show, I've been hate watching since episode 2 and now that it's over I am happy to know that I won't be watching anymore. Not funny, super cheesy, ridiculous subplots= SHIT SHOW.
Ted Sillanpaa Speaking only from my experience...I've rarely found others able to make sense of the choices I made in love and relationships so...the fact that you're bent about Sloan having a crush on Don is actually very true to life.
August 30, 2012 at 1:28AM ESTXeRocks81
August 27, 2012 at 2:31PM EST Reply to CommentSam Waterston killed it (as usual) in the scene where he learns about the NSA source's (can't remember his name offhand) suicide.
Eric Almendral
August 27, 2012 at 2:34PM EST Reply to CommentNo one will ever accuse The Newsroom of being overly subtle. From the beginning, the references to Don Quixote have made it quite clear that Sorkin is well aware of the futility of not just News Night 2.0 but also of the many political points he's made through the course of the show. For all the rousing speeches, Sorkin's thematic agenda has been colored by defeatism from the start. He's sending the boy at the end of Camelot out to tell the story before the story's even done.
The finale may have had the most heavy-handedly didactic moment of the season with the "American Taliban" bit, but it wasn't nearly as cringe-worthy as the mock debate in the previous episode. No one in the news media, regardless of party or idealism, is naive enough to think that would ever happen.
All that aside, I found the season very entertaining, thanks to some excellent acting that transcended most of the flaws in writing. Even Olivia Munn, who I've never thought was anything more than "acceptable" was quite good by the finale. And if you'd have told me a year ago that I'd be watching a scene starring Dev Patel, Sam Waterston and Terry Crews, written by Sorkin and directed by the guy who did "Superbad," I'd have laughed.
ZEKE Heavy-handed is an understatement. The Taliban just beheaded 17 people at a dance party. I hope the Tea Party don't start beheading people at dance parties. That would suck.
August 27, 2012 at 9:59PM ESTRorark
August 27, 2012 at 2:35PM EST Reply to CommentI think the sexism charges are mostly unfair and really overblown, but Sloane confessing her crush to Don was a genuinely cringe inducing miscalculation on Sorkin's part.
CJ As that scene was happening I was cringing because...cmon Sorkin. We don't care about the romantic relationships, we care about the interpersonal interactions.
August 27, 2012 at 5:57PM ESTTSillanpaa Why? Because nothing cringe-worthy ever happens between men and women in real life? Huh? Happened to me a lot.
August 30, 2012 at 1:29AM ESTDonald Mousalitas fits in real well with Ted Rall.
August 31, 2012 at 10:43AM ESTIt's also nice to see that most of the posters here have no concept of the tea party movement. What with y'all being intellectuals and all.
Rorark Huh? Think you maybe meant to respond to someone else, Donald - personally I wasn't going to touch the Tea Party stuff with a 10 foot pole...
August 31, 2012 at 11:32AM ESTAnd Tsillanpaa - whether it's realistic or not it made for, IMO, a lousy dramatic scenario.
Donald Sorry Rorak, I ble iPhone.
August 31, 2012 at 3:16PM ESTIt was in response to the bank responses on KG's post.
Donald Damn. That's blame and banal.
August 31, 2012 at 3:18PM ESTKG
August 27, 2012 at 2:36PM EST Reply to CommentI have to say, that the show lost me as a viewer. I am admittedly not of the same political viewpoint of Sorkin. So, I think that played a role in losing me, as Alan pointed out in his review. It is hard for me to criticize without going into the politics of the show, the whole RINO speech by Will bothered me as that is exactly how the show has portrayed him. He has not shown one Republican trait in the show, but keeps reminding us that he is a Republican, so his attacks must be pure. I am no fan of the tea party, but they aren't the only problems with the country today either. If Will had thrown out some ideas for stories against other views (even if it was 5 to 1), it helped the credibility of him as a Republican, but that is just my opinion.
The more I watched the more I hated how weak the women were portrayed as well. The horrible love stories; Sloan supposedly having not social insight at all, and then suddenly being able to pinpoint what Don is doing; an incredible producer that is suddenly seemingly incompetent when she arrives. Really?
One season was more than enough for me.
jim Goodbye, enjoy the Kool -Aid.
August 27, 2012 at 2:54PM ESTKG See, this is where it could devolve into a political debate. It is also where the show really failed me. It started as a statement that we were going to have a debate and have facts and the truth, but ended up, "if you don't agree with me you're wrong." So because I stated that I don't share Sorkin's political stance, I and wroing-minded and drink Republican Kool-Aid? Exactly the behavior that Will was arguing (correctly) that the Tea Party uses in their rhetoric. There are plenty of issues with which I disagree with the Republican party. I wish all sides of political debate could be a little open minded. Note, I didn't say more, because that would indicate that there is some openmindedness.
August 27, 2012 at 3:24PM ESTMeg I'm a moderate Republican who for the most part shares Will's view of the Tea Party. But you're absolutely right. First of all, by using the phrase "American Taliban," Sorkin is quoting the title of the book by the editor of The Daily Kos, and one of the most virulently liberal voices in politics today.
August 27, 2012 at 3:40PM ESTSecond, aside from Lisa randomly pointing out that Will is pro-life, and him spouting off a few episodes back (privately, of course, not on the air) about immigrants taking American jobs, the man has not stated a single Republican viewpoint that he holds. It's just weird. I was a big fan of many of Sorkin's GOP characters from The West Wing, I know he's capable of writing them well. I don't know why he's failing with Will.
Brian I agree with this. Sorkin did a great job making Ansley Hayes seem like a real moderate Republican on the West Wing, so I'm not quite sure why he is failing here. Even a few comments here or there about keeping government small and protecting U.S. business from over-regulation would go a long way to making Will's attacks on the Tea Party (which I happen to agree with even as a Republican) seem more substatial and unbiased.
August 27, 2012 at 3:57PM ESTThat being said, I think the criticism for the show has gone too far. Its not perfect, but its better than 95% of the shows out there, and keeps me entertained throughout (even if the love triangle stuff has to go).
weed4504 I'm a liberal but respect your stance on the show. It's an absolutely valid one and I don't think every Republican is some evil, brain-washed hick who hates vast majorities of the American population.
August 27, 2012 at 4:35PM ESTI think the best person that the show could have used to base Will off of would be Joe Scarborough on Morning Joe. He gets up every morning and is very clear about his traditional conservative and religious values but also isn't extreme and will be just as quick to attack extremism on the right and attack the Bush-era decisions of his party as well as attack Obama and Democrats in congress. On air he often raises his voice and get's angry and goes on a rant but also laughs with everyone and calms down pretty quickly. Even as a liberal who disagrees with a lot of his stances, I have a lot of respect for Scarborough and the show he's put together and I think it's one that Sorkin could look at as a template for a genuinely conservative character.
All that said, Jim, you're being an asshole and that small-minded thinking and quick-to-name-calling tactic is just as wrongheaded and petty as the kool-aid you're accusing KG of drinking. Grow up. I agree with most of Sorkin's points on the show and I'm considering walking away from it as well, not because I have some kool-aid to drink, but because the writing on the show is often painful to watch.
KG Thank you for the comments: Meg, Brian, and Weed4504.
August 27, 2012 at 4:46PM ESTKaz I think that is a fair criticism (the whole idea that simply by calling Will a Republican, sorkin gets off the hook for having his own bias), but I think it is worth remembering the whole point made about the "bias towards fairness" from episode 2. The whole point there is that balance for balance's sake is not worthwhile. So, why should Sorkin heed this rule in how he constructs his show? Why does he have to take one from column a and one from column b in perfect proportion to be credible? It is perfectly fair to say they could have included more of Will being a conservative, or to say that they could have included more that was critical of Democrats or Liberals, but I don't think it invalidates the show that they chose not to. Again, you don't have to make up affectations to balance in order to be credible, I think this shows stands for that.
August 27, 2012 at 6:38PM ESTAlso, I would argue there is more of Will being a classic conservative (the type he identifies himself as) than you are giving the show credit for. It is broad, but the whole idea of bringing intellectualism back to the Republican party is one of Will's main causes. His efforts to reign in the ideological driven approach of the tea-party in favor of a facts and reason based discussion is quintessentially conservative, mainly in its opposition to placing ideology ahead of a reasoned search for the truth. What about opposing giving states the right to demand citizenship papers from anyone, at any time? Isn't that fighting against the expansion of state powers and the erosion of individual civil liberties? Sounds like a classically conservative perspective to me. Also, think about Will's perspective on the debt ceiling and generally the GOP's tax policy. A classic conservative would want to get the fiscal house back in order, and would proceed practically, rather than ideologically. That doesn't square with refusing to give in on any revenue increases, nor does it square with, for example, the Paul Ryan budget plans that INCREASES the debt by 40 billion a year. The tea party endorsed budget isn't based on slashing debt (neither is a refusal on a 6 to 1 spending cuts to revenue increases compromise), but that is what they claim. A classic conservative, true to his or her principles, would surely call out that intellectual tomfoolery, as well as the playing of political games with the economy a la the debt ceiling fiasco. In criticizing the tea party, will is standing for classically conservative point of view.
It goes back to Will's point when he was talking about RINO's. He says it is ironic that he is called a rino because it is his belief that the tea partiers are, in fact, the RINOs. They have drifted so far to the right, and become so theological in their political views, that you can no longer find the threads of classical conservatism. You can agree or disagree, but that is the perspective: the tea party IS NOT a "conservative" intellectual cause. They call themselves that, but they oppose secularism (defended by conservatives for decades before the "evangelicazation" of the republican party), promote ideology, oppose compromise, etc. All things classic, let's call them McAvoyian conservatives, oppose. The tea party are the ones who pretend to be conservatives. I personally agree with this point. I would be called a liberal by today's political spectrum, but I think of myself as an Oakeshottian conservative. As far as today's Republican party goes though, I can't stand the theocratic disposition, the promotion of xenophobia, the homogenous nature of the party (litmus tests, shouting down opposing viewpoints within the party), the promotion of Randian social darwinism (as well as the denial of science and intellectualism) and the inflexibility when it comes to compromise, which are really and truly necessary to make progress in American government.
Mike I would not disagree that it's better than 95% of the shows out there, but given that Alan probably writes regular recaps of about 5% or less, and given that many of us have things to do that we can only probably watch 5% or less of television shows, I'm not sure how effective that is as a line of reasoning. Like sure, it's better than garbage like 2 and a Half Men, True Blood, and the like, but if I'm watching a show, particularly one by an accomplished virtuoso of television that wrote two of the best network shows ever, I'd hope it would aspire to the Breaking Bads, the Mad Mens, the Game of Throneses, and the Homelands of the world rather than being content for being better than stuff most people on this blog aren't watching.
August 27, 2012 at 7:23PM ESTrcade Meg: If you regard Markos Moulitsas as "one of the most virulently liberal voices in politics today," you should read some Ted Rall, Chris Hedges and Counterpunch.
August 28, 2012 at 10:43AM ESTZacharyTF
August 27, 2012 at 2:37PM EST Reply to CommentThis is the first Sorkin series where the first season finale wasn't titled "What Kind Of Day Has It Been?".
I guess he didn't want to incur the wrath of the whatever from high atop the thing after the critical and commercial failure that was Studio 60.
Meg He must have forgotten to go outside, turn around 3 times and spit.
August 27, 2012 at 3:41PM ESTLauren spit & curse
August 28, 2012 at 2:57PM ESTGreg
August 27, 2012 at 2:38PM EST Reply to CommentWhen we first met Sloan, right in the beginning of the season, there's a scene where Mac says that she contracted her because "if she's going to give a lesson about economy, it has to come from somebody with nice legs" (or something like that). That's just how The Newsroom feels to me. It's Sorkin giving us a lesson while trying to distract us with all those ridiculous romances.
He has done some critiques in his past work, but here that was his main goal. Probably his only goal. Everything else seems like an afterthought. Or at least received such treatment. Because even though the romances were never what made me watch the Sorkin shows, they were never so excruciating as the ones seen here. Not even in Studio 60.
clarem "Excruciating" yup absolutely agree with that description....and they don't add anything to the series....what, smart people being not so smart about their love lives?? More like smart people being completely dishonest to themselves and everyone around them about their lovelives...and seriously who cares anyway. Sloan, the one female character I respected now dragged into some ridiculous on again off again situation.....Rats!
August 28, 2012 at 3:37AM ESTnot girl
August 27, 2012 at 2:39PM EST Reply to Comment"I understand wanting to believe in the message here. I just wish I didn't dislike so many of the messengers. "
That's a good way to sum up the first season.
Chad
August 27, 2012 at 2:40PM EST Reply to CommentThe relationship drama is SOOOOOOOOOOO bad I think it can really mask what could be a great show. Is there anyone at this point who is invested in anything other than the fate of NewsNight? Don and Sloan are arguably two of the more entertaining characters but they completely botched any chance that their romance could have been as equally entertaining as their characters. Maggie is just plain awful when it comes to anything resembling human emotion and Jim is a friggin joke. The fact that Will and Mac arent together or didnt come together in the finale was just stupid. Why did they have to spend so much time on relationships absolutely no one was invested in?
jim
August 27, 2012 at 2:48PM EST Reply to CommentMy jaw dropped when he said American Taliban. Love it!
Liz Yeah, I also loved it when Markos Moulitsas used the phrase for his book two years ago. It made Will's solemn pronouncement seem a little behind the times.
August 27, 2012 at 4:05PM ESTSaveFarris To be fair, it's only been a single year in show-time.
August 27, 2012 at 5:31PM ESTLiz But the finale took place in August of 2011, and the book was published in September 2010. Don't get me wrong, I'm not accusing the show of plagiarism or anything; that's ridiculous. I'm just saying that I don't see what was so impressive about Will's use of the phrase when it had already entered the culture almost a year earlier.
August 27, 2012 at 5:44PM ESTTrue To be fair, I said it two years before Markos Moulitsas OR Will McAvoy. But I'm always ahead like that. *wink* Anyway...I have got to know who wrote the character CJ Cregg, and her long-running interaction with journo Danny C. What a great character she was, and what a completely charming romance they had. I am convinced that the females and romances on this series simply could not be written by the same person. Well, either that or Allison Janney is some kind of ninja who Sorkin dared never cross... That's probably not a new idea around here, but it's the first time I've read Sepinwall since the season finale of Mad Men.
August 27, 2012 at 10:39PM ESTdat True - 100% agree, and would just add that CJ was allowed to become a good character because the romances during the good years of West Wing had the exact opposite role as they do in the Newsroom - they were in the background, or were sort of a side story - but they NEVER drove the plot. Or, at least, it never was the plot. (Sam/prostitute and Charlie/president's daughter both led to major plot issues but it wasn't the romance itself that was important.) The characters were able to develop identities other than who they were paired up with, and, amazingly, it allowed actual legitimate chemistry to simmer away between the characters. Like I said - the exact opposite of the Newsroom.
August 28, 2012 at 1:50AM ESTTrue DAT - yes. All you said. I can't bridge the gap between the beautiful, layered exposition for those WW characters, and the ham-handed dunking we are taking with these ones. You are right - when it was background and simmered slowly up, it was a beautiful thing. Even Josh and Donna.... Anyway, I hope we see less female hysteria and knee-jerk emotionalism next time around. It's NOT flattering. Or reflective of real women I know. Or me.
August 28, 2012 at 9:17PM ESTAdam
August 27, 2012 at 2:56PM EST Reply to CommentOK, first, I will admit to being amused by Maggie essentially reenacting one of the clips from Sex and the City's opening theme (getting splashed by a passing bus advertising Carrie Bradshaw, while the SATC theme music plays), before the Epic Rant.
Second, I thought the finale was leading up to something completely different. We all know that Sorkin likes to recycles plot elements. I thought for certain that the death threat arc was going to play out similar to West Wing's season one death threat arc.
I knew that the girl who had been sitting there all day would turn out to be Sorority Girl, but as crazy as it would be given what little we know of her, I was also thinking that Sorkin was going to reveal her as Charisma and have her pull out a gun and open fire on Will. Especially given all the death threat plot points that were scattered throughout the episode.
I was actually quite relieved that they didn't do that, as I think it would've a) been not particularly believable given how naive Sorkin painted her in the pilot and b) pushed the B*tches Be Crazy themes of this show even more over the top.
CJ I actually thought the same thing with regard to the girl being the shooter, but I didn't make the connection to her being the girl from the first episode. So to me, it was partially believable. Except in the sense that, like with all the security, there's no way the shooter gets close.
August 27, 2012 at 6:09PM ESTC.K.
August 27, 2012 at 2:59PM EST Reply to CommentI really enjoyed this show. As nearly everyone else has pointed out, it isn't perfect, but I find it curious how everyone NEEDS to point out the imperfections while they still tune into the show and get entertained.
So I will follow suit. I cringe every time I see a scene that involves Maggie and romance. Because she is SO UNLIKEABLE in that arena. Weak willed when it comes to her heart, and pushy when it comes to advising her best friend and the man who she has genuine feelings for. But as the article wisely points out, romance was never Sorkin's strong point in any of his previous shows.
I look to this show for entertainment. It happens to include a rhetoric, that I don't mind so much. I do think though that many critics don't like it because it seems to target journalism, and they take some of it as a personal attack.
This article was fair in discussing this show, and I appreciate that and will likely come back for more in season two. But like no other show I have enjoyed in the past, this show seemed to have brought out the snarkiness from some of the critics I used to follow. It's kind of weird.
Goodman
August 27, 2012 at 3:09PM EST Reply to CommentGreat show, i for one loved every episode aired, I can't wait for season 2. If you dont like the show create your own then we can critique it as some of you have here. I love the show period
Hatfield This is a silly statement. It is not a requirement of criticism of any artistic medium that the critic be a creator as well. It's ok if you like something and others don't, it doesn't devalue your opinion.
August 27, 2012 at 5:43PM ESTGajic
August 27, 2012 at 3:20PM EST Reply to CommentIt's hard to have any respect for MacKenzie when she's constantly trying to break Don and Maggie up. She talks about it constantly. Don's supposed to be the "bad guy" but MacKenzie is trying her best to ruin his relationship. All the relationship drama in this show is terrible but this issue makes MacKenzie flat out unlikeable. Who tries to break her co-workers up?
JoAnn Stone
August 27, 2012 at 3:20PM EST Reply to CommentMy reaction to The Newsroom: brilliant. For me it answers the question "What just happened?" as it relates to the last 30 years in politics and news. This is TV at its best on every level. It's funny, poignant, superbly paced. Above all, it's relevant and, even, important. To anyone who wants a career in journalism, it should be required viewing. To anyone wishing to cast their vote at any level in government, ditto.
laurence2174 Please watch Mad Men, Breaking Bad, Homeland, etc. and then you'll see what TV drama is at its best. This is not that. It's DEFINITELY not superbly paced, at the very least, and it's DEFINITELY not representative of what it's like to be a journalist even remotely.
August 28, 2012 at 3:14PM ESTJoAnn Stone Laurence, I'm a fan of Mad Men, even tho it is a lot less relevant to today's world (with the exception of the sexism) than I think you think it is. Sure The Newsroom has some less-than-they-could-be moments, but the overall message is there. I'm on board for a second season. Yours in polite disagreement, JoAnn
August 29, 2012 at 5:45PM ESTuscue Laurence, I like those shows as well, but Newsroom is a lot better paced than Breaking Bad.
September 3, 2012 at 9:39AM ESTCody
August 27, 2012 at 3:30PM EST Reply to CommentI'm just relieved that Will's nurse just so happened to be related to Dorothy Cooper. How else would the NewsNight team get those exclusive scoops if they didn't happen to know everyone involved with a soon-to-break story!
CJ Really? The story was voter ID laws. Which have been going into effect for a few years now. Dorothy Cooper wasn't a story because she was suing or anything else. She was the lens that Will was using shine a light on voter ID laws. A newsmagazine format show like News Night is supposed to be does that because it puts a human face to a story.
August 27, 2012 at 6:20PM ESTYou don't believe that an african american nurse might come from a financially disadvantaged background?
I've had a problem with the whole, "Oh my roommate went to HS with Casey Anthony" thing too, but this was not that.
Cody No, I agree. I didn't mean to put so much emphasis on Cooper herself. Just from a narrative perspective, the fact that they've had the characters have so much convenient access or sparks for stories has gotten a little tiring.
August 27, 2012 at 6:30PM ESTNowhere close to the Casey Anthony/Lisa situation, but it just felt like a repetitive first step to NewsNight getting a story.
rcade Dorothy Cooper wasn't a source NewsNight needed to cultivate to break a story on voter suppression efforts by the GOP. She was a nobody used to humanize a story that could've been reported without her.
August 28, 2012 at 10:46AM ESTThe situation's Cooper's nothing like making Lisa Case Anthony's high school buddy.
dyton99
August 27, 2012 at 3:33PM EST Reply to CommentI enjoyed the finale too, but there's no way Sloan turns down a $4 million a year job offer in hopes of "changing things", right?
mcm99 I dunno, they have pretty clearly portrayed her as an idiot about other things why not about that too. Which is my biggest problem with this show. The weird slapsticky way they have portrayed nearly every character as a moron and then asks us to find them incredibly smart and astute journalists. I mean, come on, they actually had a subplot where Will couldn't figure out how to put his pants on!
August 27, 2012 at 4:13PM ESTTJ123 No. People have ideals.
August 27, 2012 at 5:33PM ESTSome people would definitely rather work at a low paying job if they believed in the work or the cause as opposed to taking a high paying corporate job.
Controller
August 27, 2012 at 3:56PM EST Reply to CommentI've watched every episode because I think Aaron Sorkin is a brilliant writer, and there has been some great acting. I also have similar beliefs as Mr. Sorkin. I have, however, come to the conclusion that this is not actually a TV Series, but an ongoing Political Ad. I was surprised that the last words in last night's episode weren't "I'm Barack Obama and I approved this message".
Agree with the message, just not the medium.
Brian
August 27, 2012 at 4:06PM EST Reply to CommentI think the sexism claims have gone too far. Yes, Mac and Maggie are two of the worst characters on this show, but so is Jim. Its not like Sorkin always writes women like this. He has written strong, smart women before. See CJ Craig and Amy Gardner from West Wing and, to a lesser extent, Sloan from this show.
Nic The CJ Cregg and Amy Gardner characters still stand-out to me as two of the best female characters written and acted in television history. When I see the opposite on a series, my mind always takes me to those two portrayals. I never imagined that "The Newsroom" would be one of the series to make me long for CJ & Amy caliber writing. I wonder what has happened in Sorkin's personal life to initiate and inform this creative shift?
August 29, 2012 at 5:45PM ESTRyan
August 27, 2012 at 4:16PM EST Reply to CommentI was not even aware this was the Season Finale under it was over.
I am old enough to remember NEWS - real hard core news where I am informed, but at its end, I have no clue what the personal views or OPINIONS are from the anchor giving me said news. I was trusted to have the intelligence to form my own opinion rather than have information twisted in whatever fashion is desired.
If you would have told me I would become somewhat impressed with Olivia Munn's acting and not just her cheekbones, I would have laughed. This experience has given her some acting chops.
I confess to being very angry during the Conference Room scene with Ms. Fonda's character. Here are 3 people who we have been lead to believe are the "Good Guys" vs the two "Bad Guys" [Ms Fonda and son]. Instead of the Good Guys actually calling the FBI and exposing this serious corruption where Corporate Interests take priority over News, the 3 good-guys simply use it as a tool to keep their jobs. So they give away any and all journalistic integrity they might have had, merely to be able to pretend they have integrity giving us what they call the News.
Full on Anger.
As far as the season goes, where's Will bashing on stupid Democrats? Where's the balance of calling on the not-great things President Obama and/or his policies when they occur.
I want balance from a real news person. There's certainly enough stupid things being done by both parties.
While I am not naive enough to believe the debate format that was shown to the RNC would have ever been accepted, how horribly sad that made me feel knowing THESE type questions are what I want to hear being asked anyone running for President of the United States. (not 'what music do you listen to')
There were many complex personal relationships (dating) in West Wing that seemingly worked so very well, and were believable - but yet on Newsroom, there's not one boy-girl relationship that feels real.
Since Mr. Sorkin seemingly did not react well to the critiques given to him on this show, I am more interested in seeing "New Community" aka Season4 than Newsroom Season 2.
Is it time yet for new Mad Men :(
Ryan EDIT to add: and it's 2011 (on the show) in NYC, and there's not even one homosexual couple, or someone having issues with their sexuality?
August 27, 2012 at 4:25PM ESTHow about Jim isn't really doing well as boyfriend to either of the two girls because deep down he's confronting he might be attracted to Dan.
Or Olivia Munn's character makes a very awkward pass at Maggie (given how many times we have seen them out together at a bar).
Maggie drunk and sad, "Will doesn't want me, what is wrong with me anyway?"
Olivia Munn: "I have not had even one great relationship with a man myself so Maggie, there's nothing wrong with you, ....pause...nothing at ALL" and awkward lean in kiss.
It's real life. Relationships can be complex without being cringe worthy to watch.
DTB7 THANK YOU.
August 28, 2012 at 12:09AM ESTNewsNight is not AT ALL revolutionary. There are plenty of partisan programs on both sides. What is missing is the kind of news that is balanced.
I remember Sorkin saying and they said this in the show that sometimes there is only one side to an argument. Maybe .000004%(the debt ceiling imo) of the time that is true. But I'm tired on how they on this show act like that is all the time. I am a liberal, but I cringe at these moments when they think they are being so righteous and are patting themselves on the back. Good job you succeeded in putting your opinion forth on TV and making other people look bad.
davidgrahammd
August 27, 2012 at 4:20PM EST Reply to CommentIt strikes me that this series has been the most cynical assessment of news journalism and it's potential impact ever broadcast. Sorkin is essentially saying that news reporting, even when taken to his utopian extreme, will never have an impact in our current environment. Using the news from a year ago only serves to support that message. No matter what his ideal news program does, it cannot change the events that occur.
Robert
August 27, 2012 at 4:35PM EST Reply to CommentLazy, lazy writing. Nothing these people do makes any plausible sense other than to carry narrative tensions through to Season 2. What is keeping any of the people apart in this love rhombus - at least those we are meant to root for getting together that is - other than themselves? Jim does not want to be a "bad guy" and get in the way of Maggie moving in with her boyfriend even though she essentially confessed her feelings for him both verbally and otherwise? Maggie commits to Don - with breaking up speech in hand! - because he lit up the apartment with candles? Are these real roadblocks here people?
One of the reasons I loved the first few seasons of the Office (U.S. version) is because Jim and Pam were kept apart plausibly for three seasons. And when that could no longer happen, the writers did not stretch it out longer than that. Sorkin could not come up with a season's worth of plausible reasons for keeping Maggie/Jim apart other than because they did not want to hurt other people's feelings.
Also, you cannot claim Don is a "good guy" in some long-winded speech when one week he is getting flowers from another woman, the next he is practically crying because the mock debate did not work, and then the next is critiquing Nancy Grace with such admiration you would think he was quoting Shakespeare (or Don Quixote in this show's case).
Others have also criticized Sorkin for not understanding the internet well, but I found it insulting for Sorkin to portray $4 million jobs as growing on trees. Does Sorkin really think that PhDs get seven figure offers like that? Based on what? Because she's so smart? Maybe she could reach seven figures with a bonus but no one without that much street experience and having paid little to no dues is going to get that kind of an offer. And how little could an on-air talent be making anyway? More lazy writing with little research done, obviously.
JDS Great post Robert. I completely agree about the absurdity of Sloan's $4 million job offer. I work in investment banking and know the venture capital world intimately well. Sloan would NEVER get a job offer like that. In finance the big money comes in bonuses (or partnership profits for people at hedge funds, private equity, and VC firms). Even at the top paying firms, the top top salaries tend to be in the mid-six figures. The rest comes in the form of bonuses which may be guaranteed for a year or two at most in order to hire someone extremely extremely important. First of all Sloan, a PhD economist has little to no use in the venture capital world. It would be make more sense to say she got an offer from a hedge fund but an offer from a VC firm makes absolutely no sense. I believe Sloan worked for a little while as an analyst at Goldman Sachs (fyi and analyst at a bank is the lowest level employee on the banking/trading/research side). The entire idea that a VC firm would give her an offer like, or frankly anyone an offer with that kind of "salary" is ridiculous and just adds further evidence to the argument that Sorkin doesn't seem to understand the world he writes about and doesn't seem to take the time to understand it either.
August 27, 2012 at 5:18PM ESTDL
August 27, 2012 at 4:38PM EST Reply to CommentI was more under the impression that Jennifer Johnson was put up to asking the moronic question by MacKenzie so that she could get her flashcard point across. The internship is either part of their deal or a payback for the humiliation it caused her.
Brian Interesting. I hadn't thought about that. It would explain how Mac had those cards ready to go, despite, seemingly, not knowing the questions ahead of time.
August 28, 2012 at 11:00AM ESTDL
August 27, 2012 at 4:39PM EST Reply to CommentI was more under the impression that Mac put Jennifer Johnson up to it (asking the moronic question)so she could get across to Will that day and that the internship was part of the deal.
RB I don't know about that, but I think it's unfair to say McAvoy "belittled" or "humiliated" her... that wasn't really the point. The girl, young and somewhat naive, is a reflection of a common attitude Americans have about the country's exceptionalism... it's not that she needs to be called out for asking a moronic question, the whole country needs to get some perspective. I thought it was a nice touch to bring her back, and, though cheesy, Will's answer of "you are" when she re-asks the question is perfectly fitting with the theme of the show: we can do better if we challenge ourselves and stay honest with ourselves. The girl has maybe matured from when she asked that question and now realizes America isn't perfect and wants to be a journalist for that reason: only by exposing and acknowledging the truth, will things get better. So, while I see that it is tempting to view the girl coming back as another example of Will's omnipotence, I think it was more about how we need, as a country, to undergo that type of transformation (from naive and uncritical to curious, realistic, but still optimistic.) It worked for me.
August 27, 2012 at 5:05PM ESTdwexley
August 27, 2012 at 4:40PM EST Reply to CommentI want so badly to like this show but Sorkin makes it hard sometimes. I feel like the last half of the season has been a blur of Will and Mac yelling about Don Quijote with the ridiculous love triangle between the staff existing in another show reality entirely. I love a good walk n talk but this show has waaaay too many scenarios that involve its characters discussing how they are about to do something really important or reminiscing about someone that did something important. There's like 2% actual "doing," in this newsroom which, as a fan of Sorkinese and the West Wing, I find maddening. Sure there was always a lot of deliberation and discussion on that show but the conversations always served a greater purpose to some kind of attainable goal (passing legislation, helping people etc.) "Newsroom," has goals that are both vaguely defined (doing the news the right way) and hard to portray since the show has already limited itself to real life events that have a predetermined outcome.
Also Will McAvoy has no real counterpart that can call him on his BS, Aaron Sorkin has no limitations placed on his writing at HBO.
The entire staff of the newsroom is essentially waiting Will to or say something profound and I can only imagine that much of the "writing staff," on the Newsroom has had the same experience working with Sorkin. It's the weird case where he actually needs producers and executives to curtail his role as "auteur."
The West Wing (Sorkin's last great show) had people like John Wells, Alex Graves and Tommy Schlamme to translate Sorkinese for the viewing audience. John Wells took a lot of grief for what he did with the WW after Sorkin left but considering the cards he was dealt, he did a pretty solid job. With "Newsroom," Sorkin has no peer on that set or anyone that understands how to tell him not to literally "tilt at windmills."
There's a good show somewhere in this mess and I'll be watching next season, but I'll probably let it build up on my dvr. That's sad for me because anything Sorkin put out was appointment viewing in the past.
cgeye If we had the media we needed, SNL would open its season going at The Newsroom with hammer and tongs, picking apart every cliche and discussing each flaw. The love rhombus would collapse into a office orgy, with participants leaving every so often to actually work on a story (betcha they'd get more work done....), and the Koch Bros. would invite Leona to their compound, where she'd have to perform vile favors in order for the story of her lil' angel's phonetapping to stay suppressed. (Like they *don't* tap Atlantis' offices, just in case?)
August 28, 2012 at 3:05AM ESTIn short, the women would be openly sexualized, instead of just talking about it, and the men can pontificate at their leisure. Maybe TN *would* work better as straight male geezer porn -- at least when it would suck, it'd be on purpose.
Unfortunately, in our time, the only criticism with reach is satire, and if TN is going to play it safe within the boundaries of its own pretentions, then comedians should have at it. Then again, with the Studio 60/30 Rock beef, Michaels isn't going to piss off the suits who might want to work with Sorkin again. Pity.
One more point: This is a universe where, as far as I can tell, neither The Daily Show nor The Colbert Report exist. Talk about being insecure about the competition....
- 1
- 2
- 3
Next 151 Comments