Here’s the thing: The show and its creator, Aaron Sorkin, are making completely valid points about how and why the media, specifically broadcast news, has let down the electorate. But the problem with the show is that it can’t help making those statements explicit. The Wire is a great show because it reveals, season by season, the futility of the “War On Drugs” and its corrosive, wide-ranging impact on a city’s social institutions and its people. It would not be a great show if Bubbles came out and said, “Man, the ‘War On Drugs’ has really had a corrosive, wide-ranging impact on the city’s social institutions and people like me.”What's worse about the show is its take on politics and the Tea Party Movement, and we can't get into this without violating our No Politics Rule (Alan is skittish as well), but let's just say I found that problematic. And Linda Holmes insists next week is worse, with regards to its treatment of women, as though having a woman need a man to remind her how to breathe was a bit much this week already. Hoo boy.
Monday, July 9, 2012
DON'T LECTURE ME! I would watch a show that consisted of Sam Waterston and Jane Fonda cursing at each other for an hour. But the rest? Scott Tobias:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I really don't understand how NEWSNIGHT is supposed to save television news by adding yet another show in which an angry guy rants about politicians he doesn't like and sneers at talking heads. Shouldn't they be concentrating on doing actual reporting? Or failing that, go back to stories about obesity and breast cancer that could actually do some good for the public.
ReplyDeleteI likewise don't want to get into the merits of the politics, but two choices I found interesting:
ReplyDelete1. Unlike Studio 60, where the "new and improved" show was an almost immediate ratings success, "NewsNight 2.0" is apparently, a ratings disaster.
2. Partially because Sorkin feels bound by the real history, NewsNight didn't change the results of the election. God knows what Sorkin would have done if he didn't have to be bound to something. It could have been even more masturbatory.
Also, what happened to McKenzie's rule of "is this the best form of the argument?" There are arguments to be made for at least some of the policies that Will's guests would advocate for (I would generally not agree with those arguments, but there are arguments out there for them), but what we saw struck me most definitely as not the best form of those arguments.
I likewise don't want to get into the merits of the politics, but two choices I found interesting:
ReplyDelete1. Unlike Studio 60, where the "new and improved" show was an almost immediate ratings success, "NewsNight 2.0" is apparently, a ratings disaster.
2. Partially because Sorkin feels bound by the real history, NewsNight didn't change the results of the election. God knows what Sorkin would have done if he didn't have to be bound to something. It could have been even more masturbatory.
Also, what happened to McKenzie's rule of "is this the best form of the argument?" There are arguments to be made for at least some of the policies that Will's guests would advocate for (I would generally not agree with those arguments, but there are arguments out there for them), but what we saw struck me most definitely as not the best form of those arguments.
I'm not enjoying this program, often for the same reasons that seem to be disappointing everyone else, but I'm having a hard time distinguishing this program's faults from very similar elements in 'The West Wing", a show that I did enjoy, and that many critics who despise this program liked quite a bit. "The West Wing" wasn't particularly subtle with its themes, particularly stingy with its pontificating, or particularly realistic with its depiction of government at work. The women were of the great at work/clumsy and bubbleheaded at life/just needing the firm guidance of a good man-type that Sorkin apparently can't stop writing.
ReplyDeleteAm I misremembering TWW? If not, then I'm not sure I understand the huge disparity in the critical reception of the two shows (or my reception of them). Is it that repetition has rendered awful what was once charming? Is it that critics (and the audience in general) are much savvier about media than about the inner workings of the government, and so are less receptive? Is it that Sorkin now seems like a sexist, Internetphobic bully in real life? Was it just that there was enough other good stuff in TWW that it overshadowed the bad? It seems like Newsroom is almost all speechifying and Sorkin quirks, whereas TWW had characters that I liked and humor that seemed to spring from a sense of humanity rather than just a weirdly privileged rage.
I've not watched -- I keep HBO only for the ten weeks of Game of Thrones -- but wouldn't a more interesting drama be to have a reporter who believes in the party line of something decided to investigate some of his *own* sacred cows and decide they come up wanting instead of going after people he -- and his friends -- obviously don't like very much.
ReplyDeleteThere was a bit of that last week, when the lead topic was the AZ immigration law, which Will supported--it wasn't clear if he'd changed his position on it by the end of the episode. Will is (at least nominally) a moderate Republican.
ReplyDeleteI feel like critiquing this season — which was written in a bubble — week to week might be beating a dead horse. It's been renewed for a second season, maybe the relevant points of discussion are the changes he'll end up making in response to the feedback he's getting right now.
ReplyDeleteMan, I am not looking forward to watching this. (We watched Falling Skies last night, and saved Newsnight for tonight.)
ReplyDeleteI think that TWW had a few things in its favor that Newsnight does not: (1) The characters, with the exception of Mandy, were likable, (2) the female characters, especially CJ, seemed much more competent; (3) the context meant that the fact that there were big long debates about stuff seemed more organic; and (4) there didn't seem to be the same underlying theme of "the American people are stupid," at least not that I recall.
The thing that irritated me the most about this episode was the argument, presented as fact, that the federal government made a mistake in allowing commercials during the news when it gave government-owned airwaves to the networks. Set aside for a moment that, as Alan points out, that doesn't apply to cable news. That statement sidesteps a pretty vigorous, contested debate on its own. As Ronald Coase elegantly and Richard Epstein incessantly have asked, when and how did the federal government come to own the airwaves?
ReplyDeleteOrdinarily, one can come to own something in three ways. One can take it by force, as in war. One can purchase it. Or one can claim it, as by discovery. Historically, that third option has always required primacy (you have to get there first) and usually has required, for things that are fixed and immovable, improvement (you have to do something with the property you acquire). Thus, one ordinarily can't claim a plot of land that somebody else is already living on, and one ordinarily can't run around claiming every last bit of arable land but doing nothing with it. Obviously, there have been exceptions, not necessarily to the rules, but to whether people have cared about them. We had no problem claiming land that other people were living on when those people didn't share our political lineage, for example.
But what about the broadcast spectrum? The government was late to that party. The government didn't discover it, and it didn't improve it. Instead, the government noticed that other people were discovering and improving it. And the government's response, Coase and Epstein and others argue, was crazy: the government said, "you don't own that; we do, and now we'll rent it to you under certain conditions." Note that you don't have to be a free-market zealot to think that that is crazy -- a person could quite reasonably say "the government does not own the spectrum but acts lawfully to regulate it."
Anyway, the point is not to stake out a complete position in this blog post, and it's not even to say that Coase and Epstein are right. Reasonable minds may differ (though Epstein would not agree with that). The point is only that the statement that the government gave the broadcasters something that belonged to the public is itself pretty loaded, and puts Will McAvoy already in a box that Sorkin wants to claim that he isn't in.
On a side note, and I know I'm being nit-picky here, but a non-trivial non-compete should only come up if the employee leaves, right? Not if they're fired (other than for cause). The purpose isn't to ice the person semi-permanently, it's to stop them from picking up and walking down the street and setting up shop again. If the company fires the guy, then I wouldn't think the 3 year non-compete would apply. Of course, any contract could be negotiated on its own terms.
ReplyDeleteThe rules governing non-competes vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. In California, for example, I believe that a non-compete clause is valid only to the limited extent that it is used to protect trade secrets (as defined by statute, and which almost by definition cannot exist for longer than a very brief period of time in the news business), or, separately, in connection with the sale of a business that includes the sale of the business's goodwill. I have no idea to what extent a non-compete is valid in New York, or whether NY law would even apply (parties can choose different applicable law if they want).
ReplyDeleteI don't want to wade into the whole RINO debate, but it's hard really to get a handle on what it is about Will McAvoy that makes him a Republican other than that Sorkin tells us he is one. We don't see Will adopting any of the principles that would lead one to believe that he leans to the right. He's no Ron Swanson. Sorkin wants to say that he is telling the story that TPE wants him to tell, but I don't think a lot of people (including people who tend to agree with Sorkin politically) think he is.
ReplyDeleteI thought there was a great irony to News Night missing crucial human interest stories and Newsroom missing human interest stories as well, though I don't think that's what Sorkin intended.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Jenn. The West Wing was more humanistic (helping people, aiding people, doing what was good for people), whereas Newsroom is just pompous, elitist (Will's own word, yeesh), and insulting. None of it is *for* people. It's just a giant Sorkin soapbox. I think it's remarkable that Sorkin has even alienated some of his liberal audience, making them cry out on the persistently heavy-handed and unfair depiction of conservatives.
Also, I've never watched a show where I've wanted more of the characters to go to Mandyland.
What isaac said. Last I litigated this issue in PA (a decade or so ago now), an employer could enforce a NC in a severance agreement, because new consideration was exchanged (the severance payments for the promise not to compete in a specific geographic area for a reasonable length of time). I do, however, recall that there was a then-recent intermediate state court opinion to the effect that if you as employer fired someone, it was essentially tantamount to saying the employee wasn't valuable to you; ergo, NC unenforceable. I think there are problems with that logic (if I'm even remembering it correctly), but there ya go.
ReplyDeleteI don't want to skate too close to the Rule, but I will say simply that I know people who identified as moderate Republicans in the past (mostly New England Republicans) who are fiscally moderately conservative and socially liberal - not libertarians, not Ron Swansons. Think Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins, John and Lincoln Chaffee [pre-2007].
ReplyDeleteWe don't know that McAvoy fits the Snowe mold.
ReplyDeleteWedon't, but I'm just responding to your point that we don't see him adopting principles that would lead one to believe that he leans to the right because he's no Ron Swanson. Just saying that there's another mold out there.
ReplyDeleteI don't understand why the assumption is that the only choice is between "good" reporting and "entertaining" reporting. Is it really not possible to put together a show that is well done, informative, and entertaining? Let's say that you really did have a news show staff that wanted to up the ante for great reporting---make it more informative and useful for viewers. Would that staff really decide, hey, let's strip out everything entertaining?
ReplyDeleteTWW did have some of these problems, but had more to balance that out. As awkward as CJ could be, Josh had his own foibles, and Toby was often supposed to be unlikeable. (And Mrs. Bartlett, Nancy, Margaret, Mrs. Landingham were all distinct and capable and awesome characters.) That said, early on, there's a scene where Bartlett and Leo are looking around at some sort of party, and keep saying "these women... these women" that is truly nauseating. So, yeah, none of this is surprising - just disappointing that Sorkin's gender politics have gotten worse as time has gone on.
ReplyDeleteI think that's just it. Sorkin's politics and gifts and writing could allow him to write an interesting left-wing anchor who begun to question his own politics at the cost of his own position and personal relationships. He has no sense -- and even less empathy -- for folks that start on the right end of the spectrum, so I think someone coming to question *those* political positions just doesn't really work because the writing falls flat.
ReplyDeleteEither is an interesting story, but I think Sorkin can't get there working on someone who starts off right wing, I don't think. I never found any of his Republican characters on TWW remotely believable.
I am really having a hard time with the show's take on women. Mac always looks scared, and she's been dedined almost entirely by her relationship to will. And Maggie is portrayed as weak and teary,teary. Constantly needing to be saved by men, both of whom she's linked to romantically. The news stuff and the great cast may not be enough to keep me watching.
ReplyDeleteWere we supposed to find the panic attack scene romantic? I found it somewhere between creepy and condescending. Sorkin's idea of romance used to be about goldfish and smoky. Now it's telling a woman to carry a Xanax and giving her ridiculous relationship adivce? Sigh.
ReplyDeleteIt was condescending. It was basically: So I know what's happening because I've been in a war zone with guys who had panic attacks (obviously for legitimate reasons), but you're having them because you worry that people don't like you (obviously a ridiculous reason). It's nice that he went to check on her, but come on. Also, having her acknowledge that he's smug and having him deny it does not mean that he's not smug. This may return to the problem noted previously that there is a lot of telling versus showing going on.
ReplyDelete