A funny thing is happening with HBO’s “Newsroom.” Critics, by and large, are skewering Aaron Sorkin’s new show, while viewers — specifically, Sorkin fans — are eating it up. This obviously isn’t sitting well with critics, who don’t like it when smart audiences don’t agree with their reviews. One critic, Scott Meslow with The Atlantic, is coming to the defense of critics by essentially suggesting that the reason viewers like “The Newsroom” OVER THE ANGRY PROTESTATION OF CRITICS is because we’re easy to please, easily manipulated Sorkin fanboys that just don’t know any better.
Why have viewers responded so defensively to critical attacks on The Newsroom? Because Sorkin’s work is the equivalent of an overzealous grade-school teacher: It makes viewers feel special. Sorkin has built a career on TV comfort food, setting up straw men and letting his jaded-but-noble protagonists knock them down. There’s nothing wrong with comfort food; The West Wing thrived for years on noble, hyper-articulate speeches by Martin Sheen’s Jed Bartlet, a “president we can all agree on.” … Dan Rather’s review of The Newsroom opens with the line, “any television program that has its main characters quoting Cervantes can’t be all bad.” That’s Sorkin—and the majority of his defenders—in a nutshell.
You know what? Piss off, Meslow. You cannot reduce everyone who likes “Newsroom” to eager school kids lapping up Sorkinese like dumb, misguided pooches. It takes more than a smart pop-culture reference or a literary allusion to make us feel “special.” Besides, what the hell does this guy have against overzealous school teachers? Did he just take a crap on educators?
Why is Meslow being so defensive about viewers defensiveness to the critics? It’d be easy to chalk it up to the fact that — as part of the media — he and other critics are taking offense to Sorkin’s characterization of the current state of journalism in “Newsroom.” Meslow is quick to dismiss that criticism, and I think he’s right. That’s not what’s a play.
What is at play is that most critics exist in an echo chamber of their own voices: They help to form and validate each other’s opinions. Follow a few television critics on Twitter, and you’ll find that most of their interactions are with other critics. Their notion of a “smart” television viewer is their colleagues, and not the educated people who respond to “overzealous school teachers” or the other smart but not ultra-critical viewers who make up the large percentage HBO viewers. Critics get upset when audiences don’t think like a critic, failing to recognize that even smart audiences often have different standards and look for different things that what a critic looks for.
Moreover, it’s not that hard to find some fault with any show, and because this show is about journalists, they’re closer to the subject material, and therefore, it’s easier for them to find things wrong with it. “SORKIN DOESN’T KNOW WHAT HE’S TALKING ABOUT. OUR DESKS DON’T LOOK LIKE THAT AT ALL.” It’s like asking someone in the military to weigh in on a war movie: Of course they’re going to have a stronger opinion, and of course they’re going to be quicker to find fault. The difference is, most soldiers aren’t writing reviews about war movies, while journalists in this case are writing reviews about a show that criticizes their very profession. It’s not as important to the average viewer that the layout of the newsroom is as exact is it is in reality or that Sorkin didn’t get every single goddamn detail right on the BP Oil spill. The average intelligent HBO viewer’s standard isn’t as high and exacting: We just want to be entertained with smart writing, and the ability to quote Cervantes does put Sorkin ahead of 90 percent of the rest of the writers on television.
Sure, Sorkin is smug and sanctimonious, but he always has been. The problem with “Newsroom” is not that he’s talking down to his audience. He’s talking down to the media, and that’s what’s pissing them off. The rest of us? Maybe we just like to see a drunk sass-mouthing Sam Waterston and Olivia Munn in a role that doesn’t make us hate her.
![[avatar]](http://p.uproxxcdn.com/photo/4006/thumb)
![[image]](http://cdn.uproxx.com/wp-content/thumbnails/130/110/2013/05/heres-ed-skrein-daario-naharis-from-game-of-thrones-rapping-150x150.jpg)
![[image]](http://cdn.uproxx.com/wp-content/thumbnails/130/110/2013/05/tumblr_mfcjjiUneJ1r7qi9eo1_400-150x150.gif)
![[image]](http://cdn.uproxx.com/wp-content/thumbnails/130/110/2013/05/larry-david-looks-super-weird-in-the-trailer-for-his-new-hbo-movie-uproxx-150x150.jpg)
![[image]](http://cdn.uproxx.com/wp-content/thumbnails/130/110/2013/05/Screen-Shot-2013-05-20-at-10.57.17-AM-150x150.png)
This is season 5 of “The Wire” all over again.
DAMN. You’re exactly right. Somehow, that didn’t even occur to me.
Boom.
I didn’t like the second episode as much as I did the pilot, but I do think there’s something here worth watching on a Sunday night. I’m also particularly impressed with Jeff Daniels, who I never thought all that much of before.
Sir, if you were a woman, or at least more effeminate, I would kiss you. This is exactly what I was thinking on all counts.
People who write about TV are the worst.
BAM
Why does everyone hate Olivia Munn? Did you not see her sexting pics?
We hate her b/c those pics weren’t sent to us.
Seriously, she seems like a nice girl, and remarkable level headed for an actress, but she has had some shitty roles before now.
I think it might be scientifically impossible to discuss Sorkin without somebody acting like a condescending d-bag.
It’s called the Sorkin Principal, you mouth-breathing proletariat (OH GOD ITS HAPPENING TO ME).
That was perfect except where you used the wrong form of “principle.” And it’s actually called the “Sorkin Paradigm.” Sometimes I feel like I’ve stumbled into a simpleton’s convention.
Dammit I’m studying for the Bar and was doing Agency & Principal today. FUUCKK.
Principal? What the crap does do you people have against our educators????
You know critics have the correct opinion when they feel the need to say, “No, seriously, guys! The show sucks and you’re all stupid, mindless sheep!”
“And you can tell this because you’re reading what I, a critic, has to say on the matter… oh crap!”
I’m really liking The Newsroom. My biggest criticism is of Mackenzie’s character when she’s doing something OTHER than interacting with Daniels and being all “oh I’m super smart but weird and sometimes I’m super observant of social cues but other times I can’t hold a conversation that’s not about news without turning into an over the top blubbering idiot”… it is driving me a little nuts. I don’t know if the actress just needs to tone it down or if the writers just haven’t quite figured out her non-executive producer personality yet… I’m loving the rest so I’m willing to give them time to figure her out.
and maybe the subplot of intern-girl love triangle thing was shoved forward a little too fast….. “OOOOH LOOK, A ROMANTIC SUPBLOT!!! ROOT FOR THESE PEOPLE!!! I SAID DO IT!!!!”
Yeah the heavy focus on the relationships in the show as opposed to the news angle has been bugging me. Especially because I don’t know if the actors have gotten their characters pinned down yet as actual people as opposed to vessels for Sorkin’s dialogue.
The irritating thing about Newsroom criticisms is the galling double standards employed to take down the show. People who loved the West Wing complain about the hyper idealistic characters, monolouges, and holier than thou confrontations prevelant in Newsroom without the slightest hint of irony. They whine about using real news stories as a device for making the characters seem intelligent or extraordinary, but had Sorkin invented situations he’d be accused of creating contrived scenarios tailor made to make his characters seem intelligent or extraordinary. The guy cant win. The Internet has spoken.
Newsroom has flaws and is a bit underwhelming thus far. But the amount of scorn heaped on this compared to say, Anger Management, is just ridiculous.
but shouldn’t people WANT to watch TV that makes them FEEL GOOD?!? that makes us feel special? why is that a bad thing?
the only defense fans of the show should need is that they enjoy it and it makes them feel good. i don’t see why that’s a problem.
thats like a food critic giving a chef shit because people think his food is delicious. i mean, what the fuck?
i can only assume that Sorkin pisses people off in person so they want him to fail. but we just see the end product, so we don’t give a fuck.
i don’t want to know how his television sausages are made. i just know that they are delicious.
I loved the pilot…and thought this episode was bad. Cheap tactics, wasn’t invested in the story, and felt Sorkin pushed his ultimate agenda way ahead of the legitimate aspects of the show. Do we now live in a world where it’s not ok to criticize Sorkin? He’s played out. While this episode had some moments, too much felt forced. Why don’t we stop the “critics hate sorkin because he is making a show that comments on news and journalist”…who happen to be too close to critics” as well as the “sorkin is the greatest to ever live because OMG he is making a comment on news and journalists.”
Politics aside…episode 2 sucked compared to the pilot.
Ep1 was much better than Ep2 — and many of the critics have based their reviews on the first 4 episodes, which may account for the gap between them and the fans in the audience. That said, I still enjoy it and will continue to watch (unlike Girls — I don’t understand the critical hype about that show). I do hope they spend more time on the news angle and let the interpersonal relationships develop from there (like he did on SportsNight and West Wing, not like what he did on Studio 60). However, he was on Colbert last week and at one point Sorkin described the show as a romantic comedy — that does not bode well….
I agree. As I was looking at my criticisms they all seemed to be about how the characters act interpersonally, away from the show… and I too have reservations about him doing a ‘romantic comedy’….
Someone from The Atlantic is complaining about the ramblings of the over-educated, hyper-articulate and over-educated intelligentsia. I subscribe to The Atlantic and I am pretty sure that is its core audience.
Even if all of the making-a-news-show stuff on NEWSROOM worked (and it doesn’t), the early characterization of MacKenzie and Maggie would still make the show nearly unwatchable.
Aw. Maggie’s adorable!
I dunno. All I know is that if this show doesn’t get renewed for next season based solely on it’s early buzz, either good or bad like Girls and Veep were, I’ll be upset.
I like shows that move fast enough to make people pay attention. Too often shows are waiting for laugh tracks to end, a sight gag to finish it’s gagging or just plain giving the audience a long pause to “get” what they just saw or heard. It’s nice for a show to not necessarily cater to the lowest common denominator when it comes to the viewing public. Fuck you if it goes a little too fast for you. You’re probably not gonna understand what they’re talking about anyway.
/dick joke
It just got picked up for a scond season, Spesholl K.
Girls and Veep didn’t get renewed because of buzz, they got renewed because they had strong ratings for HBO comedies. Also because HBO will renew just about anything that doesn’t involve dead horses.
But, as we saw with Game of Thrones, a high number of dead horses doesn’t necessarily mean that HBO won’t renew a show, either.
HBO: Dead horses for some, condescending for others.
Yo, Dustin. Right smack spot on. Piss off, Meslow.
The critics don’t like it because Sorkin is calling them out. They are not doing their job. And everybody knows it. They just pass propagandized pablum from their desk to the next. Real people are sick of it. And they immediately recognize the best TV show for adults to come along in over two decades.
Pardon the paraphrase, but, Those who can – do – those who can’t – criticize.
I’ll admit I only read this site and The A/V Club for T.V. stuff, but I don’t picture either of those having much in common w/ news reporting as depicted on The Newsroom. Critics need to realize that this is not a shot across their bow.
I think it’s a little presumptive of television critics to feel this show hits too close to home since it’s about a news program.
I’d exclude present company, but none of our gracious hosts seem to have the problems w/ this show the rest of their colleagues do.
I love this site and I read it because it’s funny and somewhat informative. Like the Daily Show or a Conan opening. I’m not expecting real journalism here. I expect dick jokes and some basic info and perhaps a link to a dog licking his balls on Friday that makes me giggle. When I kick on a real news network I would like to see facts and facts presented as facts, not an agenda. I don’t care about the networks agenda, I’ll make up my own mind thank you.
This reminds me of the media’s reaction to Stephen Colbert’s White House Correspondent Dinner routine. They don’t seem to like people taking the piss out of their industry, do they?
To be fair, who does?
To be unfair, fuck them and their stupid fucking faces. Just because you’re getting paid to express your opinion about something, doesn’t mean it’s the right opinion, or even that you’re doing a particularly good job of expressing it.
All I know is, I’m not going to stand here, and let you BAD-MOUTH the United States of America. Gentlemen!
“SORKIN DOESN’T KNOW WHAT HE’S TALKING ABOUT. OUR DESKS DON’T LOOK LIKE THAT AT ALL.”
Yeah, and my department is setup exactly like the one on The Office! What a moron! Of course people don’t necessarily think that is how a desk in a newsroom looks. Who the hell cares if it did! Critics are dumb and I am not surprised that I like this show because they hate it. It happens with movies and TV ALL THE TIME. If they hate something, I know I will LOVE it!
Everyone’s a critic:
“Newsroom was not as good this week.”
-Alcoholics Gratuitous
does any body see the similarities to the “Girls” controversy? i think its just a testament to some of the big flaws with the internet….way too many voices/opinions. back in the day, a few critics not liking a show, would come down to not being liked by critics….now we have breakdowns on how/why people like a show…what the show means to the world, etc. just shut the fuck up, if u like the show, watch it…if u dont, dont watch it.
all that bs aside, great article…hbo has been shoveling sand right into the vaginas of everyone these days with their shows…so much outrage, and sandy vaginas. just like a good vacation
From the linked article:
“This is why such people often dream about and sometimes do buy newspapers. Aaron Sorkin is working out his heroic fantasy of being in the news business in The Newsroom.”
God forbid writers write shows about things not wholly familiar to them, this is why I like the fact that the minds behind Breaking Bad actually run a meth lab, and the guys behind Dexter kill people.
Damn writers making fantasy shows out of fantasy are giving the whole industry a bad name.
The consensus seems to be that ep1 > ep2. I liked ep2 better because I didn’t get beat over the head with an overwrought explanation of the Cervantes allegory. Am I the only one that thought that whole Mackenzie speech was way too telling and not showing? Also, nobody’s asking the important question: Are there gonna be boobs on this show, or what?
no you’re not. I dont see how anyone could think episode 1 was better. Episode 1 was like an unedited Sorkin pilot, before someone was allowed to cut down on all the monologue speechifying, the interaction between characters was rough, the humor and witty retorts mostly fell flat, the movie-like music scores were overdone. The whole episode was too in the audience’s face of how things should be according to Sorkin. There was a lot of good in the first episode, but it just drowned in itself.
The second episode was much more polished and edited. It was good Sorkin. The dialogue was quick and witty, there were no long monologue speeches, the points Sorkin wanted to make were not in your face about it, the whole show flowed much better. The first episode had more epic moments, but the problem was the whole episode was trying to be epic from start to finish and at times I just had to roll my eyes at how overdone it was.
There’s that strategy of writing a thesis statement or introduction to an essay. Something to the effect of – write the first three sentences, then throw the first two out, and you’ll have your first good sentence. I had a feeling that’s what episode 1 was. Sorkin shaking out the cobwebs and being too eager to tell the audience exactly how he felt. Now that he got it out of his system he was ready to really start the show with episode 2. I’m way more encouraged about the show after the 2nd episode.
I think the critique is spot on, but I still find the show pretty entertaining.
Meslow’s article belongs on Slate.
the whole point of the show is to create a voice to cover today’s current events the way they should be covered because for the most part anchors are too scared. haven’t they seen the daily show and colbert report? it’s satire and comedy about the ineptitude of the media. well the newsroom is an answer to that. it’s supposed to be a dream, as sad as that is. you’d think critics would understand that but you’re right. they’re too close.