"Newsroom" HBO

[Big Fitz]

Saw it last night. Another show by "West Wing" creator Sorkin.

It's a newsroom that, gosh darn it, is sick and tired of news that depresses you. It wants to make a difference-- like when Murrow took out McCarthy (for correctly and presciently saying that US State and the WH was a nest of Soviet spies) or how Cronkite (sided with the NVA after we had inflicted probably the worst defeat on an enemy since the Soviets retook Stalingrad to) successfully turn American people against Vietnam.

I loved Jeff Daniels performance. He's the grizzled old anchor who needs to redirect himself. While appearing on a panel with a Liberal and Conservative commentator, a student from the audience asked the panel "What makes America the greatest nation" and the Liberal says "Diversity" the Conservative say "Freedom" and Jeff Daniels lights into the student in a 5 minute diatribe calling her stupid for thinking that American is great.

They handle the Deep Water Horizon in real time and it's interesting to see how it all comes together to make a news broadcast. The take away was Halliburton is evil and we need more government regulation.

At some point the Liberal spew is going to make me miss Jeff Daniels as an actor and that will be my loss but Liberals should learn that alienating half your potential audience by showing anyone to the right of Mao as evil and/or stupid will give you a NYTimes-like the Double Black Diamond chart of viewship.

I'll watch the next episode

As one critic put it, and I paraphrase:

"Alan Sorkin is retelling and rewriting the philosophical and political battles the liberals have lost and they said what they should have said the first time to win."

Essentially pretending liberalism gets 'final cut' rights with history.

I also agree with said critic that the left should be allowed to indulge in such fantasy because the more the believe in it, the more detached and kooky they get from the real arguments making it easier and easier to roll them back into obscurity and powerlessness.

 

[Toro]

I watched about 15 minutes last week. I'm not going to watch it again. It came across as self-important and pretentious.







(Hey, I just described me!)

 

[CandySlice]

Conservative aren't "all in lockstep and doing talking points all the time."

Yet, contrary to your petty ridiculous thesis, they DO have that "reputation" in the "minds" of petty partisan liberals.

The fault lies with the petty partisan liberals, not with any alleged lockstep thinking of conservatives.

So, Liability, when I backed you into a corner on the other thread you fled??

Your delusions off adequacy are as baseless as that claim.

You have never backed anybody into a corner, and most certainly not me. And I have fled no threads, either.

Your grandiose thinking is symptomatic of deeper issues. I recommend that you seek professional psychiatric help.

Oh my Gawd. You just managed to cram together more stock comebacks in one post than anyone I've ever seen.Well done!

 

[Liability]

So, Liability, when I backed you into a corner on the other thread you fled??

Your delusions off adequacy are as baseless as that claim.

You have never backed anybody into a corner, and most certainly not me. And I have fled no threads, either.

Your grandiose thinking is symptomatic of deeper issues. I recommend that you seek professional psychiatric help.

Oh my Gawd. You just managed to cram together more stock comebacks in one post than anyone I've ever seen.Well done!

Like when you used the typical resort of losers and cowards and pretended that I had "fled" a thread where you supposedly had prevailed?



Sad fact, slice. You suck at this.

I realize you lack the integrity to acknowledge that you've gotten creamed.

We all see you for what you are.

Are you actually related to Fakey?

 

[CandySlice]

Your delusions off adequacy are as baseless as that claim.

You have never backed anybody into a corner, and most certainly not me. And I have fled no threads, either.

Your grandiose thinking is symptomatic of deeper issues. I recommend that you seek professional psychiatric help.

Oh my Gawd. You just managed to cram together more stock comebacks in one post than anyone I've ever seen.Well done!

Like when you used the typical resort of losers and cowards and pretended that I had "fled" a thread where you supposedly had prevailed?



Sad fact, slice. You suck at this.

I realize you lack the integrity to acknowledge that you've gotten creamed.

We all see you for what you are.

Are you actually related to Fakey?

Look, we are on the same side and in most cases we agree. What is your deal?

We? OMG there's imaginary boosters behind you too?? Truth is, Liability, nobody here gives two hoots in hell about what either one of us have to say. Quit trying to turn this into the OK Corral. It's embarassing to watch.

 

[Liability]

Oh my Gawd. You just managed to cram together more stock comebacks in one post than anyone I've ever seen.Well done!

Like when you used the typical resort of losers and cowards and pretended that I had "fled" a thread where you supposedly had prevailed?



Sad fact, slice. You suck at this.

I realize you lack the integrity to acknowledge that you've gotten creamed.

We all see you for what you are.

Are you actually related to Fakey?

Look, we are on the same side and in most cases we agree. What is your deal?

We? OMG there's imaginary boosters behind you too?? Truth is, Liability, nobody here gives two hoots in hell about what either one of us have to say. Quit trying to turn this into the OK Corral. It's embarassing to watch.

good advice. Apparently, based on your own behavior, it is much easier to shell it out than it is to apply it to yourself. Go review your bombastic rhetoric and then try to claim that the shootout was in any way one-sided.



Anyway, back ON topic:

I only stumbled back on this thread because I saw the show for most of the season. And I saw what I believe was the final first season episode last night.

Here's a dirty secret. Despite its OBVIOUS bias and distortions, I do kind of enjoy the show. It's a shame that Sorokin is so shallow, though, that he imagines that CALLING the protagonist a "Republican" has anything to do with lending cred to his polemic efforts.

If nothing else, the theme music is pretty good.

 

[CandySlice]

Like when you used the typical resort of losers and cowards and pretended that I had "fled" a thread where you supposedly had prevailed?



Sad fact, slice. You suck at this.

I realize you lack the integrity to acknowledge that you've gotten creamed.

We all see you for what you are.

Are you actually related to Fakey?

Look, we are on the same side and in most cases we agree. What is your deal?

We? OMG there's imaginary boosters behind you too?? Truth is, Liability, nobody here gives two hoots in hell about what either one of us have to say. Quit trying to turn this into the OK Corral. It's embarassing to watch.

good advice. Apparently, based on your own behavior, it is much easier to shell it out than it is to apply it to yourself. Go review your bombastic rhetoric and then try to claim that the shootout was in any way one-sided.



Anyway, back ON topic:

I only stumbled back on this thread because I saw the show for most of the season. And I saw what I believe was the final first season episode last night.

Here's a dirty secret. Despite its OBVIOUS bias and distortions, I do kind of enjoy the show. It's a shame that Sorokin is so shallow, though, that he imagines that CALLING the protagonist a "Republican" has anything to do with lending cred to his polemic efforts.

If nothing else, the theme music is pretty good.

I thought bombastic rhetoric was the whole reason message boards were created in the first place.

I like the show because it puts into words so many things I have agreed with all along. The Republican party has been hi-jacked and co-opted by jack-rollers and Tea Party waterheads much like the only real Democrats on display these days remind me of people Ralph Steadman might have drawn for Hunter Thompson on one of their more destructive, twisted acid trips.

I started out as a Democrat yea these many years ago and was faithful until I simply didn't recognize those warthogs anymore. Though I am instinctively, maybe on some basic DNA level suspicious of the Republican party I feel as I've grown older, and hopefully wiser or at least more savvy about the ways the 'real' world works that being a conservative, in the original version of conservatism, not this shredded mess that's passing for it today has become a lonely place to be.

So I do sympathize with the character Sorkin has created in Will McAvoy. He speaks for many of us who are confused and frustrated about having our futures and our fate in the hands of what has boiled down to just so may idiot-savants coming from all directions.

 

[CandySlice]

'Stumbled back?' Oh please.

 

[Liability]

'Stumbled back?' Oh please.

Yep.

I'd reconstruct it for you, but it would require the willing suspension of your disbelief.

But here's a clue: what period of time passed between the prior post and the one you just quoted from?

Get back to me on that.

Or don't.

 

[kwc57]

Like I said when I posted on this show the other day.

Cons wont like this show.

It retells truths they dont want people to remember about things like Haliburton caused the oil spill with their shitty failed cap they knew woudl fail.


Greed is not the best thing about America like the cons keep telling us it is

You do realize it's a work of fiction, like your posts don't you?

 

[CandySlice]

'Stumbled back?' Oh please.

Yep.

I'd reconstruct it for you, but it would require the willing suspension of your disbelief.

But here's a clue: what period of time passed between the prior post and the one you just quoted from?

Get back to me on that.

Or don't.

Are you accusing me of having an actual life that may or may not preclude my checking in here everyday? Because, okay, you got me. My laptop has gone to that great technological junk yard in the sky and not every place I land has computer access. If I happen to 'stumble in' to a computer at those times my limited (out of courtesy's sake) access is reserved for answering email and checking on investments. Two things that seem far more important to me than rattling on on a message board. You are a side show, NOT the main attraction.

 

[CandySlice]

Like I said when I posted on this show the other day.

Cons wont like this show.

It retells truths they dont want people to remember about things like Haliburton caused the oil spill with their shitty failed cap they knew woudl fail.


Greed is not the best thing about America like the cons keep telling us it is

You do realize it's a work of fiction, like your posts don't you?

Sure it's fiction but Sorkin is drawing on actual events and his commentary is just as valid as anybody elses.

 

[Liability]

Like I said when I posted on this show the other day.

Cons wont like this show.

It retells truths they dont want people to remember about things like Haliburton caused the oil spill with their shitty failed cap they knew woudl fail.


Greed is not the best thing about America like the cons keep telling us it is

You do realize it's a work of fiction, like your posts don't you?

Sure it's fiction but Sorkin is drawing on actual events and his commentary is just as valid as anybody elses.

Well, the Deep Water Horizon did explode and result in lots of pollution. But no. No news guys found out all that could be found out on day one.

And yes, it is easy to take snippets of Republicans doing the politician smack-talk thing and extract instances of them speaking the language of dumb. But it would be just as easy to do that for (and to) the Dims. Oddly, Sorokin doesn't seem up to the task of being fair like that.

And no. The Bill-the-Anchor character isn't RIGHT merely because he mouths the mindless prattle platitudes that libs choose to "believe."

 

[Liability]

'Stumbled back?' Oh please.

Yep.

I'd reconstruct it for you, but it would require the willing suspension of your disbelief.

But here's a clue: what period of time passed between the prior post and the one you just quoted from?

Get back to me on that.

Or don't.

Are you accusing me of having an actual life that may or may not preclude my checking in here everyday? Because, okay, you got me. My laptop has gone to that great technological junk yard in the sky and not every place I land has computer access. If I happen to 'stumble in' to a computer at those times my limited (out of courtesy's sake) access is reserved for answering email and checking on investments. Two things that seem far more important to me than rattling on on a message board. You are a side show, NOT the main attraction.

No, dopey. I am suggesting that I do; and therefore there was nothing at all dishonest or even less than credible about my noting that I stumbled back on to this thread.

You aren't even a side show.

But you are also not particularly credible or intelligent.

 

[Desperado]

If you ignore the propaganda, it is not a bad show.

 

[kwc57]

Like I said when I posted on this show the other day.

Cons wont like this show.

It retells truths they dont want people to remember about things like Haliburton caused the oil spill with their shitty failed cap they knew woudl fail.


Greed is not the best thing about America like the cons keep telling us it is

You do realize it's a work of fiction, like your posts don't you?

Sure it's fiction but Sorkin is drawing on actual events and his commentary is just as valid as anybody elses.

Commentary and fiction are vastly different things.

 

[Liability]

You do realize it's a work of fiction, like your posts don't you?

Sure it's fiction but Sorkin is drawing on actual events and his commentary is just as valid as anybody elses.

Commentary and fiction are vastly different things.

Honesty and modern American liberalism are very different things.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The Liberal media is too nice and fair, they need to be more like the Newsroom

 

[CandySlice]

Yep.

I'd reconstruct it for you, but it would require the willing suspension of your disbelief.

But here's a clue: what period of time passed between the prior post and the one you just quoted from?

Get back to me on that.

Or don't.

Are you accusing me of having an actual life that may or may not preclude my checking in here everyday? Because, okay, you got me. My laptop has gone to that great technological junk yard in the sky and not every place I land has computer access. If I happen to 'stumble in' to a computer at those times my limited (out of courtesy's sake) access is reserved for answering email and checking on investments. Two things that seem far more important to me than rattling on on a message board. You are a side show, NOT the main attraction.

No, dopey. I am suggesting that I do; and therefore there was nothing at all dishonest or even less than credible about my noting that I stumbled back on to this thread.

You aren't even a side show.

But you are also not particularly credible or intelligent.[/QUOTE]

How would you recognize either one??

 

[Liability]

Are you accusing me of having an actual life that may or may not preclude my checking in here everyday? Because, okay, you got me. My laptop has gone to that great technological junk yard in the sky and not every place I land has computer access. If I happen to 'stumble in' to a computer at those times my limited (out of courtesy's sake) access is reserved for answering email and checking on investments. Two things that seem far more important to me than rattling on on a message board. You are a side show, NOT the main attraction.

No, dopey. I am suggesting that I do; and therefore there was nothing at all dishonest or even less than credible about my noting that I stumbled back on to this thread.

You aren't even a side show.

But you are also not particularly credible or intelligent.

How would you recognize either one??

Simple. Unlike you, I even know how to use the quote function. It's really not THAT difficult, you yutz. Ask a child to help you.