dagblog - Comments for "The Newsroom: A stupid, poorly acted show with an extra serving of sexism"

Oh just read the posting for

PeraclesPlease — Wed, 11 Jul 2012 23:20:18 +0000

Oh just read the posting for fuck's sakes. He didn't address what anyone said, he just praised the show to kingdom come. It was a drive-by, probably paid by Hollywood.

If lurkers are considering this kind of mindless participation, I prefer they don't.

However, if you recall, I defended new people that had right wing or otherwise considered noxious opinion - because they had opinions. (Bulldog,Iron Bruce, maybe Resistance, forget who else).

Really, re-read his comment and see if there's one bit of sincere value in it, one actual detailed praise of the show, or if it just reads like a glib faceless press release or promo piece.

[this site has been hit be robo-pieces before, BTW - all they have to do is search for a keyword like Newsroom and do an insert]

So, how about address

artappraiser — Wed, 11 Jul 2012 22:13:16 +0000

In reply to Let me guess - you're part of

So, how about address Wolfrum's points - or at least 1 of them

I must have missed it; where was this new rule posted where one has to address the blogger's points before one can address what other commenters said?

or toddle off to some other venue to drop unwavering support for your pay-pals?

I must have also missed where was it announced that you were now in charge of who is an appropriate commenter here?

I don't care if the guy is an astroturfer for the show, do you have any idea what seeing this kind of flaming does to lurkers considering participation? Are you gunning for this site to forever be a sort of private chat room for the same 10 people to argue the same things over and over again? Cause that's where this kind of nasty snarky commenting to newbies (on something as inconsequential as an opinion of a TV show, yet) eventually takes you; I've seen that happen more than once.

I find it interesting that

tpturner — Wed, 11 Jul 2012 16:51:33 +0000

In reply to The Newsroom: A stupid, poorly acted show with an extra serving of sexism

I find it interesting that Dan Rather does not agree with most here. You can read his comments here http://gawker.com/5924306 I wish we did have more straight news reporting like found at Democracy Now or what we used to see more of on PBS. I also like BBC; just news with no hype.

I agree, the story about the

Oxy Mora — Wed, 11 Jul 2012 11:56:29 +0000

In reply to I kept wondering if Sorkin

I agree, the story about the show might be more interesting than the show itself. I save stuff for the 10 o'clock hour with the goal of not going to bed too early and hitting the 3:00 a.m. circuit. Newsroom qualifies for the try-to-stay-awake hour, not to exclude, "Who the bleep did I marry" and "Memphis Police Women". Newsroom is something like the gong show, how awful can this get? An interactive comment facility on the T.V. would be fun. Among other lessons, the show seems to prove that you can't take a bad actor like Bridges and make him whole by giving him a role as a bad actor.

Let me guess - you're part of

PeraclesPlease — Wed, 11 Jul 2012 06:23:00 +0000

In reply to I am surprised at the

Let me guess - you're part of the cast?

Or part of the promotion team to make sure it gets good word-of-mouth on the intertubes?

Wolfrum deconstructs the program in very specific terms to describe why it's preachy, inaccurate and misogynistic.

And you come on implying that he's a fool for mindless de-complexed reality shows written in elementary school English. And doesn't like to think. Oh and by the way, the show is g-g-g-r-r-rreat!!!!

Have you considered a career doing cereal commercials? Hear Tony Tiger's in retirement.

By the way, your conclusion: " I hope the show finds its audience among those who actually like to think, to engage in debate and good conversation" is rather ironic, since you don't engage in debate (or seem to even know how), and instead of conversation simply assert for the billionth time it's an "excellent show...terrific ensemble cast".

Well, my mother loves me and encourages me this way too (though in private she does tell me to stand up straight & comb my hair - a bit of tough love in your comments instead of gushing enthusiasm might help?)

So, how about address Wolfrum's points - or at least 1 of them - or toddle off to some other venue to drop unwavering support for your pay-pals?

I am surprised at the

Rocco Palermo — Wed, 11 Jul 2012 04:17:49 +0000

In reply to The Newsroom: A stupid, poorly acted show with an extra serving of sexism

I am surprised at the reception I find here to The Newsroom . It seems, consistent with the direction programming in general has taken towards mindless, non-thinking, de-complexed reality shows and brainless lame comedies, that a show as well written, as quick witted, as politically charged and requiring a comprehension level of english beyond the third grade should be so under appreciated. This is an excellent show, carefully written for a terrific ensemble cast who introduces debate and argument for viewers to consider in a very engaging way. I hope the show finds its audience among those who actually like to think, to engage in debate and good conversation, regardless of their political point of view.

Okay, the gremlins were in

Ramona — Tue, 10 Jul 2012 13:39:07 +0000

In reply to Well, shoot, I really wanted

Okay, the gremlins were in residence last night. Scratch "they came very off well" and insert "they came off very well."

I, too, was really wanting to

Elusive Trope — Tue, 10 Jul 2012 13:11:59 +0000

In reply to The Newsroom: A stupid, poorly acted show with an extra serving of sexism

I, too, was really wanting to like this show - esp after the preview scene where he launches into the college kid about how America isn't number 1. But the whole rant he has on stage also pushes another failing notion that underlies the show: that Americans used to be better informed in the good old days when news shows told the news.

Americans, back when Walter was telling them the way it was, were just as uninformed as they are today. (how long were we in Vietnam before most Americans knew we were in Vietnam) The difference with today was that they didn't have as much misinformation about the way things are. One could say that they not very informed about the world, but at least they accepted the fact they were not very informed about the world. Today people assume they understand the working of international finance and the deep motivations of each of the world leaders that they are aware of.

During the Cuban Missile Crisis, Americans watched the news to see the latest developments, knowing things were going on behind the scenes of which they will never know about until a made-for-tv-movie explains it to them twenty years later. If the same event happened today, people would listen to the news to get the inside "truth" about who on the other side was at fault, why someone else in charge would be doing a better job, and why it was all really the fault of liberal regulations on financial markets.

When one stops to think about for just a moment, just how can a news show five nights a week for 30 minutes (minus the minutes for advertising) lead to a truly informed nation. At best it could shed a light on what was happening somewhere. But briefly gazing upon something briefly illuminated does not lead to a deep understanding of what it is one is actually seeing.

Even after all the news casts that talked about the Vietnam War, most Americans remained uninformed about the conflict as a whole - what led up to it, how we became more enmeshed, etc.

When it comes to the majority of Americans and truly informative news programing, there are no good old days.

Well, shoot, I really wanted

Ramona — Tue, 10 Jul 2012 02:33:17 +0000

In reply to The Newsroom: A stupid, poorly acted show with an extra serving of sexism

Well, shoot, I really wanted to like this one, too. I don't get HBO but was about to go looking for it somewhere online. I think the first three seasons of "The West Wing" were brilliant, and I've been a Sorkin fan ever since.

I admit "The Social Network" didn't live up to my expectations, but I was hoping "Newsroom" would be Sorkin at his best. Too bad.

But about the women: They came very off well in "West Wing". Some of the female characters were remarkably complex, including the First Lady (Stockard Channing), but Allison Janney's "C.J" is unforgettable. (She was the president's press secretary.) The sexual tension between Josh Lyman and Donna Moss was subtle--never overboard but never dull.

There were a few "hit you on the head" moments, particularly with Martin Sheen as President Bartlet, but for the most part it was smart and grown-up and completely satisfying. The opening music still makes my throat tighten up.

So, too bad about his women problems. I guess it happens to the best of them.

I love navel gazing media

Michael Maiello — Mon, 09 Jul 2012 22:58:30 +0000

In reply to The Newsroom: A stupid, poorly acted show with an extra serving of sexism

I love navel gazing media stuff and even I find The Newsroom unwatchable and kind of embarassing. "You want us to design our news program around your corporate agenda?" Maybe people should talk that way but nobody does, ever.