In this episode, the most important, most interesting, most revealing scene is where the owner of the corporation (played superbly by Jane Fonda) tells the head of her news division, "I have business in front of this Congress!" She's complaining about her anchorman and his newscast covering news in ways she knows will displease Congressional leaders whom she needs for business advantage.
Her news division president (played equally superbly by Sam Waterston) answers, in effect "You can't possibly expect us to tailor the news to your corporate agenda."
She shoots back, "I have business (she hits the word hard) in front of this Congress." And she flatly says she'll fire the anchorman if he doesn't stop putting on the air what he has been.
This, friends, is drama taken from real life. Yes, this is fiction. But it's based on some recent history in the news business.
This whole episode is something I wish every American could see and ponder, especially in the context of the two preceding installments. They would then understand how a combination of big business and big government, working for their mutual benefit — not the public interest but rather their own interests — affects the news we see and hear.
You know I think that Dan Rather can be correctly labeled an expert when it comes to reviewing how well a television program depicts the relationship between journalists, their producers, and the corporate bosses at the top.
As a matter of fact, considering how he lost his job while trying to expose the truth about Bush's National Guard service, he may be THE expert on the conflicts between journalism and the politics of the corporations that employ them.
He is dead right, EVERYBODY with an interest in how news is gathered and disseminated to the public, and that should be ALL of us, should be riveted to this program.
And you can tell how well this show is doing its job t=by the fact that it has already drawn the wrath of at least ONE Teabagger Senator.
Awesome. Thanks Gryphen for all your great reporting..you are one of the only sources I trust!
ReplyDeleteDan Rather was thrown under the bus because his investigation into Dubya's contemptible behavior while in service. The exposé would have ruined the carefully constructed shadow government that hid behind the addled president-by-hanging-chads.
ReplyDeleteI watch Newsroom religiously; it is the stuff that all journalists hope to see for real. However, the days of Edward R. Murrow, Woodward and Bernstein are probably over with the anointing of propaganda machines like FOX as "fair and balanced." Jane Fonda's character is all too real in corporate news, the operative word being "corporate."
I used to think that people drew comfort from West Wing because it presented a president and staff as people who, for the most part, were working for the betterment of the country. In reality, the exact opposite was going on in the Bush White House.
So too is Newsroom. Perhaps Aaron Sorkin is hoping that enough people understand the message of the series to turn away from "news sources" such as FOX.
One can only hope.
Reading the posts of praise for Newsroom and those that rag on it -- I laugh as it has finally been written about -- been there. In the 90's -- in Canada.
ReplyDeleteIn fact, the U.S. has seen it too - back in 1998 when it was picked up which aired and reran. 'Newsroom' won an Emmy in 2005:
"In the States, starting in 1998, it ran on 200 PBS stations and, according to Finkleman, it “reran forever,” and the Los Angeles Times called it the "funniest, freshest, most original sitcom to air here this season." Variety blogger Jon Weisman recently wrote that the show was “a cult favorite in these parts for its sharp humor and storytelling.” At the end of it all, Finkleman had a spread in Vanity Fair (according to Meyboom) and won an international Emmy in 2005."
I see it in the light of TV and movies -- the attempt to make something old new again. The lack of new ideas coming from those we once thought brilliant -- but now they remake the old and just package it like it's new. Happens with TV and the movies -- think about those classic movies that have not done well in the 'remaking', let's be truthful, they pretty much tanked. Think of everything that has parts 2, 3, 4 etc because Part 1 was good so they pushed out 2, 3....instead of being creative with new ideas. Most 2, 3, etc never worked!! Hell - Dallas is back. What next??
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/07/09/why-canadians-aren-t-laughing-at-latest-version-of-the-newsroom.html
The "Newsroom" episode must have come just a little too close for comfort for the senator. Most smart politicians have little to say when they are skewered in a fictionalized portrayal. There is a lot of "code" in mentioning the Fourteenth Amendment and that "code" has to do with African Americans and their rights to citizenship and all that it implies. Given the Republican efforts in the past year or so to disenfranchise as many people as possible, I think the senator should be embarrassed to say the least to be so connected to changing the Fourteenth Amendment.
ReplyDeleteOh! I always thought this argument was much more geared to be anti-Hispanic, particularly Mexican immigrants who might give birth here.
DeleteI was always a fan of Dan Rather. I hated the way he was shuffled off the air to hush up the truth about the snowman from CT.
ReplyDeleteIt's so true. I write a little column about animals for a major newspaper and have been told by the "powers that be" to stop telling people not to buy dogs from pet stores because they perpetuate puppy mills - because the pet stores are major advertisers in the paper. It's a big moral dilemma for many journalists, as editorial and business have two separate agendas.
ReplyDeleteBefore "Newsroom" started its recent run, there were some giving it bad credit before it was even seen on the tube! Due to that I made sure I watched the first show and have continued to since. Those critics were proven wrong and I see this show as award winning and building its viewership. Yea!
ReplyDeleteFOX News and CNN are the very worst!!! I prefer Rachel Maddow, Lawrence O'Donnell, Chris Matthews and Ed. Especially Rachel!!! They all do their homework and correct things if they made a statement in error!!!!
Enjoy "Newsroom' folks! You'll be happy you did!
I think Dan Rather was the victim of a clever Rovian-style disinformation ploy. The document was genuine -- that is the words on it were true and accurate -- but they were copied onto a new page using the Selectric typewriter. When the document was leaked to Rather, the right-wing echo chamber was alerted be on the lookout for it and to pay close attention to certain details. Rather and CBS took the bait and worked on trying to verify the content -- which they did. But as soon as they went public, the trap was sprung and the attention was focused on those details of the paper and they typeface. After that, no one paid any attention to the content.
ReplyDeleteThe Bush clan has never missed an opportunity to savage Dan Rather. For those whose memory is as long as mine is, and can remember when Vice President George H.W. Bush was implicated as being directly involved with the Iran-Contra dealings he went on CBS news live to answer questions from Dan Rather and proceeded to lay into Dan about an entirely unrelated matter.
I'm reading Dan Rather's recent book, "Rather Outspoken" in which he lays out the whole wretched scandal and how he and his chief researcher Mary Mapes were hung out to dry by the corporate heads which had recently taken over CBS. Truly sad. Excellent book, by the way -- I picked it up at my local (Cdn) library.
DeleteI have Time Warner and will be watching The Newsroom. I don't have HBO (I'm a Showtime girl). This is how I will watch the entire series and save lots of $$$.
ReplyDeleteBack when Game Change came out, I called TW and found out you can order HBO on one day and cancel the next. You will be prorated on your next invoice at about 50 cents a day.
SO, I plan on waiting for a few more episodes to come out, and then have a bit of a Newsroom marathon. Then do it again after it wraps.
Probably will cost me about $2.00 in total!
Thanks for the reminder! I forgot that I had once order HBO for the weekend and recorded everything I wanted to watch. Once it's on your DVR, even after you have canceled, you can still view it, at your leisure to boot.
DeleteI loved the first episode.
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately I cannot afford HBO at home or the subscribe online.
I guess I'll wait for the DVDs and borrow them from the public library.
I am so disappointed Sorkin couldn't sell this to the networks so all could witness it, as happened with West Wing. But I understand why no major networks would want to touch it. Especially.....Faux.
HBO is recently available in The Netherlands and The Newsroom is very popular.
ReplyDeleteHBO should let EVERYONE watch it - even us folks that don't have a HBO subscription! It wouldn't hurt them to slap up a free version On Demand say a month or so after each episode airs :)
ReplyDeleteI am SO glad that Sorkin didn't try to sell the show to any of the major networks, as they'd be doing to him, what the Jane Fonda character wants to do to the Jeff Daniels character: CENSORSHIP!
ReplyDeleteI watched that first episode and youtube and got totally hooked. It is the best TV show I've seen in a very long time. I'll certainly be watching the rest of the episodes.
ReplyDeleteI love this site. I love Gryphen's mission to expose you-know-who and the idiotic right wing as a whole.
ReplyDeleteHowever...this show sucks. The dynamic inside the newsroom is actually nothing like a newsroom. It is merely a vehicle for Sorkin's naive, smushy idealism.
While the live newscasts are fairly gripping and I like the deconstruction of the events of 2010, every single one of the paper-thin characters would be eaten alive in a real TV newsroom.