Herc’s Sunday TV Talkback!! Aaron Sorkin’s Epic Tea Party Episode Of THE NEWSROOM!! Plus New WEEDS, TRUE BLOOD, FALLING SKIES, EPISODES And More!! Also The Premieres of INSPECTOR LEWIS, HOARDING, BIG ANG, SUNDAY BEST And INSANE COASTER WARS!!

I know I'm liking it.

Could you imagine Senator Franken debating Will McAvoy? Or a terse run-in with a dead pan, TV-MA Brian Williams (not that I think he'd go TV-MA)? The possibilities are endless...

the entire 1st season should have been losing audiences on a week-to-week basis...but instead the ratings were really good prompting this second season Newsroom seems pretty good...not going to watch it every week but it's definitely entertaining with a solid job by Jeff Daniels

Debate WHAT, lol? They would agree on every issue and talking point. Aaron Sorkin's version of a "Republican" (cough...hack...cough) would be cheering on a uber lefty like Al Franken.

You seem to be saying there is only one way that Republicans can think, and it is the way that you think that is acceptable, but no other way? Does a Republican have to disagree with all viewpoints of Democrats to be a Republican? No crossover at all? Is that what you think that politics has come to now, an us vs. them mentality, instead of Fellow Americans striving for a better America for ALL, not just some?

I like the show, but Sorkin's portrayal of Republicans really bug me (and I am no Republican). In two episodes, he covered his three Republican archetypes: - His ideal Republican who really doesn't believe in any Replican values - McAvoy's meltdown speech in the opening. - A Republican who starts the episode with a conservative Republican view (McAvoy complaining undocumented workers steal jobs from U.S. citizens) only to come around to the liberal Democrat view at the end of the episode (McAvoy paying for the undocumented work's cab fee to get to and from work at the end of the episode) - The redneck Republican/major caricature of a Republican - The three fill in guests on the show last episode which covered three stereotype Republicans (the gun toting redneck, the crazy nutjob, and the pretty airhead). There are other Sorkinisms that get tired, but that one gets to me more than any of them for some reason. I guess it has to do with him trying to give the appearance he is being balanced because McAvoy is a Republican. I wouldn't have a problem if he was just up front with it and not hide behind McAvoy being a Republican who will magically accept the Democrat point of view by the end of every episode.

Paul Ryan is a pretty good example of a mainstream Conservative Republican, imo. And I do prefer a battle of ideas/ideologies between liberals and conservatives instead of some "mushy middle." I would respect Newsroom a lot more if Daniels' character was made the Democrat he is in truth and policy beliefs, instead of being a shallow and obvious plot device to bash Conservatives.

it isn't for open minded conservatives, it is for conservatives who are only willing to accept that the liberal views on topics is right. Sorkin is not being open minded, why should the audience. So far he has given two sides of the argument - the well thought out, rational liberal view and the crazy, ignorant conservative view. On last week's immigration issue, the only rational conservative view Sorkin offered for the conservative side was one line repeated over several times that undocumented workers take jobs from U.S. citizens. Otherwise, it was either the liberal view or the most whacked out views from the fringe of the Right. I don't have any problem with that if Sorkin is up front, but this show is really preaching to the liberal base not trying to give both sides of the issue for intelligent debate. Again, I don't care. That isn't stopping me from watching the show. I think his portrayal of Republicans is more bad entertainment than I have any political issues. I find it lazy screenwriting to show the other side's points are wrong and his side's points are right. He is just stacking the decks to prove that his opinions are right.

I never said Sorkin should disagree with his own political point of view. I said it is lazy screenwriting to build up your own point of view by making the opposing point of view by a bunch of crazies or have a character who is supposed to have diametrically opposing point of views accept your point of views at the end of every episode. I agree with a lot of Sorkin's politics (hence why I am not a Republican), but I think it cheapens his shows with his portrayals of Repblicans in to three basic archetypes which are used primarily to make his opinions more valid. Personally, I would find the show far more interesting if McAvoy was a rational conservative who didn't cave to the liberal point of view every episode OR he was a liberal and he stuck by the point of view. I would also find it more interesting that every conservative guest on the show wasn't some cartoon character of the far Right. I think him pushing his point of view would be more interesting and impactful if he actually opposed a legitimate counter to that view and then allowing the audience to see that his point of view is right. He would still have to manipulate the story, but it would be less obvious. My point was that this show isn't being open minded towards the issues as you suggest. Just like the political shows it is based on (on both sides of the aisle) it only wants the audience to accept their point of view and preaches to the choir.

Because someone with an open mind can change if the information given makes sense, like that 19 year old kid who was a former conservative but just came out publically with liberal points of view, ot the gay Republican friend of my brother who is now working for the Democratic Party in PA after my brother opened his mind to a different point of view.. Is there something wrong with this? Have you ever tried to change someone's mind to your point of view? Would a dramatic show with a Republican point of view that is designed to open liberals minds to a different point of view be just as bothersome to you, be just as lazy? Nothing presents both points of view equally, nothing. Wanting this kind of balance is just silly in today's world. The old faux equivalancy argument is just not an argument. With respect for your opinions as a non- Republican , for whom did you vote for the Presidency for the last 4 elections, and who are you voting for this year?

Being open minded is not having every episode a Conservative Republican character accept the Liiberal Democratic version of the episode's political issue du joir each week. It is the exact opposite of being open-minded. How can it really be an open-minded debate when Sorkin has all the liberal characters always sticking to their guns and their only rational Republican character always changes his point of view towards the liberal view every episode? As for a show with Republican bent doing the same thing and showing most liberals as the stereotypical tree huggers who want to persecute the rich and give all their money to poor, I would hate it just as much. It would still pandering to the base with cheap screenwriting. I also agree you don't have to give equal weight to an argument. But when you have one side with a thought out rational argument and the other side saying we need to build a 100 foot wall between the U.S. and Mexico before the entire country is speaking Spanish, taking siestas, driving around in low riders, and eating burritos; you are really stacking the decks to one side of the argument. BTW, my voting for President really shouldn't matter, but I voted for Obama, Kerry, W (the first time), and Clinton in the last four elections. I voted that way because I hated Gore and Palin (obviously for different reasons), the economy was in full swing during Clinton's re-election and he was doing a decent enough job to be re-elected, I didn't think either McCain or Bob Dole had it in them to be President after looking so tired and worn down during the election, and I realized my mistake with voting for W by the time of his re-election. At this point, I am probably going to abstain from voting this time around because I don't really like either candidate (Obama didn't fulfill his promises of change and he is ineffective in leading Congress while Romney may be too in bed with Big Business for my taste) and I am in a state where my vote for President doesn't matter either way. I am a true Independant who thinks that Rush and O'Reilly are just as pompous windbags as Olbermann. I hate them all and feel they bring down the discussion of the important issues of this country and make this country run on an us vs. them mentality.

*Being open minded is not having every episode a Conservative Republican character accept the Liiberal Democratic version of the episode's political issue du joir each week. How can it really be an open-minded debate when Sorkin has all the liberal characters always sticking to their guns and their only rational Republican character always changes his point of view towards the liberal view every episode.* I have seen both episodes that ran, and I may be dense about this, but when did this happen during those episodes? I guess I just don't see McAvoy acting that way, but your point of view may be the correct one. If it is, that is OK in my book to set an example that, yes, people can change their minds about politics. Perhaps my bias is showling, but I like a show that may be csapable of changing a person's point of view to what I consider a better one.

But I can't imagine it will be accurate at all. Probably be as open-minded as the Family Guy's episode about the Tea Party.

The problem with what I've seen of it is that Sorkin's idea of a Republican is "more like a liberal". As if he was saying, "I wish the Republicans were more like THIS, then I'd like them. Even though I still wouldn't be one."

Attack the Tea Party, but bear in mind this fun fact: In 2010, influenced by the Tea Party and its focus on fiscal issues, 17 states elected Republican governors. And, according to an Examiner.com analysis, every one of those states saw a drop in their unemployment rates since January of 2011. Furthermore, the average drop in the unemployment rate in these states was 1.35%, compared to the national decline of .9%, which means, according to the analysis, that the job market in these Republican states is improving 50% faster than the national rate. Since January of 2011, here is how much the unemployment rate declined in each of the 17 states that elected Republican governors in 2010, according to the Examiner: Kansas - 6.9% to 6.1% = a decline of 0.8% Maine - 8.0% to 7.4% = a decline of 0.6% Michigan - 10.9% to 8.5% = a decline of 2.4% New Mexico - 7.7% to 6.7% = a decline of 1.0% Oklahoma - 6.2% to 4.8% = a decline of 1.4% Pennsylvania - 8.0% to 7.4% = a decline of 0.6% Tennessee - 9.5% to 7.9% = a decline of 1.6% Wisconsin - 7.7% to 6.8% = a decline of 0.9% Wyoming - 6.3% to 5.2% = a decline of 1.1% Alabama - 9.3% to 7.4% = a decline of 1.9% Georgia - 10.1% to 8.9% = a decline of 1.2% South Carolina - 10.6% to 9.1% = a decline of 1.5% South Dakota - 5.0% to 4.3% = a decline of 0.7% Florida - 10.9% to 8.6% = a decline of 2.3% Nevada - 13.8% to 11.6% = a decline of 2.2% Iowa - 6.1% to 5.1% = a decline of 1.0% Ohio - 9.0% to 7.3% = a decline of 1.7% On the other hand, the unemployment rate in states that elected Democrats in 2010 dropped, on average, as much as the national rate decline and, in some states such as New York, the unemployment rate has risen since January of 2011.

I've often wondered the same thing. I tuned in for the first few episodes, and found it sappy, sentimental, and not at all compelling. I stopped watching, but io9 kept singing its' praises - insisting (as they still do) that the show had improved, and was very watchable. I watched the first two episodes of the second season, and had the same reaction I'd had during the first season. It wasn't as aggressively sentimental, but it also wasn't in any way shape or form compelling. I still can't understand why people were watching and continue to watch this show. Moon Bloodgood is lovely to look at, but that's about all the show has going for it. I think the same thing applies to a number of genre shows on the air right now. They're just not very well done, especially compared to the many wonderful shows on the air. You can't honestly say that "Falling Skies" is even mediocre when compared to "Fringe", "Breaking Bad", "Justified", "Mad Men", "Boardwalk Empire", etc. etc.

I thought it was clearly stated in the first scene that he's voted for BOTH parties. The whole point is that he's neither one or the other, like 90% of people his views depend on the issue. Like Chris Rock says "on some issues I'm conservative, on some I'm liberal". How it got to the point where you have to be either one or the other I don't know, and I think that's precisely the point Sorkin is trying to make. And people getting bent out of shape regarding the Republican-type cliche characters in episode 2 - that was the point. The show repeated over and over that this wasn't representative of the other side of the debate, characters referrred to it as "fucking up" by booking the guests repeatedly and Daniels' character kept trying to raise reasonable points that each one ignored. Sorkin's political views I widely known, but really when you look at the episodes that have aired, there's very little in there as contentious as the criticism its received would suggest.

fuck, proof read

“I want to be Jonathan Krohn,” he said, “and I’m tired of being an ideology, and it’s not fun and it gets boring and it’s not who we are as individuals.” Gay marriage? In favor. Obamacare? “It’s a good idea.” Who would he vote for (if he could) in November? “Probably Barack Obama.” His favorite TV shows? “The Daily Show” and “The Colbert Report.” His favorite magazine? The New Yorker. . “One of the first things that changed was that I stopped being a social conservative,” said Krohn. “It just didn’t seem right to me anymore. From there, it branched into other issues, everything from health care to economic issues.… I think I’ve changed a lot, and it’s not because I’ve become a liberal from being a conservative — it’s just that I thought about it more. The issues are so complex, you can’t just go with some ideological mantra for each substantive issue.” “I started reflecting on a lot of what I wrote, just thinking about what I had said and what I had done and started reading a lot of other stuff, and not just political stuff,” Krohn said. “I started getting into philosophy — Nietzsche, Wittgenstein, Kant and lots of other German philosophers. And then into present philosophers — Saul Kripke, David Chalmers. It was really reading philosophy that didn’t have anything to do with politics that gave me a breather and made me realize that a lot of what I said was ideological blather that really wasn’t meaningful. It wasn’t me thinking. It was just me saying things I had heard so long from people I thought were interesting and just came to believe for some reason, without really understanding it.”

That was the basis of the whole episode - they lost their guest in the last minute and had to fill in the space with three idiots from the fringes. They did exactly what they promised not to do. It was bad television, and they knew it. Someone almost lost his-her job over it. You were not supposed to agree with the left. You were supposed to be horrified by the people they gave air time to, completely misrepresenting the republican side of the argument. It was the whole plot of the episode. At least that's what I gathered.

is a fantastic series. I actually enjoy it more than the old Inspector Morse series, which preceded it. Thanks for the premiere tip.

Since a lot of questions responses were directed my way, I will try to respond to all here: Question: Who said McAvoy was a Republican? Answer: MacAvoy himself. When he talked about going to the baseball game with MacKenzie's father, McAvoy said MacKenzie's father liked and respected him even though he was a Republican. Question: When did MacAvoy change his conservative views to liberal one? Answer: When Neal (the blogger) pitched McAvoy about a 21 year old undocumented worker in Seattle lost his license because of his undocumented status and was going to lose his job because of it as a guest, McAvoy said no because felt that undocumented workers steal jobs from U.S. citizens. At the end of the show, McAvoy told Neal over the phone to arrange for cab service for that undocumented worker so he can save his job and send the bills to McAvoy. No there wasn't one in the first episode because they didn't address any political issues other than his opening meltdown which took the liberal side on a lot of issues. And I don't actually expect it to happen every single week, but I expect it to happen often. It has happened frequently in other Sorkin shows. Question: Wasn't it the point to have caricature Republicans because they were showing they were the type of guests other show use? Answer: Yes and no. I know a lot of these shows try to get the lunatic fringe of the other side to make the other side look bad (why else would Ann Colture ever be on TV), but these went way over the top. I know the beauty queen was supposed to be a take on Carrie Prejean, but even though she is no Mensa member she is not as brain dead as that character was. I was expecting her to utter "Like, Oh my Ggggooodddd!" at any moment. Also, I have never seen anyone put a nutjob conspiracy theory on TV unless the topic is nutjob conspiracies like the Birther or Truther movements. And I have never even seen gun nuts like Ted Nuggent require to be filmed with his shotgun (or in Nuggent's case his crossbow). BTW, they had to replace three guests with nutjobs and all three were Republcan nutjobs. Where was the Democratic response and why wasn't he/she portrayed as a nutjob. It should be interesting how they portray the Tea Party tonight. I have a feeling they are going to have a caricature of Michelle Bachman based on the previews (there is a woman on the TV screen in one brief flash).

There are so many shitty writers churning out turd after turd and people bitch about a guy who can actually write because he's preachy. This is why we have the Kardashicunts and 4 million housewives shows.

Only thing that I enjoy watching during the summer.

How many shows do we have to see from Sorkin with the same components and formula? Let's count some key ones down: 1) The issue that resolves itself in one show with the work of the heroic ensemble. 2) The pontificating, speechifying of the noble cause that is captured so elegantly by the lead and the golf clap accompaniment by that ensemble again. 3)The walk with me buddy conversation. 4)The co-workers who can't be in love and yet they there are striving and thriving through the struggles. Oh, the sub-plot complications! 5)The straw-man arguments set up with the flawed enemy point of view that is oh so easy to deflate. Every 10 arguments or so we will let the enemy win one, but only to show the unfairness and obstacles that our heroes go through. 6) The rapid patter dialogue that seems to really want to be My Girl Friday, but never will be. COME UP WITH SOMETHING NEW, WE'VE SEEN IT ALREADY. yawn...moving on.

so you haven't actually watched the show? But you can both tell what its like and call people morons for enjoying it? Nice. Trademark Sorkin wit and pace, a great cast, its funny and interesting and has Olivia Munn. Well that guarantees me at least for the full 10 episodes. And so what if he's recycling the same tropes? Every David Milch show is about community, every Joss Whedon show is about family, does that make them bad? I don't see what the problem is. Yes, the guy has a certain 'brand' of programming and he re-uses dynamics and dialogue on occasion, I like it, I laugh at it, even the second and third time round. I'm sure others do too otherwise HBO wouldn't have already grennlit it for another season. The criticism for this show (not just here, elsewhere) aptly highlights one of the main themes of it, namely how politics has become so polarised that any attempt to do polemic over fairness is criticised as some kind of propaganda. So everyone is allowed to express their opinion in a fair and open democracy but a screenwriter does it and its outright wrong? I don't get it. No one is forcing people to watch and certainly no one is forcing people to agree with it either. First and foremost I think its trying to be entertaining, the politics, like the sports in Sports Night and the 'comedy' in Studio 60, is just the backdrop.

Gonna miss the big lug

And a live Talking Dead. I knew NOTHING about this. They're playing a marathon right now.

First of all, I think it's completely appropriate for people to criticize The Newsroom for having an avowed Republican (written by an avowed Democrat) tilting towards the liberal side of current events. It's a rhetorical device meant to strengthen Sorkin's arguments, and a fairly transparent one at that. That said, gumbyandpokey failed to answer the question that mcgootoo asked. He said Paul Ryan is a good conservative that all conservatives should support and blah blah. The question was, is it not possible for Republicans to disagree with each other? Why is it automatically assumed that just because you're registered under the same party you're going to come down the same on every issue? Look at how many different ways nerds can find to argue about the new Spider-Man movie. To suggest that there are only two ways to feel about everything that happens in this country is absurd. There are certainly people like Will McAvoy out there, who don't necessarily believe that there should be no new taxes just because they support fiscal responsibility (or are socially liberal, financially conservative, etc.; I was just giving one example, not looking for a debate about taxes here) -- even if the character of Will McAvoy is mostly a gimmick.

seriously wtf are they thinking putting that ugly broad on screen ? yeah woody did it but woody fucks his ugly step daughter so his eyesight is already suspect

Used to live across from my friend's house in Auburn, CA. Loved spotting him from time to time. But man, he sure kept to himself. Almost zero talk of spotting him in town anywhere. Such a great actor!! That man will be missed.

I didn't think I'd like Falling Skies, but it has improved significantly this season. Very good show.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3I_PeLNzxNQ&feature=related There was a time in the 80's virtually every tv show i watched had him as a guest star.. as well as his stint as Dominic Santini RIP sir.

That was a good Black Panther episode.

NOT MUCH MAN!! Really, sadly... not much. lol

No ghostwriter involved there...reads like he's sitting there telling you stories about Hollywood. Too bad he never recorded it as an audiobook, that would've been great. Too bad they don't make actors like that anymore...

Says gumby, "Paul Ryan is a pretty good example of a mainstream Conservative Republican, imo." That's an odd use of the word mainstream. I would have to say that mainstream conservative Republican is an oxymoron. Paul Ryan agrees with legislation to reject the science of climate change. That's an extremely right wing position. Changing Medicare to a voucher program is also an extremely right wing position. Moderates like their Medicare just fine, thank you. Most Americans can come up with a way to fund Medicare, if they are given the facts and figures. Paul Ryan has supported the more extreme members of the House in rejecting legislation supported by Republicans in the Senate. Paul Ryan is mainstream only in the narrow sense of being a mainstream member of the current House. Most Americans think that we can do better than playing the game of "reject anything that is proposed by Obama."

The problem liberals have with creating conservative characters is that they don't understand conservatives. Studies have been fine on this... Democrats are less likely to read/watch ideas from alternative veiwpoints. Other than Fox, Conservatives are constantly presented with the left's pov. Christians and conservatives are portrayed in pop culture like Native Americans and African Americans were fifty years ago(i.e. hollow stereotypes). Maybe liberal writers will figure it out eventually.

but a "Republican" can't side with the Democrats on most issues and still say he's with the GOP. The same would go for Dems who would agree with Republicans on more issues.

Ehem, some 'republicans' on the supreme court sided the Affordable Health Care Act.

Ehem, some republicans sided with Civil Rights Act

And I don't mean fiction. Fantasy. They broke the whole Gulf spill in like three hours, right? Riiiiight. It's ridiculous to get het up over this. Oh, and Will deciding to quietly help the immigrant at the end of last week out of his own pocket (especially since he's a low-grade egotist with a fucking tv show) was a supremely conservative thing to do. He didn't cry to the government, did he? Feeling a little empathy with a fellow traveler after a bad day is too "liberal" for a Republican? Stop dissing yourselves, guys.

The writing is so hamfisted it's funny.

...of True Blood!! How the mighty have fallen!

"Jan Brewer Asks Supreme Court To Overturn Ruling Allowing Benefits For Same-Sex Partners" Conservatives are evil and selfish. They also lie about nearly everything because they never have facts to back up their bullshit. Their base of voters constantly vote against things that they themselves use (Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Union Benefits) There is a name for that. Stupidity. Most of them are born again Christians. They worship a man who hated the rich and even said that it was impossible for a rich man to get into heaven. What do they do? They protect millionaires and billionaires while taking a shit on programs that help poor people. They are in love with fetuses but have no problem at all sending 18 year old kids off to war to die. If the kids are lucky and make it home--a conservative will also fight to strip away veteran's benefits. They hate homosexuals but are constantly getting busted while engaging in homosexual acts. They say that they hate government interference but they have no problem with the government banning books or movies. They have no problem with the government telling women what they can or can't do with their own body. They are fine with the government telling people who and how to fuck. They are fine with government interference as long as it's something they want the government to interfere with. In other words, they are full of fucking shit. Again, selfish and evil sums up the majority of these assholes. They are great at winning elections though, because lies work and the American public are too stupid to get on google to find out if they are being told the truth. Conservatives oppose a federal department of education for a reason. If the IQ of the population goes up, their philosophy goes away like the dinosaur did. You have to be stupid to vote for one of these clowns. That's what they count on.

Off to bed...

shits tight

let Will be a republican who makes fucking sense. IMO, the only true difference between a republican and democrat (besides having or not having the balls to actually use their power to force their agenda) is that republicans are truly selfish people. i am not saying this as a judgement. theres nothing wrong with self-preservation basically, republicans are usually either RICH (which makes sense for them not wanting to improve a failing system that theyre obviously thriving on) RACIST (again, no judgement, everyone has a right to their own opinions) SUPER CHRISTIAN (depending on your views of religion, this could make them look really dumb or just faithful believers who ignore science) so to me, if Sorkin wrote Will as a "true" Republican, it would be just an hour long unintentional comedy showing me a character believing his party's selfish (and basically evil) motives. then i wouldnt watch the show. so... thank xenu that sorkin wrote Will as a logical character instead of an actual representation of idiots who are ruining the country (for everyone else that is)

that I am actually finding emily mortimer's character sexy. like, if i existed in the newsroom world, i would try to fuck her over olivia munn. ps: but then again, im really not attracted to munn at all

I do...

I honestly believe most Americans want a smaller federal government, believe in the rights of states, and believe in individualism. If the Republican party followed that belief system, I think they would win most elections in a landslide. However, the Republicans of the party today believe in these ideals when it is convenient to the goals of the Religious Right, the Koch Brothers or Grover Norquist. As examples: They want to cut spending to the social safety net, but not military spending. A real conservative would look for cuts across the board and not just Planned Parenthood. They want to ban gay marriage, but a conservative would know that it is not the governments duty, obligation or within their power to legislate morality. They want to outlaw the right to choose, which flies in the face of individualism and self-enpowerment (along with legislatiing morality). They want to close the borders, yet, under the Bush administration, there was a record low of businesses being busted for hiring illegal-immigrants (We wnat the borders closed but we still want the slave labor wages). I remember a Republican who created the Environmental Protection Agency, balanced the budget, and ended the draft. That Republican - Richard Nixon. Another Republican created the National Forest system and believed corporations weren't people. That Republican - Teddy Roosevelt. If the Republicans became the party of Teddy Roosevelt, Nixon, Reagan, and H.W. Bush again, I think a lot of people would be on board; However, as long as the Republicans are the party of Gawd, Norquist, and Koch, I think they are going to struggle mightily.

Your post didn't have enough over-simplification and generalization of party types. Please retry and submit again.

and a moron. How much more overly simplistic can you get? I'm sorry your brain can't handle any more than very basic thoughts but realize that and stfu so we don't have to listen to it.

wow you are finding Emily Mortimer to be sexy? What a bold and unusual point of view. She's a young and pretty movie star and most any guy with testosterone digs her.

but good points in your other posts..the republican party does seem to be dominated by the rich and the stupid. And by "stupid" I mean people who would do poorly on an IQ test. Scientists and professors and smart people are rarely republican....at least the ones who aren't rich.

So what you're saying is a minimum of 17 U.S. states saw their unemployment rates improve under the Obama administration? I think most of us were already pretty aware of this: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/president_obama_vs_republican_candidates.html

Borderline unwatchable.

Down syndrome chick who has panic attacks? Unpleasant to look at.

I still remember it fondly. The world is a more boring place without him. Truly a classy actor and person.

It's a show for retards who want to feel above it all with what they think is witty writing. More dialogue does NOT make for a better story. And I find Alison Pill's character insufferable. I want to take a hammer to her skull.

I think she's cute. Besides, I'm glad this isn't a show where every single actor is supermodel material. Hell, the only stunningly hot actress on the show is Olivia Munn, and she's only vapid and annoying eyecandy in real life. But this show has managed to make her bearable.

...i still see u havent responded to mr.longbaughs factual post about the Obama administrations 30(!!!) plus examples of total SPIN of national (un)employment figures. im not surprised that Herc the fucking Hack distorts the entirety of hansvonhammer's post. he does this on purpose. ur a FUCKING joke, herc! BTW- u still happy that the dullard Maddow *tied* BOR in a demo??? WILL u report it tuesday when she gets BEAT in that same demo?? or gets EMBARRASSED in overall viewers?? methinks a dumfuk, partisan COWARD, like YOU, will not....

So your kidneys get hard then?

(and not the mainstream views of 20 years ago) are predominantly whacky and devoid of logic. Haven't watched the show, so cannot speak to Daniels' character, but Reagan and Bush senior would be called blatantly liberal in today's climate.

i dumped falling skies and true blood on sundays. now watch continuum. going to give sinbad a chance too (not expecting to stick with that). continuum should hold me over on sundays until breaking bad starts up.

have noticed for past few weeks its turned into nothing but a pissing contest over newsroom. i dont watch that show because of the behavior here, honestly.

started off as a middle class movement driven by stagnate wages and disappearing jobs and was co-opted by the radical right? I guess the fact that it conveniently sprung up as soon as a black man was elected to the White House was a moot point to him.

He resisted temptation and didn't fill this episode with caricatures of the Tea Party. A few passing movements, but overall he didn't go overboard. I still think McAvoy is the most unrealistic Republican character on the face of the planet. Yes, plenty of moderate Republicans hate the Tea Party and what they have done to the party, but I doubt a true Republican would go nuclear on the party and try to destroy it to bring down the I agree with the show's sentiment that the Tea Party has been co-oped by the worst elements of the Right and in turn the Tea Party has taken over the agenda of the Republican party, but I still can't believe from a show credibility standpoint that a Republican news talk show host would constantly attack the Republicans and never attack the Democrats. It makes no sense. If he is a true Republican, he would hate a lot of the things the Democrats were doing too. They already teased that a major theme of the show going forward will be going after the Tea Party. I will say again, Sorkin should have made McAvoy a Progressive because that is what he is. He is basically Olbermann or what his idealistic view of Olbermann (or Olbermann's idealistic view of himself since he was a consultant). I think it hurts the show's credibility to make him a Republican because if he didn't repeated tell you he was a Republican you would think he was a Progressive Democrat. I actually liked the episode, but like Studio 60 with no one being funny and the sketches being awful, the lack of credibility with the main character(s) is a little disjarring to me. It took me out of the moment. Again, this isn't political point, it is that Sorkin just can't create a credible Republican character and it hurts the flow of the show.

Everyone calm down. I have had high blood pressure for two weeks now trying to watch Newsroom and at the same time wrap my head around the premise of the show as a show that will speak the truth instead of pandering to one side or the other. I have concluded that it is not possible. This show is about a news station from the mind of Sorkin. Sorkin's view point of the world is liberal. To him, the right answer is always the liberal answer. You are not going to get a show from him that hammers out the facts of an issue. I made the point in another post that on the issue of immigration, the only issue that Sorkin addressed was related to illegal immigrants who were taking the jobs of American workers. Really??? Is that why Arizona passed new immigration laws? No. They passed the law because of the drugs, murder, etc, that is taking place in their state. An issue that the federal government has chosen to ignore for years. It is never mentioned in the episode. Instead, Sorkin believes that Arizona is trying to take illegal immigrants off of roof tops and orange groves. Silly. However, this is how Sorkin sees the issue. If a fact doesn't push his agenda, he simply ignores the fact. Don't expect it to change. It's not. Instead, I suggest you do what I am doing. See if you like any of the characters story arcs and and focus on that. Unfortunately, most of the characters that I have seen are whiny, insecure kids. Which leads you to the questions: How do these type of individuals rise to the level of running a news show? Daniels and Mortimer are engaging. Besides that, maybe the two male producers.

I'm saying that 17 states where Republican governance is on top--lower taxes, less regulation, less government in general, have seen their unemployment rates decline. For the rest of the nation the REAL rate is 14 percent. After forty-one months this is Obama's real legacy. Do you actually know anyone who is suffering? Because I do, and all of these people lost their jobs AFTER manboy did his dirty on America. If you we're hanging out with rich one percenters from Hollywood, you'd know about suffering, but all you care about is that you and your pissant president are RIGHT. You're NOT. In this point in Ronald Reagan's first term, the US economy was creating A MILLION JOBS a month. This creeky little man-boy pissant president is wrecking the nation, as two out of three voters recently concluded. Your manboy is gone come November. Live with it.

I think you're confusing being vocal with dominating. Those voices get the most attention (mostly because people get a chance to feel superior by pointing them out an mocking them, meaning they get a lot of airtime), but they are not dominating the Republican party. Fringe is fringe, regardless of how loud you are, and there are a lot of us poor and smart people who self-identify as Republican.

I fucking could care less about your opinions about the subject. The only thing that matters is your vote, one way or the other. I think it's a great show. I don't really care about its political leanings one way or the other. I just watch it to be entertained.

What would make him seem more like a Republican, to a Republican? How should he think and act? This should be interesting...

thank you.

we were like 2 people in the cornfields in heehaw standing up to make fun of the situation. then the shooting starting again and we had to duck down to hide.

If you disagree with the President's policies, you have to be racist or evil. There's no other explanation...

yeah the general asshattery has me less than interested in viewing its catalyst.

I didn't say that. I just find it interesting that those that identify with the tea party or began organizing it at the grassroots level seemed to have no problem whatsoever with similar policies over the years before an African American became President. How do you explain that, pray tell? What finally tipped them over the edge would you say? Don't make yourself look stupid (I know that's been challenge for you in the past) because Obama has more in common with Reagan than any President since he was in office.

I said I didn't say that if you disagree with the President's policies, you have to be racist or evil. I disagree with Obama on many fronts and it has nothing to do with race and everything to do with his many many center-right policies. That said, I believe the Tea Party specifically was a reaction brought about by latent racism and misinformation. I noticed you also didn't answer my questions.

I would say that you and your party hardly have any right to lecture on demonization since your ilk has tried to peg Obama as some kind of Marxist, muslim, alien thug trying to steal your freedom for the past three and a half years.

Seen first 2 episodes. It's decent enough. Nice effects budget and in terms of plotting and acting it's far superior to say, Alcatraz. Haven't seen new Newsroom yet but by the looks of this TB it's another good un. And honestly, some of you guys sound ridiculous calling Alison Pill down syndrome or saying you want to hit her with a hammer. Jesus.

Seriously, don't you get tired of demonizing people you don't agree with? I know it makes it easier if you question someone's motives, that way you don't have to debate their ideas...

just look at his ears!!

And you guys started it!!!!

BTW, sorry again for being racist...

It's interesting becuase they almost have the same premise but in reverse, but it seems to work a lot better with Continuum, the show is good, but still finding it's footing as a lot of scifi shows do in the start of their first season, but it seems clear the writers have a game plan, lots of little things thrown in the early episodes that seem to be set up for later I wish the Liber8 guys & gals were a bit more morally ambigious and not just blood thirsty lunatics, the show seems poised for a reversal where we see that the corporations are (not surprisingly) bad, but it makes it all a bit harder to swallow with the supposed liberators having absolutely no regard for human life. I realize that of course that is the case with most terrorist groups, but these guys don't even seem to justify it in the 'for the cause' or 'the greater good' type reasons, and just seem to love killing people for fun. Either way, I'll be watching, it's been solid thus far in an SG1 or early TNG sort of way.

I watched West Wing and can imagine where this show is going based on that and what people have said so far.

I actually hope this show stays around awhile cause I'm a big fan of Jeff Daniels (who doesn't get nearly enough work) and of Sam Waterson (still pissed they cancelled Law & Order to make room for the L&O:LA). We'll see what happens.

I reach this conclusion based on my years of observation and perusing various Left Wing and Right Wing blogging and information outlets, not to mention propaganda shows like Newsroom...

Who knows, though, it could be good, it does have a few good actors...

Sorkin gets killed by the right for being an unabashed Liberal. So this time he's writing around a Republican. Albeit imperfectly. He can do that because his theme isn't politics -- and yes, he writes ad nauseum about politics -- but he's really indicting the state of journalism in this series. Some critic called West Wing the White House we wished we had. I suppose you could say he's trying now to create the newsroom we wish we had. Everyone's calling the recent episode the "tea party" episode. I call it "the apology" episode. Yes, they use the tea party elections as fodder, but the opening speech is the apology for being bad journalists. If nothing else, Sorkin has us engaging in discourse, which is the whole point anyway. Just my two cents.

First, I am not a Repblican, I am an Independent. Wasn't a Republican when Republicans were closer to the center during the 80s and 90s. I am a social liberal and a fiscal conservative and neither party fits me. Second, I complained about Studio 60 for similar reasons in terms of credibility due to the fact that none of the characters were funny and the sketches were atrocious although they were all supposed to be incredibly funny and so was the show they were producing. I have no problem with McAvoy's character acting like he does. I also didn't even mind all the Tea Party bashing last night because I think the Tea Party in terms of leadership deserves bashing. I also don't agree with Arizona's laws toward undocumented workers. Although I don't agree with Sorkin's argument of why Arizona passed it and what they are trying to accomplish. I think the law had better intentions, but it is a really bad law in the way it was written. I just don't think Sorkin can write a credible Republican and making the main character a Republican is a problem because the character has no credibility as a realistic character because of it. Make him a Democrat or a progressive independent and don't change one iota of the show and two of the first three episodes would be improved 1000% in my eyes just because I would find McAvoy a credible character and Sorkin isn't hiding behind a false premise of being balanced because his star is a Republican. If McAvoy was a Democrat and he was supporting the Tea Party, I would have the same problem. From a portrayal of a Republican sense, I felt other than McAvoy, Sorkin did a great job. I think he had a few spots where he went overboard with Tea Party candidates, but pretty much taking them out of the picture in terms of actual actors portraying Tea party members or limiting them to brief onscreen scenes was a great way of getting his point across about the evils of Tea Party members without making them cartoon characters.

In the last paragraph, I meant in the last episode that Sorkin did a great job portraying Republicans/Tea Party members because he didn't have them on screen long enough to get to be cartoon characters.

This is the talkback equivalent of a 5-year-old spinning around on his back, kicking the floor of the Walmart toy aisle screaming "I want it, I want it, I want it!"

I think paedophilia and murder are perhaps not quite in the same league as TV drama when it comes to criticism. But hey, that's just me. It would seem. And I guess I want to go back a decade then because amusing or not, it's still shitty to call people morons for watching a show you yourself have never seen. But yeah, it takes so much time to form opinions yourself, why not just accept without question what some strangers said instead? That's odd because that is EXACTLY what this show is about moron

Too bad you will never know if your words are true or not, because you haven't seen it, and it is neither kiddie porn or a snuff film, so your point has no meaning and your opinions are comletely without merit and wholly ignorable. But thanks for playing our game today!

Im just wondering though since the Skitter that was supposedly fighting his own kind escaped does that mean that he was really tricking the humans or was he really fighting against his own kind and escaped because he knew that the humans were about to kill him?

is this a geek site or a panty-wringing club?

its not like your party cares about you anyway...unless of course you're rich and donating money

A lot of story in the 28 mins they had.

Then in his next post, he denied it, and then immediately called them racist again. He's being ridiculous so I was exposing his ridiculousness by showing how simplistic and absurd his arguments are. You can't have an honest political discussion with someone if right out of the gate they are demonizing you and saying your motives are evil or racist with ZERO proof to back it up except your opinion...

You know you don't have to be a Klan supporter or segregationist to be racist. If you're saying that there is a zero element of racism to the Radical Right (which is more and more the mainstream Right) reaction to Obama, you really need to step back. It doesn't mean these people aren't friends with and work with black people. It's much subtler. In simplest terms his color influences their views of him as the Other. Further, black men are generally perceived in society to be more aggressive than white men. There are many examples where people who are generally not and do not consider themselves racist behave in ways that are influenced by the color of skin. For example, look at shooting statistics. Cops are significantly less likely to shoot at armed white guys and significantly more likely to shoot at unarmed black guys. More relevant would be one study where two groups of white people were shown a short video of a black guy and a white guy having an argument. In each video one of the guys pushes past the other to exit through the doorway. The majority of the people who viewed the white guy do this saw no aggression in his act. However, the majority of the group who saw the black man do this perceived the action as aggressive. That's the level of racism fueling most of the Birther/Muslim/Tea Party reactions.

EVER.

I quite enjoy the show but honestly don't give a fuck about the politics. It's a show for fucks sake. Also enjoyed Continuum and Falling Skies this week. Sadly I also didn't mind True Blood, Though as always, I enjoy it more when Sookie is off screen

Hell, you just used a whole post stating why people are racist without knowing it, and then said no one said that people who disagree with Obama are racist. Make up your mind. If you want, I'll start listing examples for you, from liberal commentators to elected Democrats who have all said that opposition to Obama is because of his race. Let me know if you want me to before I start making a fool of you...

coughlin, you are always talking about race and having issue with being called a racist? a couple weeks ago you came out of the gate swinging accusing me of calling you a racist when I had done nothing fo the sort. I personally don't care if you are a racist, or if you arn't comfortable with a black president, or if you don't care one way or the other. there is no law against being a racist privately. being scared of black people is not even racist IMO, it's human nature. black people are often plenty scared of white people. racism is a loaded word at best. I don't think my mom is a racist, but she's skeptical of a black man named hussein. she also avoids any part of town where she's likely to run across anyone who's not white and suburban and free of piercings and tatoos. she's not a racist, she's just scared of people who are different who she doesn't understand. but still. right wing white american culture has some issues with blacks. there's alot of not so great history there. you can't deny this. can you? there is an element of racism in the opposition to Barrack Obama. the republican election strategy subtly strokes it. they don't care why you hate Obama. as long as you hate him. is that racist? or just trying to win an election. or both? Obama isn't going to compalin if you hate romeny just becuase he's rich. that would be wrong IMO. a better reason would be because he's a rich guy bitching and moaning about taxes and doing everything he can possibly do to avoid them. Ask his dad.

Arkansas racism, tea-party style By Suzi Parker Last weekend, the annual Ozark Tea Party rally was held in Mountain Home, Ark., on the Baxter County Fairgrounds. According to local news reports, more than 500 people attended the event, where Ozark Tea Party board member Inge Marler told the joke, captured on audio, about a black child asking his mother the definition of democracy. Marler: “Well, son, that be when white folks work every day so us po’ folks can get all our benefits. But mama, don’t the white folk get mad about that? They sho do, son. They sho do. And that’s called racism.” The crowd erupted in laughter. And as the local newspaper wrote, “There were no objections to the ‘joke’ from the floor and no one spoke with disapproval or objection to Marler’s comment except those pursued for comment by the Baxter Bulletin.” And what does it tell you that in 2012, a white person can tell a joke about welfare in a “black” dialect at a political event and not one person stands up and calls her out on it right then and there? Marler later told the paper that she regretted the joke. The group’s founder also apologized. Everyone always regrets such things after heat is applied.

I have missed the first few new episodes due to a DVR mishap. I liked the show, and I don't want to spoil too much. Can someone tell me if the new eps are as good as season one? I did not watch the vids, or read the above due to possible spoilers.

If you believe anything in my statement equated to "You're racist if you do not agree with Obama", you need to improve your reading skills. I was referring to the the level of vitriol, the labels of socialism/Muslim/Unamerican, etc. All for basically governing like a moderate Republican. He's Clinton 2.0 and very disappointing to this liberal. We need a Franken presidency.

You find just as much at the NAACP convention as anywhere else.

I would love for you to confirm your faux equivalency BS standard issue retort with some proof, but you can't, so why did you bother to lie? Please... Perhaps you have first hand observations? Please set us all straight

maybe. but you can't change the history of this country. The american black popluation decends from a people forcefully kidnapped from their homeland and brought to the new world to be fucking slaves. this invovled deliberately breaking down family units, forcing men to abandon their children and famlies. It forced labor with physical and capital punishment. for 100s of years slavery in america existing for a longer period of time than has elapsed since abolition. It obliterated a human culture. It's was monumentally horrendous and it was litterally a handful a generations ago. And that's just mesuring time since abolition. the civil right struggle, still goign on today, took 100 years before any real progress was made in much of the country, especially in areas that today are the reddest parts of america. I suspect this is why some red state sympathizers are so sensitive about racism. from the white folks I know who claim reverse racisim.... i see them as just being paranoid that a black might have got something from the government that they didn't. I am sorry life is hard and sometimes seems unfair.

And can't better articulate your position in opposition to theirs, then you've already lost the discussion. Dinesh D'Souza was in the news yesterday for his new film that suggests Obama is a secret warrior carrying his fathers torch against colonialism, and all that he does is driven by this desire to destroy America. It's so sad that this is all these people have. Obama makes plenty of mistakes, if you're gonna go after him, go after him on that.

It's hard to not think race is a factor when your primary argument against the president is that he's a "secret kenyan muslim socialist" and your entire crusade is based on trying to prove he wasn't born in America. Don't tell me that doesn't have at least a little to do with the color of his skin.

racism is a loaded word at best. I don't think my mom is a racist, but she's skeptical of a black man named hussein. she also avoids any part of town where she's likely to run across anyone who's not white and suburban and free of piercings and tatoos. she's not a racist, she's just scared of people who are different who she doesn't understand.

Nope, sorry. Weird. My point was that it IS racist. Or at least ignorant. And look, we all have parents or older family members that are like that, and we love them, but lets not pretend that this sort of behavior is ok. Judging people based on an ethnic name or preconceived stereotypes about their skin? Racist. And allowing your constituents to continue spouting racial lies about your opponents and not stopping it? Racist. Or at the very least, morally reprehensible.

novaman. I am on your side here. I think. don't go ahead and give this argument to the right. racsism is totally a loaded word. these days it often means you arn't comfortable around people of a nother race. that's not an ideal way to life, but it's not necessarily racism. fear of the unknown is human nature. I think that's why people react so strongly to suggestions that they are racist. my parents, for example, are very senstive about being called racist. they don't want to be racist. they don't want to join a club about it, they don't want to roll back civil rights or suggest that other races don't have rights. they are just weirded out by other cultures. arn't we all a little bit? they also have been working their asseses off for the last 45 years. these 2 things are what makes them so succeptable to AM radio people stroking their fears and making it look like other groups are to blame.. many right wing sympathizers are just working people looking for someone to make them feel good about them selves. life it not easy for them because they are white, there has not been free ride for them and after working every day of their life for the past 45 years they get pissy when they think someone else is receiving special treatment. and they hear all the stupid right wing stories. we are not all culturally adventurous people. I've become alot more so because I've had a job that's taken me all around the world. it's all about exposure and many americans just don't have it. am I a racist becuase the smell of the asian market makes me gag? basically half the counry is ready to vote for Mitt Romey here. I think that is a fucking travesty of education and information, but it's not going to get any better by calling every white person who is unsure about a black man with a funny name a racist. make sense?

BOOOOOO!!!!!!! see!!!!

what does that mean? seriously are you like 15? look. I am with you. the GOP makes me sick. It has for a long time. but.. there is reason why the left is getting their assesed kicked in the sphere of public discourse. they have the truth on their side( for the most part), they have the interest of the majority of americans on their side. they have justice on their side. they have an opponent who is brazenly disengenuous to the point of it being painful to watch people (and family) fall for it. yet... theyare still holding a razor thin lead. this is a country that elected George Bush... twice. that is reality. reality is that many decent white people see the world closing in around them. thier 1950s pleasantville view of the world is under attack from strange cultures and it's terrifying to them. that's how they can be persueded to believe sharia law is a threat. and white people are still the majority. white power! no.. seriously, being scared of another race or being uncomfortable around them does not make you a racist. but accusing them of being racist... will loose their vote... permenantly.

It just befuddled me. Sorry I didn't explain further. What you say about fear/racism makes a lot of sense, but it is just one small puzle piece of a much larger picture, htat would take hours of discourse to get it all in. But thanks for your intelligent observations otherwise. Fior one Republicans, succeeded st laming the word libeal a dirty word. If you are willing to concede that conservatives have now also made the word racism a word that can no longer be used to describe racism, then, well..... you tell me what that means..... Bizarro world. Some one please wake me up from this nightmare we still call democracy in America.

What you say about fear/racism makes a lot of sense, but it is just one small puzzle piece of a much larger picture, one that would take hours of discourse to get it all in. But thanks for your intelligent observations otherwise. For one, Republicans succeeded at making the word liberal a dirty word.

it's a tense envirionment. people are just talking past each other. thanks for listening to my bullshit.

HBO lost me along time ago.... you couldn't pay me to watch yet another Aaron Sorkin show with the same old recycled writing and political talking points.

Such a ridiculous argument. As a straight man, gay scenes bother me. Its a natural reaction, because I was born this way... right? I mean its just my genetic makeup that naturally causes me to be repulsed at the sight of a guy fucking another guy in the ass. I know it can be hard to understand. I can't help it. I hope your not saying I'm horrible person, for being who I am. Ill never forget the day I had to tell my parents I was straight and that I don't enjoy gay porn. It was hard on the whole family, but we got through it! So, I choose not to purchase a product that inserts it regularly in its programming.