and for the record, the news scene set-ups and everything I'm fine with. I enjoy Sorkin quite a bit, I just found episode 2 severely lacking, and almost as if he sacrificed good writing for trying to get in digs.

quote:

---

Favorite part of last night's episode was the briefly mentioned "fair bias." Not all stories have two sides. Drives me nuts when I'm asked to legitimize something or someone that's clearly wrong by "getting their side of the story." Also drives me nuts when I see others do so in the news.

I really hope they show how reporters develop sources and how many different types of sources there are. Some folks tell you stuff because they're angry about something, some folks tell you stuff because they want to feel important, some folks tell you stuff because they respect and trust you, etc. I hope we start seeing that soon, because the "my ex works for the governor/my roomy works at BP/my sister works at Halliburton" was old last week.

---

Agree. If they focus more on the inner workings of a newsroom and less on Sorkin trying to stuff political points in at every possible piece of dialogue, this show will thrive. Again, he can walk that fine line and it can be very successful, just nothing in that episode last night left me thinking this was some amazing piece of work by Sorkin. Too much felt forced, and the rest was obvious and cheap ploys to advance a storyline.

Definitely going to give it a full season to mature and see what becomes of it.

quote:

---

you guys sure do get fired up about politics. i personally don't give a **** about any of it and i enjoyed the show.

---

+1

quote:

---

you guys sure do get fired up about politics. i personally don't give a **** about any of it and i enjoyed the show.

---

this * ∞

Super hotshot Executive Producer doesn't know how to properly send an email to just one person and not the whole corporation? Really? In 2010? Really?

I'm disappointed in you Sorkin.

The train wreck that was the talking heads segment about the Arizona Immigration Law was particularly fun to watch.

clearly you have never met my old boss. He did that multiple times

Yeah, send all/reply all happens at my work all the time as well... And in her defense, she's been out of the country for a few years

Ya'll must work with some real winners.

quote:

---

If Episode 2’s Women-Be-BlackBerryin’ high jinks were off-putting, things only get more unpleasant in the weeks ahead. (And by “things” I mean the rising levels of sanctimony and sexism.)

---

Is this going to be one of those shows that you either love, or wanted to love but end up loving to hate like me and The Walking Dead?

quote:

---

Yeah, send all/reply all happens at my work all the time as well... And in her defense, she's been out of the country for a few years

---

my favorite part of the "reply all" flood is the genius who hits reply all to remind everyone not to hit reply all

im surprised no one has brought this weeks episode up yet. Im guessing those who thought it was too political before will have a field day.

I thought this episode was good, but not great. My biggest complaint is that a large portion of the show was just him delivering sound bites. You really didnt get to see him get into the interviews, just deliver the zingers. I thought the non linear format worked just fine.

I'm not very political so I really had no idea about half of what and who the show was talking about. Which I'm fine with. So what I gravitated toward most was the relationship ship and character development. And for that part I thought this was a great episode. I'm really starting to get a feel for the different character and actually starting to like some of them.
What's a tea party?

I really liked this weeks episode.

Frankly, I've really liked every episode.

I do hope they start bashing some people on the other side of the aisle though, and not just conservatives. It's fine for a while and I really don't mind a little conservative bashing here and there, but I'm not going to continue to find it funny if 6 weeks from now they're still bashing conservatives and ignoring the other side of the aisle. I'm an equal opportunity humor type of person - it's perfectly cool to make fun of my guys (some of whom might even need to be made fun of), just make sure to get some of the other guys too. So I can see where other people's concerns have been, but for a show still in its infancy I'm not too too worried yet.

That episode was cowritten by Gideon Yago, who, as MTV's news guy was probably my sole source of news from the age of 14-18. I still remember watching him the night of 9/11.

So that episode covered shoots us forward 6 months, or kind of takes place over a period of 6 months or whatever. (BP oil spill in April, election in November). It will be interesting to where the season ends, and if S2 picks up in a completely fictional world (not entirely inconceivable at the pace they are clipping along and with the criticisms the "based on live events" aspect has gotten).

Horrible show. Getting lectured to by faux journalism majors is not entertainment. How can anyone root for the smug, "media elite" d-bags that populate this show? As a non-voting libertarian the only thing I am "offended" by is the pretentious, self-importance placed on a freakin' cable news show. Cable news ratings have declined for a reason. They are not important anymore. Is Sorkin's next show going to be set at a Blockbuster in the year 2004?

I am surprised that no one is *****in' about Jane Fonda being on the show.

Normally that is enough to turn most aggies off anything.

Don't worry, it's on p.1

quote:

---

Blockbuster in the year 2004

---

I'd tune into that. Thanks a lot Redbox...

Sorkin must have the liberals hand up his ass controlling him like a puppet. Nothing but bashing the right/tea party.

Nothing un biased about this show.

quote:

---

Sorkin must have the liberals hand up his ass controlling him like a puppet. Nothing but bashing the right/tea party.

Nothing un biased about this show.

---

Umm, Sorkin's a liberal. Big time.

Enjoyed the episode, but it didn't feel "newsy" at all.

Hopefully some episodes still focus on them chasing down news and developing stories. There's a lot more fun and drama there than bashing idiots from either side of the aisle.

I found myself laughing through this whole episode this week. The Tea Party is a bunch of under informed dewshers and it was great to see them take some shots at them. I do harbor hope that the rest of the season will develop itself it more of a plot based show though rather than a soapbox.

I actually liked the episode. The bashing of the Tea Party was a little much, but a LOT of people who support the movement are uninformed. The political grandstanding by the writing is getting a little old.

There are some good things in it though -- like the idea of media holding politicians accountable. It seems like a lot of mainstream outlets let the politicians off the hook and let then try to spin it, or dodge questions. The part of the interview with the congressman who "couldn't hear" the questions from Will, I thought was a commentary on all of that -- regardless if it was a Democrat or Republican.

One the news aspect of this episode, I was a little annoyed. Election nights are not like that, with people running all over with results. Maybe that's how it was done in the 1980s, but that's not the case now. Most of the tabulations are done with computers not, and people are not making calls to get the results. The only time you end up doing that now is if you are trying to get results out of BFE, not for an entire state.

Also, the election night conversation between Elliot and his producer, that would likely not happen. The "you're making me look bad out there," pep talk was just stupid. Anchors at that level don't need a friggin' pep talk. They've reached that level for a reason. they may need some coddling along the way, but not like that. also, the idea of the anchor firing the producer, I don't believe he has that power. Those moves would be made by higher-ups like Charlie. So, I thought that was a little silly.

Overall though, I'm liking the show. I want to see more of the Mac and Will relationship. The dynamic between a producer and anchor is really interesting -- especially when you throw the personal aspect into it.

quote:

---

The bashing of the Tea Party was a little much, but a LOT of people who support the movement are uninformed.

---

Real life political point: Holy cow! Americans, uninformed?! First, I don't accept the contention that Tea Partiers are less informed than the norm. Secondly, I can assert with equal credibility that Obama supporters were uninformed, since he ran primarily on " hope-and-change" with scant details and no significant political body of work to judge him on. That group constituted a large majority in 2008. The press/the left applauds MTV's "Get out the vote" campaigns, but no one gives a flip whether those new voters know sh7t from shinola, why does the ignorance which is standard in American political life suddenly become a broad brush criticism of just the Tea Partiers, even if it can be shown that they exhibit it?!

In-show political point: The thing I found offensive is the gimmick that "Jeff Bridges is a registered Republican and he's pizzed that the Tea Party is hi-jacking his party." Yet NOTHING he spews is typical Republican rhetoric. Make him Republican, but make him consistent. As it is, the liberal writers are having their strawman cake and eating it too!

quote:

---

The political grandstanding by the writing is getting a little old.

---

No doubt. Rachael Maddow could have written this episode. I finally got fed up and told my wife "I'll sit in here with you while you watch ThenextgreatMasterIronHellsKitchen Cookoff show, and I'll sit here while you watch countless 'most emotional rose ceremony(ies) ever' but if you ever put this show on again, I'm leaving the room."

It's a shame, some of the characters seemed like they could have been interesting, if they would have focused there.

quote:

---

I finally got fed up and told my wife "I'll sit in here with you while you watch ThenextgreatMasterIronHellsKitchen Cookoff show, and I'll sit here while you watch countless 'most emotional rose ceremony(ies) ever' but if you ever put this show on again, I'm leaving the room."

---

So mindless entertainment is better than something with thoughts/a voice if you don't agree with it? THIS is why we're uninformed.

TX AG 88-

I agree with you that a lot of Americans on all sides are politically uninformed. I was just making the point, case specific with the Tea Partiers because that was in the show. I guess I should have been clearer.

The writers do need to be more consistent with the Will McAvoy character. I think the writers are trying to make him a down-the-middle kind of guy who questions everybody and every thing.

I can get passed the political rants, because I like the commentary on society and media as a whole.

quote:

---

So mindless entertainment is better than something with thoughts/a voice if you don't agree with it? THIS is why we're uninformed.

---

That's such a simplistic misrepresentation.

Agenda peddling is one thing, and that's bad enough. But to peddle the agenda in such a sneaky and disingenuous way is infuriating.

I don't really pay much attention to the television, but my wife watches it in the evenings. I sit in the room with a laptop or tablet so we're at least together in the room.

It's not a matter of mindless vs "informative" (ha!) it's a matter of banal vs infuriating.

I'm all for informed discussion/debate, but this show isn't about that - not one bit.

quote:

---

In-show political point: The thing I found offensive is the gimmick that "Jeff Bridges is a registered Republican and he's pizzed that the Tea Party is hi-jacking his party." Yet NOTHING he spews is typical Republican rhetoric. Make him Republican, but make him consistent. As it is, the liberal writers are having their strawman cake and eating it too!

---

Now i told myself i wasn't going to post on this particular thread because i enjoy the show and don't really ever feel like discussing politics online. That being said this particular statement bafles me a little in this day and age. "Typical Republican rhetoric" doesn't seem so typical anymore. There are multiple levels of republicans in this day and age. The spectrum is just too wide to have a true stereotype. If you are talking about the figurehead republicans, which i assume you are, i don't necessarily see them as the everyday republicans. They are throwing out party phrases that are extreme and in reality only reflect a small aspect of their constituents.

The average joe republican may only be extreme in one or two aspects of his beliefs and quite frankly doesn't care enough about other aspects. Not to mention that anymore typical (insert party name here) rhetoric is nothing more than "The (insert other party name here) party is nothing but a bunch of idiots. (Insert broad sweeping generalization here)" I think that this show (while it does have a slant to it) seems to be going after extremes more so than going after the core beliefs of the other party.

I hate devolving into a political discussion on a thread about a tv show.

Suffice to say my words "typical Republican rhetoric" was attempted shorthand for a listing of Republican Party platform issues. Those are unambiguous and nearly universally accepted by all self-identified GOP'ers. Bridges' character has not, in my experience, made a passionate/convincing argument or appeal in favor ANY one of those issues (small government, voluntary giving to charity, lower taxes, strong military, etc).

BTW, rhetoric is not a bad word. "Rhetoric is the art of discourse, an art that aims to improve the facility of speakers or writers who attempt to inform, persuade, or motivate particular audiences in specific situations" and the tradition traces back to Aristotle and beyond.

I apologize for hijacking this thread and will leave it to get back on track to being about an irritating (imo) TV show.

I hate to be that guy, but it's Jeff Daniels...

Also, take it to the politics board...

People who watch cable news programs just tune into what they want to hear. Republicans watch Fox and Democrats watch MSNBC. A real life Will McAvoy would simply be lumped in with Olbermann and Maddow. He wouldn't be leading the "national conversation". This makes it even more ridiculous when the characters talk about how "important" their show is. A show like Newsnight exists now and existed back in 2010. It just makes Sorkin's vision for the "perfect cable news show" all the more ******y.

The show might still have been entertaining if their were actual drama or interesting characters, but there is no foil in this show. Just a bunch of Tea Party caricatures getting repeatedly "pwn3d" by McAvoy. I don't want to root for the Tea Party but these characters are so extremely unlikable. The women on this show have been portrayed as hapless fools in need of a smart man to set them straight. Luckily the men on this show are very smart, just ask them, they'll even show you their undergraduate journalism degrees.

I had high hopes for this show. HBO Sunday nights has had some damn good television over the years. This show is a joke. I'll stick with the Daily Show.

quote:

---

The women on this show have been portrayed as hapless fools in need of a smart man to set them straight. Luckily the men on this show are very smart, just ask them

---

Your first Sorkin show, I take it?

Wife and I gave up on it, the show is too liberal for us to enjoy.

quote:

---

I hate to be that guy, but it's Jeff Daniels...

---

God, I swear I have a mental block about this. I cannot for the life of me EVER call this guy Jeff Daniels. My apologies to Jeff Daniels and his parents.

quote:

---

But to peddle the agenda in such a sneaky and disingenuous way is infuriating.

---

This is Hannity and Colmes and O'Reilly defined. I think that is the point of the slant and then every other "news" show that followed - from both sides.

They start as being neutral. They then show their ass and then it is over. Other sides take up the opposite and we are where we are in today's "news".