Quentin
Senior HTF Member
Adam Lenhardt said:There's an argument to be made that Sorkin has no responsibility to get the news right, and that his only responsibility is to tell a compelling, entertaining story. I disagree, though. If you're dedicating a show to the people who gather, research and report the news, you should get both the process and the news itself right. People should come away no more poorly informed than than came in.I like your post, Adam and I agree with it. But, I wanted to draw attention to this part in particular.
Essentially, if I'm reading the pilot correctly and I know Sorkin like I think I know him, this show is supposed to be about a group of people who will set out on a mission to make TV news noble and good again. A machine to inform the electorate properly. Not to kowtow to ratings and hype and attempt to polarize like an O'Reilly or Olbmermann. And, not to drone us to sleep. But, to be smart, provocative, and informative.
Unfortunately, what the pilot gives us for the BP coverage is a show that is both partly fictional (and therefore fraudulent) and partly unbelievably lucky due to Sorkin's hindsight (making journalism look easy and...lucky). Both of these are antithetical to the premise! To restore nobility to TV news, will require 1) PURE TRUTH - that is, absolute facts presented in a provocative manner and inherent bias can be present but should be acknowledged and pointed out, and 2) HARD WORK - laziness and luck are largely why news is as shitty as it is nowadays. It's far easier to blather on camera and kowtow to polling and ratings and trot out caricature representatives of different sides of a debate in order to generate polarization and therefore high ratings and hype. It's much harder to do what Emily Mortimer's character suggests.
But, the BP coverage was not a good example of this. In this case, it's because of the silly hindsight/luck issue and, as you point out, Sorkin's bias allowed him to present fictional aspects of the story that point the finger at an incompetent MMS (instead of corrupt, red-tape bound, and lazy) and the evil corporate Haliburton (an overblown cliche at this point). So, Sorking dropped the ball TWICE in this pilot: he allowed the newsroom to get way too lucky on this story far sooner than any other news show AND he still got the story angle wrong!
I am curious to see if/how/when the show evolves from here. Will they continue covering the spill? It was big news until July - that's 4 months. The reviews suggest they bring on guest speaker/debaters that are the worst kind of caricatures - which sounds terribly like an O'Reilly show or Politically Incorrect. That just sounds horrible to me.