The opening scene from the new HBO series. Shocking that studiously non-partisan journalist is actually stereotypical liberal, I know. And it just gets better from here--even more preaching follows. I'll let Dorothy Rabinowitz take over: "the preening virtue that weighs on this Aaron Sorkin series like a great damp cloud—the right-mindedness oozing from every line—isn't going away. It's the heart of this enterprise... like all the sanctimonious twaddle here, well nigh unbearable."
There's something in the theme of journalists and news reporting that can bring out the worst in writers—though not, to be sure, one like James L. Brooks, who wrote the magnificent "Broadcast News" (1987). That something has to do with the view, which has come to be an article of faith over the past 75 years or so, that journalism is a sacred calling deserving of reverence. "The Newsroom" gives every spine-chilling sign of immersion in that faith. Which may explain some of Mr. Sorkin's apparent difficulty conceiving reasonably human characters in this saga of broadcast journalists...
Still, it's clear that Mr. Sorkin's main interest in "The Newsroom" runs to concerns other than characters and storytelling. There's anchor Will—who is, we're assured, a Republican—going on camera in episode three to blast away at certain social and political forces that constitute grave dangers to the nation. (In Will's world, no danger ever emanates from the political left—it just doesn't happen.) His targets include, not surprisingly, Gov. Jan Brewer's immigration bill, Sarah Palin, the new Republican majority in Congress, Fox News—and, not least, the Tea Party. That last a subject on which Will goes to town with ferocious firepower all the more deadly for its employment of actual quotations. There's Rand Paul attempting to explain certain of his complicated social views. There's Sharron Angle, briefly a heroine of the Tea Party, complaining that the press had failed to ask the questions she wanted to answer.
An episode like this one, drawing on the deep bitterness of our current political wars, brings "The Newsroom" to life. But it's a kind destined to be intermittent. The show's deeper problems—thin drama, a thick hide of smugness—would take far more than that to overcome.
Can't believe I watched that. Times like this make you grateful you don't have the job that requires you to watch 3 whole episodes. Update: Jake Tapper's TNR review:
McAvoy—and, by extension, Sorkin—preach political selflessness, but they practice pure partisanship; they extol the Fourth Estate’s democratic duty, but they believe that responsibility consists mostly of criticizing Republicans. This is done through the oldest trick in the book for a Hollywood liberal: by having McAvoy be a “sane Republican” who looks at his party with sadness and anger.
"The problem of an eidos in history, hence, arises only when a Christian transcendental fulfillment becomes immanentized. Such an immanentist hypostasis of the eschaton, however, is a theoretical fallacy."-Eric Voegelin
George Will Advice
"I grew up in Champaign, Illinois, midway between Chicago and St. Louis. At an age too tender for life-shaping decisions, I made one. While all my friends were becoming Cardinals fans, I became a Cub fan. My friends, happily rooting for Stan Musial, Red Schoendienst and other great Redbirds, grew up cheerfully convinced that the world is a benign place, so of course, they became liberals. Rooting for the Cubs in the late 1940s and early 1950s, I became gloomy, pessimistic, morose, dyspeptic and conservative. It helped out of course that the Cubs last won the World Series in 1908, which is two years before Mark Twain and Tolstoy died. But that means, class of 1998, that the Cubs are in the 89th year of their rebuilding effort, and remember, any team can have a bad moment. So fellow members of the Class of 1998, my last piece of advice is - Mamas don't let your babies grow up to be Cub fans."
where a tone of careless informality prevails; posts oscillate between the uselessly brief and the uselessly logorrheic; complexity and complication are eschewed; the humor is cringe-making, with irony present only in its conspicuous absence; arguments are solipsistic; writers traffic more in pronouncement than persuasion; PLUS little more than recounting what have become one side's talking points is accomplished