# The Newsroom Season 3 (SPOILERS)



## Gunnyman (Jul 10, 2003)

Glad it's back.
My favorite moments are always between Will and Charlie. Sam Waterston is great in the roll. 
I'm guessing the season and series ends with the network sold to a social media empire...


----------



## astrohip (Jan 7, 2003)

Yep, glad it's back. It's probably not very realistic, but I'm a sucker for Sorkin's dialog. I wish they'd use Munn more, she's the best character.


----------



## dtle (Dec 12, 2001)

Wow.. only 6 episodes for the final season? I'm going to wait and watch them all in a day.


----------



## KenDC (Jun 18, 2001)

astrohip said:


> Yep, glad it's back. It's probably not very realistic, but I'm a sucker for Sorkin's dialog. I wish they'd use Munn more, she's the best character.


Not to mention, she is very easy on the eyes.

Sad reliving the Boston Marathon bombing.


----------



## NorthAlabama (Apr 19, 2012)

astrohip said:


> Yep, glad it's back. It's probably not very realistic, but I'm a sucker for Sorkin's dialog. I wish they'd use Munn more, she's the best character.


:up:


----------



## MikeAndrews (Jan 17, 2002)

Suddenly Sorkinland is burning me out.

Everyone talks so smugly and eloquently.

OF COURSE, they made great speeches about getting the story right.

OF COURSE, Maggie was brilliant on camera.

OF COURSE, Neel got another great story tip.

Olivia Munn is _still_ reciting her lines like she wishes to get it over with.


----------



## TriBruin (Dec 10, 2003)

MikeAndrews said:


> Suddenly Sorkinland is burning me out.
> 
> Everyone talks so smugly and eloquently.
> 
> ...


This is kind of how feel about the show. AWN always waits until the get the facts before presenting them. Well it is easy to get the facts right when you write the show 1 or more years later. Then they all talk about how wonderful they are and better than the rest of the media for not jumping.

Sorry, but if EVERY other network is covering a potential terrorist event and your network is running a story about a Supreme Court decision, you are stupid. You have footage of an explosion (or two.) Is it too difficult to say "We have reports and footage of potential explosions at the Boston Marathon. At this time, we have no indication of the cause of the explosing, but we are monitoring reports of causalities and have reporters on the way."

For a six episode season, there is already too many plot lines. Either deal with the Neal issue or the hostile takeover.


----------



## Ereth (Jun 16, 2000)

I recorded it on the Latin channel by mistake, so I had to wait until it ran on English HBO again and just watched it today.

I thought it started slow, but it really ramped up by the end. I love Sorkin. I was particularly amused by the "Lets do Sports" reference, but the awkwardness of the early part of the show was all gone by the finale and now I'm ready for more Newsroom!


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

Ereth said:


> I recorded it on the Latin channel by mistake, so I had to wait until it ran on English HBO again and just watched it today.
> 
> I thought it started slow, but it really ramped up by the end. I love Sorkin. I was particularly *amused by the "Lets do Sports"* reference, but the awkwardness of the early part of the show was all gone by the finale and now I'm ready for more Newsroom!


I kept thinking "and we could hire Josh Charles and Peter Krause to be the anchors" 

Good start to the season. If they could do away with the silly romance and stick with the other stories, I'd like it much better though.


----------



## astrohip (Jan 7, 2003)

Steveknj said:


> I kept thinking "and we could hire Josh Charles and Peter Krause to be the anchors"
> 
> Good start to the season. If they could do away with the silly romance and stick with the other stories, I'd like it much better though.


If there's one area where Sorkin's magic fails it's romance. Most of his characterizations of romance have this awkward stiltedness (word?) to them.


----------



## zordude (Sep 23, 2003)

TriBruin said:


> This is kind of how feel about the show. AWN always waits until the get the facts before presenting them. Well it is easy to get the facts right when you write the show 1 or more years later.


I'm not sure that's relevant. It's even easier to get the facts right because you are writing a TV show and you get to choose who gets the facts right.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

But Aaron Sorkin shows have never been about how things are. They're about how things should be (at least, in Aaron Sorkin's mind). Aspirational, not descriptive.


----------



## aindik (Jan 23, 2002)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> But Aaron Sorkin shows have never been about how things are. They're about how things should be (at least, in Aaron Sorkin's mind). Aspirational, not descriptive.


But inside the show he's drawing a comparison between how things are (actual things that happened on CNN and Fox News) and how fictional ACN does them with the benefit of a year of hindsight. He's telling the real media to do better by comparing them to a fictional aspirational newscast that has a year to get it right.

ACN is a cable channel right? They have local affiliates?


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

aindik said:


> But inside the show he's drawing a comparison between how things are (actual things that happened on CNN and Fox News) and how fictional ACN does them with the benefit of a year of hindsight. He's telling the real media to do better by comparing them to a fictional aspirational newscast that has a year to get it right.


Exactly! ??? (I never said aspirational art is fair; by its nature it isn't. You always have the benefit of sitting back and thinking about it before you do art. It's kind of like coming up with the perfect comeback the day after you're in a situation. But that's what Sorkin has always done.)


aindik said:


> ACN is a cable channel right? They have local affiliates?


They have local bureaus. They've shown fights before over whether the Washington bureau or the main studio in New York will control a specific story.


----------



## aindik (Jan 23, 2002)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> Exactly! ??? (I never said aspirational art is fair; by its nature it isn't. You always have the benefit of sitting back and thinking about it before you do art. It's kind of like coming up with the perfect comeback the day after you're in a situation. But that's what Sorkin has always done.)


His other stuff hasn't had the real thing side by side with the fantasy thing, inside the show.



Rob Helmerichs said:


> They have local bureaus. They've shown fights before over whether the Washington bureau or the main studio in New York will control a specific story.


They had an "affiliate" in Boston. It had call letters and a news van (with the call letters on it) and everything.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

aindik said:


> They had an "affiliate" in Boston. It had call letters and a news van (with the call letters on it) and everything.


I think they have reciprocal agreements with affiliates in different cities. I know I've seen CNN reporters occasionally on our local CW (I think), and maybe they have agreements the other way. Obviously Fox News is owned by the same company that owns our local Fox and My# channel, so they share resources. Maybe that's the kind of agreement they have.


----------



## TAsunder (Aug 6, 2003)

Well, I for one thought it was a very good episode. My wife was impressed when I knew immediately they were going for a snowden-ish plot when encryption was brought up. Although the marathon attack was a significant event, they are approaching it similarly to what they were going for previously - not reporting early, getting facts confirmed etc. I think a snowden-esque leak will have a lot more material for interesting plot lines and interesting philosophical questions. I still consider it a pretty complex issue from the journalism side of things.


----------



## Ereth (Jun 16, 2000)

aindik said:


> But inside the show he's drawing a comparison between how things are (actual things that happened on CNN and Fox News) and how fictional ACN does them with the benefit of a year of hindsight. He's telling the real media to do better by comparing them to a fictional aspirational newscast that has a year to get it right.
> 
> ACN is a cable channel right? They have local affiliates?


I'm not sure I follow your point. The idea of waiting until you had confirmation and two source is not a Sorkin-ism, it used to be a tenet of Journalism. It was abandoned in the "race to be first", and Sorkin is simply saying they should go back to that.

Sure, he has the benefit of waiting a year to write that, but you could write that 20 years later and it would still be true.


----------



## Azlen (Nov 25, 2002)

aindik said:


> They had an "affiliate" in Boston. It had call letters and a news van (with the call letters on it) and everything.


CNN has stations that they call affiliates. Sometimes more than one station in a market.


----------



## NorthAlabama (Apr 19, 2012)

i liked the ep (no surprise), and the continued softening of reese's portrayal towards an ally (continued from last season's finale).

however; my opinion of the boston story:



TriBruin said:


> Sorry, but if EVERY other network is covering a potential terrorist event...Is it too difficult to say "We have reports and footage of potential explosions at the Boston Marathon.



i'm in total agreement, genoa, or no genoa. mac saw smoke watching the event, live, as it happened. next, every other news outlet is reporting - go on the air already, say there was an event, and report what you know. learn from the mistakes of not covering the anthony trial.


----------



## zalusky (Apr 5, 2002)

Ereth said:


> I'm not sure I follow your point. The idea of waiting until you had confirmation and two source is not a Sorkin-ism, it used to be a tenet of Journalism. It was abandoned in the "race to be first", and Sorkin is simply saying they should go back to that.
> 
> Sure, he has the benefit of waiting a year to write that, but you could write that 20 years later and it would still be true.


In concert with the idea of waiting till you get your facts straight is their ratings and therefore revenue sliding into layoff/buyout territory.

I think highlighting the fact that news is its own P&L center and that they have to race to the bottom of principles in order to be profitable would be interesting.
Many news agencies are laying off journalists and trying to reprint somebody else's news which they talked about with the CNN failure.


----------



## aindik (Jan 23, 2002)

Ereth said:


> I'm not sure I follow your point. The idea of waiting until you had confirmation and two source is not a Sorkin-ism, it used to be a tenet of Journalism. It was abandoned in the "race to be first", and Sorkin is simply saying they should go back to that.
> 
> Sure, he has the benefit of waiting a year to write that, but you could write that 20 years later and it would still be true.


In hindsight you can pick and choose the stories when that would have been beneficial to do, and not show the stories where you get scooped. Yes, it was a plot point last night that they were last on the air, but, they got it right in the end.


----------



## Ereth (Jun 16, 2000)

zalusky said:


> In concert with the idea of waiting till you get your facts straight is their ratings and therefore revenue sliding into layoff/buyout territory.
> 
> I think highlighting the fact that news is its own P&L center and that they have to race to the bottom of principles in order to be profitable would be interesting.
> Many news agencies are laying off journalists and trying to reprint somebody else's news which they talked about with the CNN failure.


This is a perfectly valid point. News used to be a "public good" and didn't have to make a profit. Anderson Cooper makes the point that he once asked Walter Cronkite what Walters ratings were and Cronkite had no idea. Ratings weren't important to the news back then.

I've long argued that they shouldn't be now, either. News is supposed to be valuable and informative information. The profit motive alters that dynamic and we get tabloid nonsense and irresponsible acts like reporting names of people who are not actually suspects.


----------



## Ereth (Jun 16, 2000)

aindik said:


> In hindsight you can pick and choose the stories when that would have been beneficial to do, and not show the stories where you get scooped. Yes, it was a plot point last night that they were last on the air, but, they got it right in the end.


My argument is that ALL stories it's right to do that on. "Getting Scooped" isn't the worst thing in the world. Getting it wrong is.

Woodward and Bernstein didn't run with Watergate until they had more information than just one source, and that was a pretty important story. Journalism isn't supposed to be as useless as posting "First!" in a comment thread.


----------



## Azlen (Nov 25, 2002)

Ereth said:


> My argument is that ALL stories it's right to do that on. "Getting Scooped" isn't the worst thing in the world. Getting it wrong is.
> 
> Woodward and Bernstein didn't run with Watergate until they had more information than just one source, and that was a pretty important story. Journalism isn't supposed to be as useless as posting "First!" in a comment thread.


The Boston Marathon bombing and Watergate are two entirely different types of news stories. You can go on the air with a breaking news story that is happening live in front of people without having every single fact at the time you go on air. Just report on what you do know and what can be seen and stop speculating and reporting on erroneous facts that don't have multiple sources. CNN could have covered it the way they did but not gone forward with John King's incorrect reporting on the arrest.


----------



## aindik (Jan 23, 2002)

Ereth said:


> My argument is that ALL stories it's right to do that on. "Getting Scooped" isn't the worst thing in the world. Getting it wrong is.
> 
> Woodward and Bernstein didn't run with Watergate until they had more information than just one source, and that was a pretty important story. Journalism isn't supposed to be as useless as posting "First!" in a comment thread.


You still have the benefit of starting with "where did the real media not doing what it's supposed to do cost them" when telling the story of how to do it right.


----------



## Ereth (Jun 16, 2000)

aindik said:


> You still have the benefit of starting with "where did the real media not doing what it's supposed to do cost them" when telling the story of how to do it right.


Again I don't see what you are trying to get at.

Surely you aren't suggesting that fiction can not examine alternate views on how things are done? Surely you aren't suggesting that using hindsight to examine real events and suggest improvements is somehow a bad thing?


----------



## Ereth (Jun 16, 2000)

Azlen said:


> The Boston Marathon bombing and Watergate are two entirely different types of news stories. You can go on the air with a breaking news story that is happening live in front of people without having every single fact at the time you go on air. Just report on what you do know and what can be seen and stop speculating and reporting on erroneous facts that don't have multiple sources. CNN could have covered it the way they did but not gone forward with John King's incorrect reporting on the arrest.


And don't cover it non-stop for hours on end with no information. CNN famously had reporters in the same parking lot talking as if they were far apart, throwing questions to one another to give themselves a false air of knowledge, to appear more significant than they really were.

The coverage of the Boston Marathon Bombing is an excellent example of show over substance. The networks were busy showing how important they were and how good they were at doing coverage that they actually failed to do journalism. It was more about CNN than it was about the bombing. When reporters are reduced to talking about "police cars are going by, something must be going on" for 20 minutes or so, you know they have no information.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Ereth said:


> And don't cover it non-stop for hours on end with no information. CNN famously had reporters in the same parking lot talking as if they were far apart, throwing questions to one another to give themselves a false air of knowledge, to appear more significant than they really were.


That reminds me of something local stations do that always bugs me...the reporter "live in the field" (regardless as to whether there is anything newsworthy at that moment about the spot where she is standing) gives her report, but leaves out a key piece of information. The, when she tosses it back to the studio, the anchor asks her about that bit and she gives an obviously prepared answer. I suppose the reason is to involve the anchors in the reporting, but the impression I always prefer to get is that they're pretending the reporter is too stupid and/or incompetent to do her job, and needs the anchor to remind her of the key aspects of the story that she forget. And the reporter will get her revenge when she becomes an anchor, and gets to pretend that the newby reporter is an incompetent moron.


----------



## aindik (Jan 23, 2002)

Ereth said:


> Again I don't see what you are trying to get at.
> 
> Surely you aren't suggesting that fiction can not examine alternate views on how things are done? Surely you aren't suggesting that using hindsight to examine real events and suggest improvements is somehow a bad thing?


Using hindsight to examine real events and suggest improvement is a good thing as long as the use of hindsight doesn't make the suggested improvement unfairly impracticable for future people who won't have the benefit of hindsight and won't have a year to react.

If you're holding real people to the same standards of performance of fictional characters whose actions, and environment, are scripted, you're probably not being fair to the real people who react in real time.

You can state your principles. But there's a case by case analysis that goes on too, and in real media it happens in minutes whereas in fiction it happens in months but is made to appear like it happened in minutes.


----------



## Jonathan_S (Oct 23, 2001)

Ereth said:


> And don't cover it non-stop for hours on end with no information. CNN famously had reporters in the same parking lot talking as if they were far apart, throwing questions to one another to give themselves a false air of knowledge, to appear more significant than they really were.
> 
> The coverage of the Boston Marathon Bombing is an excellent example of show over substance. The networks were busy showing how important they were and how good they were at doing coverage that they actually failed to do journalism. It was more about CNN than it was about the bombing. When reporters are reduced to talking about "police cars are going by, something must be going on" for 20 minutes or so, you know they have no information.


Yes, I'd have preferred if ACN had gone on air quickly once they had footage of the explosion - but then we'd had a latter scene with them coming out of normal coverage (with a scroll or sidebar giving status on the bombing) into a recap bit (with enough verbiage to show that they're giving recaps say every quarter hour for new viewers, but not going 24/7 coverage with nothing new to actually cover)

Of course, that's because that's how I'd like real news to happen. Yes, update me if there's something actually new, but go back to other coverage/stories when there isn't.


----------



## Azlen (Nov 25, 2002)

Ereth said:


> And don't cover it non-stop for hours on end with no information. CNN famously had reporters in the same parking lot talking as if they were far apart, throwing questions to one another to give themselves a false air of knowledge, to appear more significant than they really were.
> 
> The coverage of the Boston Marathon Bombing is an excellent example of show over substance. The networks were busy showing how important they were and how good they were at doing coverage that they actually failed to do journalism. It was more about CNN than it was about the bombing. When reporters are reduced to talking about "police cars are going by, something must be going on" for 20 minutes or so, you know they have no information.


I agree that 24 hour news channels do way way to much of that and agree with your criticism but one of the things that I don't believe they can be criticized for regarding the Boston Marathon bombing was going on the air with the story too soon.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

Ereth said:


> This is a perfectly valid point. News used to be a "public good" and didn't have to make a profit. Anderson Cooper makes the point that he once asked Walter Cronkite what Walters ratings were and Cronkite had no idea. Ratings weren't important to the news back then.
> 
> I've long argued that they shouldn't be now, either. News is supposed to be valuable and informative information. The profit motive alters that dynamic and we get tabloid nonsense and irresponsible acts like reporting names of people who are not actually suspects.


I agree. A news organization shouldn't care about profit or politics. Cronkite did cross the politics line when he came out against the war though. But this race to get eyeballs these days gives us either sensationalized versions of the news or leaning heavily to one side of the political spectrum or the other to drum up controversy. Tell the news, tell the story and that's it.


----------



## NorthAlabama (Apr 19, 2012)

Steveknj said:


> A news organization shouldn't care about profit or politics.


doesn't this behavior have it's origins with local news in the early 80's, with the mindset "if it bleeds, it leads"? cnn launched in 1980, and local stations were already catching on to local news driving profits.

shortly after, evening local news broadcasts were extended to 1 hour. our market has 2 1-hour blocks of local evening news every week night, not to mention another 1½ hours in the mornings, and 35 minutes at night. i watch none of them.


----------



## Ereth (Jun 16, 2000)

Azlen said:


> I agree that 24 hour news channels do way way to much of that and agree with your criticism but one of the things that I don't believe they can be criticized for regarding the Boston Marathon bombing was going on the air with the story too soon.


Yes. My impression of the story is that Sorkin was allowing AWN to make the mistake in reverse, because of being gunshy over the Genoa storyline. Jonathan_S's suggestion is the one that makes the most sense.


----------



## Ereth (Jun 16, 2000)

aindik said:


> Using hindsight to examine real events and suggest improvement is a good thing as long as the use of hindsight doesn't make the suggested improvement unfairly impracticable for future people who won't have the benefit of hindsight and won't have a year to react.
> 
> If you're holding real people to the same standards of performance of fictional characters whose actions, and environment, are scripted, you're probably not being fair to the real people who react in real time.
> 
> You can state your principles. But there's a case by case analysis that goes on too, and in real media it happens in minutes whereas in fiction it happens in months but is made to appear like it happened in minutes.


I really don't get what you are getting at. It seems like you are defending the news organizations broadcasting whatever thought happens to run into their head, whether they have any background for it or not. I think too highly of you to believe that, so I must be misunderstanding.

Are we "not being fair" to Custer for analyzing his failure at the Little Big Horn? Should we never ever have a movie about it, because we can't possibly have only the information Custer had at the time?


----------



## aindik (Jan 23, 2002)

Ereth said:


> I really don't get what you are getting at. It seems like you are defending the news organizations broadcasting whatever thought happens to run into their head, whether they have any background for it or not. I think too highly of you to believe that, so I must be misunderstanding.
> 
> Are we "not being fair" to Custer for analyzing his failure at the Little Big Horn? Should we never ever have a movie about it, because we can't possibly have only the information Custer had at the time?


We should be fair to Custer by analyzing his decision given the information he had and the time frame in which he had to make a decision.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

aindik said:


> We should be fair to Custer by analyzing his decision given the information he had and the time frame in which he had to make a decision.


The problem with the Boston Marathon coverage was that too many people ran with information that they didn't actually have. And that's too common in modern news.


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> The problem with the Boston Marathon coverage was that too many people ran...


Isn't running the whole point of a marathon?


----------



## NorthAlabama (Apr 19, 2012)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> The problem with the Boston Marathon coverage was that too many people ran with information that they didn't actually have. And that's too common in modern news.


i appreciated the analogy comparing crowd sourcing the search for suspects through social media to the salem witch trials.


----------



## MikeAndrews (Jan 17, 2002)

I agree that in the real world ACN would have been toast if they treated breaking news like that.

When I got word of the real Boston bombing online - maybe even from here - I turned the TV on to CNN and/or MSNBC. If they were still running a business report I'd be watching the other guy. 

There's no reason they couldn't' say, "Associated Press, the Boston Herald, is reporting an explosion..."

Somehow I don't think that the real CNN has a newsroom that does much more than watch other sources for clues. MSNBC has local NBC affiliates.


----------



## Ereth (Jun 16, 2000)

aindik said:


> We should be fair to Custer by analyzing his decision given the information he had and the time frame in which he had to make a decision.


And at no point should we have War College classes teach to do anything other than what Custer actually did?


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

Ereth said:


> And at no point should we have War College classes teach to do anything other than what Custer actually did?


That is not what he said. The conclusion is that "War Colleges" should not teach what to do in Custer's situation without also noting what information was possible for Custer to gather, and how much time Custer had to formulate a plan.


----------



## smak (Feb 11, 2000)

The problem with their thinking is that it's ok that you don't know if the explosion was terrorism, a gas leak, or whatever. There was an explosion.

That's plenty enough to go on the air.

-smak-


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

smak said:


> The problem with their thinking is that it's ok that you don't know if the explosion was terrorism, a gas leak, or whatever. There was an explosion.
> 
> That's plenty enough to go on the air.
> 
> -smak-


The thing is, it seems that they were saying that they didn't actually know whether or not there was an explosion. All they know is that there were people running around and there was smoke and while there were a thousand _tweets_ saying that there was an explosion, AVN didn't want to go to air with tweets as their source.

That was the gist of what I got from that scene (which I've not rewatched since the first time). That they didn't have even enough (by their loftier-than-thou journalistic standards) to go with "there was an explosion".

I'm not saying I agree with them, I'm just saying that's what their position seemed to me to be.


----------



## Gunnyman (Jul 10, 2003)

Toby!

And the Neal story just got very interesting. Did he give up his source to Will or not?


----------



## kaszeta (Jun 11, 2004)

One of my favorite exchanges from the show:

&#8220;How often are you sleeping when I&#8217;m talking?&#8221; &#8220;I really have no way of knowing that.&#8221;


----------



## astrohip (Jan 7, 2003)

I thought this was an excellent episode. Interesting story, lots of conflict, and even some self-awareness... {paraphrased}

"You're monologing"
"We do that a lot where I work"

Interesting casting choice, using Kat Dennings. She CAN do more than boob jokes. And Jane Fonda is worth every dollar they pay her. I'd be happy watching those two have a Sorkin-dialog for hours. And I can't remember the barb that Barbarella threw at the brother, but it stuck the landing.

Where did I recognize the guy on the train from? The potential love interest for Maggie?

Glad they found a way to work Marcia Gay Harden back into a story. She's a perfect character for a Sorkin story.


----------



## kaszeta (Jun 11, 2004)

astrohip said:


> Where did I recognize the guy on the train from? The potential love interest for Maggie?


He's the hacker on House of Cards. That's where I recognized him from.

Jimmi Simpson (IMDB)


----------



## Gunnyman (Jul 10, 2003)

He was also in Breakout Kings on A&E


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

I have to admit that I know him from _Knights of Badassdom_.


----------



## KenDC (Jun 18, 2001)

Who played the lead FBI agent? One of those actors I've seen before but can't place her. Looks a little like Mario Bello or Laurel Holloman.

Edit: Found it. Mary McCormack. Thanks!


----------



## Azlen (Nov 25, 2002)

KenDC said:


> Who played the lead FBI agent? One of those actors I've seen before but can't play her. Looks a little like Mario Bello or Laurel Holloman.


Mary McCormack. She was the lead in USA's "In Plain Sight"

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0005203/


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

Azlen said:


> Mary McCormack. She was the lead in USA's "In Plain Sight"
> 
> http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0005203/


More on point, she was in a few seasons of Sorkin's _The West Wing_


----------



## KenDC (Jun 18, 2001)

busyba said:


> More on point, she was in a few seasons of Sorkin's _The West Wing_


Oh, yeah. Some mixing for sure.


----------



## smak (Feb 11, 2000)

astrohip said:


> I
> Interesting casting choice, using Kat Dennings. She CAN do more than boob jokes.


I like her acting, and her look, in everything except 2 Broke Girls. They make her look bad in that show.

-smak-


----------



## smak (Feb 11, 2000)

busyba said:


> The thing is, it seems that they were saying that they didn't actually know whether or not there was an explosion. All they know is that there were people running around and there was smoke and while there were a thousand _tweets_ saying that there was an explosion, AVN didn't want to go to air with tweets as their source.
> 
> That was the gist of what I got from that scene (which I've not rewatched since the first time). That they didn't have even enough (by their loftier-than-thou journalistic standards) to go with "there was an explosion".
> 
> I'm not saying I agree with them, I'm just saying that's what their position seemed to me to be.


I wish the season looked more at that conflict, between twitter news, and old school news, because it's basically the defining news issue of our time.

As to twitter. Just because it's on Twitter, doesn't mean it shouldn't be taken seriously. The first confirmation of the killing of Bin Laden were on twitter by sources that should be taken as seriously as any source that a major news agency would have.

-smak-


----------



## DeDondeEs (Feb 20, 2004)

Azlen said:


> Mary McCormack. She was the lead in USA's "In Plain Sight" http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0005203/


I still always see her as Howard Stern's wife in Private Parts.


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

smak said:


> As to twitter. Just because it's on Twitter, doesn't mean it shouldn't be taken seriously. The first confirmation of the killing of Bin Laden were on twitter by sources that should be taken as seriously as any source that a major news agency would have.


I think the key words in your post there are "by sources". Tweets have legitimate value for news orgs if the tweeter is someone known to be credible and contactable for verification. Otherwise you're just reporting on electronic gossip.


----------



## aindik (Jan 23, 2002)

Ok, I'm hooked. That was some excellent stuff. 

Only 4 more episodes?


----------



## markz (Oct 22, 2002)

I saw Dumb & Dumber To this past weekend. Weird watching Jeff Daniels be all serious in this show last week, and then see his Dumb antics and lots of butt crack in Dumb & Dumber!


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

So are the brother and sister who are trying to take over the network, half brother to (I can't remember his name), Jane Fonda's son? (Father's kids)?


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Steveknj said:


> So are the brother and sister who are trying to take over the network, half brother to (I can't remember his name), Jane Fonda's son? (Father's kids)?


Yes. Jane's step-kids.

Interesting how Jane's son has morphed from villain to hero over the course of the series...


----------



## astrohip (Jan 7, 2003)

Steveknj said:


> So are the brother and sister who are trying to take over the network, half brother to (I can't remember his name), Jane Fonda's son? (Father's kids)?


Yes. The three kids have the same dad, but different moms.

Reese Lansing.


----------



## NorthAlabama (Apr 19, 2012)

Steveknj said:


> So are the brother and sister who are trying to take over the network, half brother to (I can't remember his name), Jane Fonda's son? (Father's kids)?


yes, the twins (blair and randy lansing) are half-siblings to reese lansing (leona lansing's son). i think.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

So this is all a family squabble. The kids being vindictive toward Jane Fonda. Interesting storyline.

Does Kat Danning wear anything other than that same color lipstick? I don't watch 2 Broke Girls but I notice on the ads she has the same color.


----------



## NorthAlabama (Apr 19, 2012)

Steveknj said:


> So this is all a family squabble. The kids being vindictive toward Jane Fonda. Interesting storyline.


the animosity is thick between the twins and leona & reese, which is why they were trying to pull it off secretly.

they come across as greedy millennials more than anything else, wanting to cash in their inheritance. the family bitterness gives a bonus jab.


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

Steveknj said:


> So are the brother and sister who are trying to take over the network, half brother to (I can't remember his name), Jane Fonda's son? (Father's kids)?


That's what appears to be the case, yes, that all three kids have the same father, but the twins have a different mother than Reese, who is Leona's (Jane Fonda) son.


----------



## aindik (Jan 23, 2002)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> Yes. Jane's step-kids.
> 
> Interesting how Jane's son has morphed from villain to hero over the course of the series...


I think it's because they've seen how good the actor Chris Messina is in his other work (The Mindy Project) and wanted to use him more, and in a more likable role. On the Mindy Project he's similarly transitioned from being merely one of the main character's quirky co-workers to also being her boyfriend.

I was confused about the menu bit. Did Neal really need a note from Will that said "run," and wasn't "when they get here" too late already? And how did Will's assistant know it needed to go to Neal?

"Which one of you is Neal Sampat?" Isn't the FBI supposed to be good at racial profiling?


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

aindik said:


> I was confused about the menu bit. Did Neal really need a note from Will that said "run," and wasn't "when they get here" too late already?


I think Will wanted first to assess the situation and see if Neal was facing "just" a contempt charge and 10-30 days in jail, or espionage charges, before advising Neal on what to do. To do that, he had to have a chance to talk with the FBI people.



> And how did Will's assistant know it needed to go to Neal?


Because the note said "_NEAL_ RUN". I assume she figured out that she should look in the menu to see what he wrote.

My question is how did she know where Neal was to give it to him.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

busyba said:


> Because the note said "_NEAL_ RUN". I assume she figured out that she should look in the menu to see what he wrote.
> 
> My question is how did she know where Neal was to give it to him.


At that point he still had his phone, didn't he?


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> At that point he still had his phone, didn't he?


Ah. True.


----------



## MikeAndrews (Jan 17, 2002)

I lost track of the story.

If Leona built Atlantis by starting the Broadway touring company with $40,350, how did her hubby end up with the shares to pass on to the kids?

Look for the entrance of Ed Asner as the Warren Buffet type who makes the deal with Leona to supply the $2 billion.


----------



## kaszeta (Jun 11, 2004)

MikeAndrews said:


> I lost track of the story.
> 
> If Leona built Atlantis by starting the Broadway touring company with $40,350, how did her hubby end up with the shares to pass on to the kids?


Distribution of community property during a divorce settlement? Perfectly plausible.


----------



## Azlen (Nov 25, 2002)

Isn't it highly unusual for a publicly traded company to have two twenty something year old kids with 40+% ownership, inheritance or not? You typically don't need over 50% to take controlling interest in a publicly traded company do you?


----------



## DLiquid (Sep 17, 2001)

Azlen said:


> Isn't it highly unusual for a publicly traded company to have two twenty something year old kids with 40+% ownership, inheritance or not? You typically don't need over 50% to take controlling interest in a publicly traded company do you?


I was wondering the same thing. It's almost as if Leona owns 45%, the twins will inherit 45%, and just 10% is publicly traded.


----------



## kaszeta (Jun 11, 2004)

DLiquid said:


> I was wondering the same thing. It's almost as if Leona owns 45%, the twins will inherit 45%, and just 10% is publicly traded.


I'll have to rewatch it, but it could be a more complicated situation as well. Ownership share does not necessarily equal control share.


----------



## Azlen (Nov 25, 2002)

DLiquid said:


> I was wondering the same thing. It's almost as if Leona owns 45%, the twins will inherit 45%, and just 10% is publicly traded.


Which wouldn't make sense that the other media company could then purchase 6% of the total shares because that would be 60% of the publicly traded shares and there's no way that would go unnoticed.


----------



## aindik (Jan 23, 2002)

Azlen said:


> Which wouldn't make sense that the other media company could then purchase 6% of the total shares because that would be 60% of the publicly traded shares and there's no way that would go unnoticed.


What we know is the kids are due 45% of the controlling shares, and that 6% of the controlling shares were just purchased by the VC firm. I don't think there was any mention of who owns the non-controlling shares or how many there are.

Leona did give a value of the company, when she said "$4 billion for an $x billion company is a steal." But I don't remember what x was.


----------



## DLiquid (Sep 17, 2001)

Azlen said:


> Which wouldn't make sense that the other media company could then purchase 6% of the total shares because that would be 60% of the publicly traded shares and there's no way that would go unnoticed.


Good point. Perhaps Leona's percentage is significantly lower than the twins' percentage because she has sold shares over the years.


----------



## NorthAlabama (Apr 19, 2012)

it went fast, but i understood:

leona received 45% in the divorce (willed to reese upon her death), the twins inherent their father's 45%, and now savannah capital has purchased 6% to equal 51% ownership when added to the twins shares. 

also, leona valued the company at $16 billion.


----------



## Squeak (May 12, 2000)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> Yes. Jane's step-kids.


Not Jane's step-kids. They have no relation.

They are Jane's ex-husbands kids with his new wife.


----------



## Azlen (Nov 25, 2002)

I think Sorkin just created a situation for drama's sake rather than having any basis in reality. There's no way those kids would ever be given 45% of a publicly traded corporation like that. If it was a private company sure, but not a publicly traded one.


----------



## Squeak (May 12, 2000)

NorthAlabama said:


> it went fast, but i understood:
> 
> leona received 45% in the divorce (willed to reese upon her death), the twins inherent their father's 45%, and now savannah capital has purchased 6% to equal 51% ownership when added to the twins shares.
> 
> also, leona valued the company at $16 billion.


But that is only of the controlling shares. There has to be a two-class system in place here (which is not uncommon) of A shares and B shares.

Also, I think Leona valued the company at $64B dollars, with the 45% of the A class being worth $4B


----------



## Squeak (May 12, 2000)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> At that point he still had his phone, didn't he?


But that stinks, because that now makes her an accessory to a crime.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

I get the feeling that when this series is over, the kids and Savannah will own the majority and dismantle the company, which makes for a fitting end point for the series. Much like Mary Tyler Moore show where the station was sold and the staff was out of jobs.

Or maybe not....we'll see


----------



## aindik (Jan 23, 2002)

I'm not sure why nobody thinks Savannah Capital might not match Leona's $83/share offer. Everyone just assumes that if she comes up with $4 billion, that's all she'll need.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

aindik said:


> I'm not sure why nobody thinks Savannah Capital might not match Leona's $83/share offer. Everyone just assumes that if she comes up with $4 billion, that's all she'll need.


Because it's in the script


----------



## aindik (Jan 23, 2002)

Steveknj said:


> I get the feeling that when this series is over, the kids and Savannah will own the majority and dismantle the company, which makes for a fitting end point for the series. Much like Mary Tyler Moore show where the station was sold and the staff was out of jobs.
> 
> Or maybe not....we'll see


The kids' plan isn't to own anything. It's to sell their shares to Savannah on the day the shares vest.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

aindik said:


> The kids' plan isn't to own anything. It's to sell their shares to Savannah on the day the shares vest.


I thought at one point they mentioned that they might dismantle the station (maybe they were just joking).


----------



## Azlen (Nov 25, 2002)

aindik said:


> I'm not sure why nobody thinks Savannah Capital might not match Leona's $83/share offer. Everyone just assumes that if she comes up with $4 billion, that's all she'll need.


Under the pretense of the situation, she really doesn't need to buy the entire amount of the twin's shares, just 6% to give herself controlling interest.


----------



## aindik (Jan 23, 2002)

Azlen said:


> Under the pretense of the situation, she really doesn't need to buy the entire amount of the twin's shares, just 6% to give herself controlling interest.


From whom is she going to buy 6%? I don't think there are 6% that aren't owned either by her, Savannah, or the kids' trust funds. Savannah isn't going to sell to her. So it's the kids. And they won't sell unless they get more than $81 a share for every share they have.

I suppose after that she can offer all but 6% on the market again. But she's not going to get what she paid.


----------



## aindik (Jan 23, 2002)

Steveknj said:


> I thought at one point they mentioned that they might dismantle the station (maybe they were just joking).


I think they were speculating about what Savannah is going to do.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Azlen said:


> Under the pretense of the situation, she really doesn't need to buy the entire amount of the twin's shares, just 6% to give herself controlling interest.


Of course, they don't have to sell to her...


----------



## Azlen (Nov 25, 2002)

aindik said:


> From whom is she going to buy 6%? I don't think there are 6% that aren't owned either by her, Savannah, or the kids' trust funds. Savannah isn't going to sell to her. So it's the kids. And they won't sell unless they get more than $81 a share for every share they have.
> 
> I suppose after that she can offer all but 6% on the market again. But she's not going to get what she paid.


Which of course means that Savannah was able to buy 60% of the controlling shares that are on the market without anyone noticing.


----------



## Squeak (May 12, 2000)

Azlen said:


> Which of course means that Savannah was able to buy 60% of the controlling shares that are on the market without anyone noticing.


No, they only bought 6% -- and had to disclose it to the SEC when they hit 5%.


----------



## Azlen (Nov 25, 2002)

Squeak said:


> No, they only bought 6% -- and had to disclose it to the SEC when they hit 5%.


They bought 6% of the total shares but if the twins had 45% and Leona had 45% that meant that there are only 10% of the controlling shares able to be purchased on the market. If Savannah bought 6% it means they bought 60% of what was available for them to buy. Highly unlikely that it would go unnoticed.


----------



## NorthAlabama (Apr 19, 2012)

just watched a few outtakes to clear things up a little:


all shares discussed were identified as controlling shares
blair refused to sell only 6%, and leona responded she wanted it all
leona valued the company at $62 billion
carry on.


----------



## zalusky (Apr 5, 2002)

One scenario your all missing is that the value of the stock might plummet with FBI seizing everything. Savanna might walk away.


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

Okay, I'm rewatching now....

Leona's parents started the touring company, National Theatricals, by raising $42,350 from investors.

Leona worked in the office of NT while going to city college. At 22 years old, she discovered a string of radio stations that were going out of business and using NT as collateral, she got a loan and bought the company that owned the stations, Atlantis Media.

Then she got married and had a son, Reese.

Then she got divorced and as part of the settlement, she gave her ex-husband "half of the controlling shares of the company, or 45%"

It is implied that Leona currently owns at least 45% as well.

The twins' mother's name is Monica.

Atlantis' stock last closed at $66 per share. Bain Savannah Capital )) offered the twins $81 per share.

Charlie says 45% of the stock at $66 is worth $2.3 billion. That means that 45% is about 34.85 million shares. Which means there are a total of 77.44 million shares, 7.744 million of which is publicly traded, and 69.6969696969 million total shares are controlled between the twins and Leona.

I want to believe that that "69.6969696969 million total shares" result is a deliberate easter egg by Sorkin. 

Charlie also says that 45% of the stock at $81 is work $3.1 billion, which would mean that 45% is about 38.27 million shares. So both of Charlie's statements can't be true. Maybe he forgot to carry the 3 like Reese told him to. 

If the twins' holdings is worth $2.3 billion at $66 a share, then it is worth only $2.82 billion at $81. (The 45% doesn't even enter into that calculation)

Leona's offer is for $83 per share. If that comes out to $4 billion like they said, that means 45% is about 48.19 million shares.

So the $83 per share offer for the 45% should either be $2.892 billion or $3.176 billion, depending on which of Charlie's two contradictory calculations you are going to accept as being correct.



aindik said:


> Leona did give a value of the company, when she said "$4 billion for an $x billion company is a steal." But I don't remember what x was.


x=62

I have no idea where she is getting the valuation of $62 billion. Unless she's including all the non-controlling stock.


----------



## Gerryex (Apr 24, 2004)

zalusky said:


> One scenario your all missing is that the value of the stock might plummet with FBI seizing everything. Savanna might walk away.


Yes, I thought of that too. Maybe that makes Savanna walk away and screws up the take over plan and eventually things return to normal as the main character walks into the sun in the series finale!!!

Of course that still leaves Neal and his possible espionage charges!!

Gerry


----------



## Squeak (May 12, 2000)

Azlen said:


> They bought 6% of the total shares but if the twins had 45% and Leona had 45% that meant that there are only 10% of the controlling shares able to be purchased on the market. If Savannah bought 6% it means they bought 60% of what was available for them to buy. Highly unlikely that it would go unnoticed.


Agreed. Sorry, got it now. Means they would have bought 60% of the outstanding "A" shares. That is highly unlikely from a possible perspective.



busyba said:


> I have no idea where she is getting the valuation of $62 billion. Unless she's including all the non-controlling stock.


This. A shares and B shares.


----------



## MikeAndrews (Jan 17, 2002)

aindik said:


> I'm not sure why nobody thinks Savannah Capital might not match Leona's $83/share offer. Everyone just assumes that if she comes up with $4 billion, that's all she'll need.





Steveknj said:


> Because it's in the script


She made the deal with the twins. They pinkie swore.


----------



## zordude (Sep 23, 2003)

zalusky said:


> One scenario your all missing is that the value of the stock might plummet with FBI seizing everything. Savanna might walk away.


They can't disclose the FBI seizing anything.


----------



## MikeAndrews (Jan 17, 2002)

AWN is going to have hella time covering the news with no hard drives in the computers.


----------



## aindik (Jan 23, 2002)

zordude said:


> They can't disclose the FBI seizing anything.


My prediction is they challenge the constitutionality of that particular provision of the PATRIOT Act and they blast it all over their airwaves.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

aindik said:


> My prediction is they challenge the constitutionality of that particular provision of the PATRIOT Act and they blast it all over their airwaves.


"We regret that our news-gathering capability has been damaged due to the sudden loss of all our hard drives, for reasons we can't go into. In unrelated news, the Patriot Act forbids revealing when somebody is the target of an FBI raid. Not that that's us or anything."


----------



## aindik (Jan 23, 2002)

I wonder what requirements there are (in real life, and also as depicted in the show) for law enforcement to copy and return the hard drives ASAP. It's a search warrant, not an injunction. They're gathering potential evidence, not trying to shut down operations. A forensic copy of the hard drive should be just as useful for evidence gathering purposes as the hard drive itself. So there should be no reason why they shouldn't have their hard drives back in a day or two after the FBI has made its copies.


----------



## MikeAndrews (Jan 17, 2002)

aindik said:


> I wonder what requirements there are (in real life, and also as depicted in the show) for law enforcement to copy and return the hard drives ASAP. It's a search warrant, not an injunction. They're gathering potential evidence, not trying to shut down operations. A forensic copy of the hard drive should be just as useful for evidence gathering purposes as the hard drive itself. So there should be no reason why they shouldn't have their hard drives back in a day or two after the FBI has made its copies.


Steve Jackson Games...and the laptops taken by Customs & Border Control. They have kept computers - and shared servers - for 1 to 2 years.

http://www.sjgames.com/SS/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Jackson_Games,_Inc._v._United_States_Secret_Service


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

aindik said:


> I wonder what requirements there are (in real life, and also as depicted in the show) for law enforcement to copy and return the hard drives ASAP. It's a search warrant, not an injunction. They're gathering potential evidence, not trying to shut down operations. A forensic copy of the hard drive should be just as useful for evidence gathering purposes as the hard drive itself. So there should be no reason why they shouldn't have their hard drives back in a day or two after the FBI has made its copies.


At my job, we are warned that if there is a security breach on one of our laptops, assume it is gone for months. It quite FBI but I don't think there is a requirement to return things very quickly. They were also dumping papers into boxes.


----------



## aindik (Jan 23, 2002)

TonyD79 said:


> At my job, we are warned that if there is a security breach on one of our laptops, assume it is gone for months. It quite FBI but I don't think there is a requirement to return things very quickly. They were also dumping papers into boxes.


Papers are different. I was just talking about hard drives which can be perfectly copied in a matter of hours for each one.


----------



## TAsunder (Aug 6, 2003)

aindik said:


> Papers are different. I was just talking about hard drives which can be perfectly copied in a matter of hours for each one.


I am fairly certain there is no legal obligation to return them in any sort of timely manner.


----------



## NorthAlabama (Apr 19, 2012)

wouldn't want to be in acn's i.t. department, responsible for replacing all the equipment. did they take sloan's new computer!?


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

aindik said:


> Papers are different. I was just talking about hard drives which can be perfectly copied in a matter of hours for each one.


Papers can actually be copied faster. Put them in a big hopper copier and done.

If there are potential national security issues on the drives, they won't return them until they are sure they are clear. That includes checking sectors that are not easily accessible. They aren't going to return potential leaks back without thorough analysis.

This isn't just a matter of finding evidence. This is a matter of locking down secure materials.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Hell, when it's Homeland Security, they don't feel any need to return human beings they've confiscated for years or decades!


----------



## aindik (Jan 23, 2002)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> Hell, when it's Homeland Security, they don't feel any need to return human beings they've confiscated for years or decades!


Well, the human beings can't be copied, yet.


----------



## Dawghows (May 17, 2001)

aindik said:


> Well, the human beings can't be copied, yet.


That's what they want us to _think._


----------



## zalusky (Apr 5, 2002)

So do they start confiscating phones and home computers too in this day of VPN?


----------



## goblue97 (May 12, 2005)

I've got to believe that Sloan will figure into the Leona storyline of needing to raise $4 billion. Not sure how though.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

zalusky said:


> So do they start confiscating phones and home computers too in this day of VPN?


They can. Neal had the data on an air gap computer. That is pretty important.


----------



## MikeAndrews (Jan 17, 2002)

TonyD79 said:


> They can. Neal had the data on an air gap computer. That is pretty important.


The whole air gap computer thing was a bit silly. "Never been on the Internet" You don't think that a new laptop has a network connection when it's imaged and tested?

It would have been better if Neal booted on a Linux Live DVD.

Speaking of, more silly: The source gave Neal 27,000 documents on a thumb drive. Neal tells him that he needs some more as proof to Wil and Charlie that the source is genuine. !!! So he needs 27,000+2?

THEN he tells the source how to transfer those few more docs directly from the BlackSecureNet through the DarkNet to him.  HE HAS 27,000 DOCS already. Why not another thumb drive if anything?

THEN, the FBI knows that the file transfer was made that way and knows that the source would have needed help from Neal to pull it off - but they don't know the source.

And they say Sorkin can't write romantic scenarios.

Oh. And Neal named the source to Wil. How did Neal even know the source's name?


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

MikeAndrews said:


> The whole air gap computer thing was a bit silly. "Never been on the Internet" You don't think that a new laptop has a network connection when it's imaged and tested?


They probably are not. Why would they? Images are duped onto the drive and done. Why would it be put on the Internet? For what purpose. Testing doesn't require it. At most, it is put on a local network and probably not even that.


----------



## Squeak (May 12, 2000)

MikeAndrews said:


> The whole air gap computer thing was a bit silly. "Never been on the Internet"


I can't put my finger on it, but there is something off about this year. There are lots of little "silly" things like this that are taking that bright shine off.

Still a great show, but just not quite the same as last year.


----------



## Azlen (Nov 25, 2002)

What does never being on the Internet actually do anyway? I thought air gap typically meant that the computer is completely separated from an insecure network, not that it has never been on the internet. It's not like a disconnected computer is going to be able to share anything regardless of where it has been in the past.


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

goblue97 said:


> I've got to believe that Sloan will figure into the Leona storyline of needing to raise $4 billion. Not sure how though.


Start shorting Chipolte.


----------



## Ereth (Jun 16, 2000)

Azlen said:


> What does never being on the Internet actually do anyway? I thought air gap typically meant that the computer is completely separated from an insecure network, not that it has never been on the internet. It's not like a disconnected computer is going to be able to share anything regardless of where it has been in the past.


The premise (of the TV show here, not reality) is that the "adversary" (in this case, the DoD) was automatically installing spy software on every device attached to the Internet.

It's not real, but it's "real enough" to play in a fictional TV drama.

Neals an IT guy. In reality, any of "us" would just wipe a computer and install Linux on it, or use a Live DVD as suggested earlier. Even a Windows-only guy would be able to install Windows from a disc and just forgo updates long enough to evaluate the thumb drive. That's easier than buying a new computer from a big box store. And you control the "imaging".


----------



## frombhto323 (Jan 24, 2002)

MikeAndrews said:


> Steve Jackson Games...and the laptops taken by Customs & Border Control. They have kept computers - and shared servers - for 1 to 2 years.
> 
> http://www.sjgames.com/SS/
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Jackson_Games,_Inc._v._United_States_Secret_Service


Not to nitpik, but the Secret Service raided and seized SJG's computers. And there is a Customs and Border Protection (CBP), an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), and a Border Control, all under Homeland Security, but no Customs & Border Control. ICE might have domestic seizure authority pursuant to an investigation of a possible importing violation if the FBI has not taken interest.


----------



## MikeAndrews (Jan 17, 2002)

frombhto323 said:


> Not to nitpik, but the Secret Service raided and seized SJG's computers. And there is a Customs and Border Protection (CBP), an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), and a Border Control, all under Homeland Security, but no Customs & Border Control. ICE might have domestic seizure authority pursuant to an investigation of a possible importing violation if the FBI has not taken interest.


Without cause, Laptops have been confiscated _leaving_ the US and not been returned for years.

The standing advice is not to travel out of the country with a laptop that has anything confidential on it.

Canadian customs has also inspected laptops of Americans to find the "inevitable" porn stash.


----------



## kaszeta (Jun 11, 2004)

MikeAndrews said:


> Without cause, Laptops have been confiscated _leaving_ the US and not been returned for years.
> 
> The standing advice is not to travel out of the country with a laptop that has anything confidential on it.


Yeah, my employer forbids taking normal employee laptops out of the country.

If we need a laptop abroad, they will give us a freshly-imaged laptop to use instead.


----------



## madscientist (Nov 12, 2003)

smak said:


> As to twitter. Just because it's on Twitter, doesn't mean it shouldn't be taken seriously. The first confirmation of the killing of Bin Laden were on twitter by sources that should be taken as seriously as any source that a major news agency would have.


 My wife was traveling during the shoot-outs and capture; she said some guy in the midwest was tweeting pretty much everything coming over the police scanners and she got a much better idea of what was happening that way than official news sources.

Don't know how a guy in the midwest had access to Boston, Cambridge, or Waltham police scanner chatter, but however he did it it was apparently accurate.



MikeAndrews said:


> The whole air gap computer thing was a bit silly. "Never been on the Internet" You don't think that a new laptop has a network connection when it's imaged and tested?
> 
> It would have been better if Neal booted on a Linux Live DVD.
> 
> Oh. And Neal named the source to Wil. How did Neal even know the source's name?


 Also the first time you power on a computer the first thing it will do is connect wirelessly. Many businesses have guest wifi where you don't need a password. Some computers have a physical switch to control wireless but this one didn't seem to (or Neal didn't use it). I agree about Linux; probably they got money from Microsoft but there's no way anyone who knows enough to break into DoD networks would not boot one of the secure Linux distros via a CD/DVD that they'd burned themselves.

Did Neal name the source to Will? I didn't remember that (of course it could have happened off-camera). I wonder if Will is just stepping in to take some heat.


----------



## aindik (Jan 23, 2002)

madscientist said:


> My wife was traveling during the shoot-outs and capture; she said some guy in the midwest was tweeting pretty much everything coming over the police scanners and she got a much better idea of what was happening that way than official news sources.
> 
> Don't know how a guy in the midwest had access to Boston, Cambridge, or Waltham police scanner chatter, but however he did it it was apparently accurate.
> 
> ...


Will told Neal to tell him the name of the source. We didn't see it happen.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

madscientist said:


> Also the first time you power on a computer the first thing it will do is connect wirelessly.


In what world? I have never seen one do that. Never, never, never.

Mostly they launch with questions for final setup, like they showed Neal doing.


----------



## MikeAndrews (Jan 17, 2002)

madscientist said:


> My wife was traveling during the shoot-outs and capture; she said some guy in the midwest was tweeting pretty much everything coming over the police scanners and she got a much better idea of what was happening that way than official news sources.
> 
> Don't know how a guy in the midwest had access to Boston, Cambridge, or Waltham police scanner chatter, but however he did it it was apparently accurate.


The police scanner audio was being streamed on the net. I listened.

At a point about an hour in the cops announced "be advised this is on the internet. Go to nnnn" and changed to some secret frequencies so the traffic died out, but I did hear the police helicopter coming back in to shine the nightsun again, - he gave his ETA and I guess they were concerned about it being target - and at the end all kinds of cops came on and gave congrats and whooped it up. "This is Superintendent nnnn, congratulations to all on a great job" _"Who was that guy?"_


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

madscientist said:


> Also the first time you power on a computer the first thing it will do is connect wirelessly.


Connect to what?


----------



## NorthAlabama (Apr 19, 2012)

busyba said:


> Connect to what?


and couldn't the wi-fi be turned off before the boot completed?


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

NorthAlabama said:


> and couldn't the wi-fi be turned off before the boot completed?


My laptop has a physical switch that turns tge wifi on and off, so moving it to off before even powering the laptop is trivial. But I'm still interested in knowing exactly what wireless network a brand new laptop is going to connect to when first turned on.


----------



## Azlen (Nov 25, 2002)

You would need to give a computer an SSID to connect to along with a password. There isn't some universal wireless network for computers to connect to.


----------



## madscientist (Nov 12, 2003)

TonyD79 said:


> In what world? I have never seen one do that. Never, never, never.


 OK, "first thing" was an exaggeration; I meant "without user intervention". It's been a long time since I booted up a new Windows system, but my daughter bought a new Windows laptop this past summer and said she was surprised didn't have to do anything to get connected. Maybe that was hyperbole: I wasn't there.

I just think that if you're going to be concerned enough about security to buy a brand new "air-gap" computer that has never been connected to the internet, you'd spend a minute thinking about wireless access. The reality today is who knows what kind of crap is already installed on that system before you even took it out of the box: the only real security you have is avoiding connections to the internet while and after you've opened the thumbdrive.



busyba said:


> Connect to what?


 As I mentioned in my post, the ACN Guest WiFi network.



Azlen said:


> You would need to give a computer an SSID to connect to along with a password. There isn't some universal wireless network for computers to connect to.


Wireless networks do not have to be password protected, and the SSID can be obtained from the network itself: it does not have to be entered by the user.

There's nothing inherent to a wireless network that prevents a computer from connecting to it, all by itself without any human intervention, other than the (optional) password.


----------



## Azlen (Nov 25, 2002)

madscientist said:


> Wireless networks do not have to be password protected, and the SSID can be obtained from the network itself: it does not have to be entered by the user.
> 
> There's nothing inherent to a wireless network that prevents a computer from connecting to it, all by itself without any human intervention, other than the (optional) password.


At best you could get a list of SSID's that are available in the area that you are in and it will ask if you want to connect to any of them. A computer at setup will just not arbitrarily pick the top open one and connect to it.


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

Azlen said:


> At best you could get a list of SSID's that are available in the area that you are in and it will ask if you want to connect to any of them. A computer at setup will just not arbitrarily pick the top open one and connect to it.


To be more precise, a computer at setup *should* NOT just pick one and connect to it.

But if we are being extremely paranoid about government agencies subverting companies and inserting backdoors for them to access computers, then it is certainly in the realm of possibility that a computer might surreptitiously connect to an unsecured wireless network without prompting or alerting the user.

But if you are that paranoid, the way to go has already been mentioned. Boot a secure linux distro from a DVD that you burned yourself (after verifying the checksum on the download). Also, if you want to be really paranoid, go with a system you built yourself from parts. That way you can choose a motherboard with no wireless at all, and just not connect anything to the LAN ports. No possible way for the computer to connect to anything.


----------



## madscientist (Nov 12, 2003)

Azlen said:


> At best you could get a list of SSID's that are available in the area that you are in and it will ask if you want to connect to any of them. A computer at setup will just not arbitrarily pick the top open one and connect to it.


But that is just a convention that may (or may not) be adhered to by the operating system at boot time. My point was that there's nothing inherent in the network (or computer) itself which prevents that from happening: if there is a non-secure WiFi network available it would be simple for a computer to connect to it at boot time without your intervention. It could even connect without your knowing about it. You are relying on your understanding and belief of how current systems work to say that this currently does not happen.

A large percentage of the security problems we've seen have been caused by someone trying to make using systems more convenient.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

When I set up my most recent computer (a few months ago), it showed a list of wi-fi connections that were available along with their security status, and asked me if I wanted to pick one. There were a couple that weren't secure (apparently, not all my neighbors are rocket scientists, or at least not all properly paranoid).


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> When I set up my most recent computer (a few months ago), it showed a list of wi-fi connections that were available along with their security status, and asked me if I wanted to pick one. There were a couple that weren't secure (apparently, not all my neighbors are rocket scientists, or at least not all properly paranoid).


That is what it will do. It will NOT connect arbitrarily.


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

It would, at best, only ever connect to a network with the same SSID as a network that it has connected to before with the "connect automatically" option set.


----------



## aindik (Jan 23, 2002)

------
Now posting about episode 3.

Does anyone at the FBI have a television?

Hey, this is agent blah blah. We're executing a warrant over at ACN. Can you tell me what's on their channel right now?

So, we've got Toby and Ryan. Can we squeeze Michael Scott in before the season ends?


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

aindik said:


> Hey, this is agent blah blah. We're executing a warrant over at ACN. Can you tell me what's on their channel right now?


Their bluff wasn't that they were broadcasting the raid, their bluff was that they were _going_ to broadcast the raid. There wouldn't be anything to see on the channel until after the FBI called their bluff, at which point, in the FBI's opinion anyway, it would have been too late, which is why the bluff worked.

What they put up on the monitors for the FBI's benefit, they never represented that as being their live air; they represented that as what they were shooting and were going to switch their live air over to. The only thing the FBI didn't know at that point was that Heckyll and Jeckyll in the control room were never going to be able to make that happen.


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

As for BJ Novak, we've all seen that character before, and Clark Gregg played it better.


----------



## Gunnyman (Jul 10, 2003)

Yeah I'm seeing parallels to Sports Night too and you're absolutely right.


----------



## MikeAndrews (Jan 17, 2002)

aindik said:


> ------
> ...
> So, we've got Toby and Ryan. Can we squeeze Michael Scott in before the season ends?


I still predict that we'll have a billionaire Warren Buffet type come and provide the financial rescue to throw off Mr. Internet weird nerd - Ed Asner or Martin Sheen.

Then it'll be like Rupert Murdoch to turn it into Fox News.

No surprise that source "he" was a woman.

Lily is teh hawt.


----------



## zalusky (Apr 5, 2002)

My theory is still the stock drops (possibly due to the raid) and Savannah walks away. 
Leona then is able to buy controlling interest on the cheap.


----------



## NorthAlabama (Apr 19, 2012)

zalusky said:


> My theory is still the stock drops (possibly due to the raid) and Savannah walks away.
> Leona then is able to buy controlling interest on the cheap.


if you mean controlling interest will be purchased from savannah when they dump their shares, awesome, with the twins forced to keep theirs at a greatly undervalued price, unwilling to sell at such an incredible loss.

or, leona gets her way, tricks the twins, and gobbles up everything and everyone.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

busyba said:


> Their bluff wasn't that they were broadcasting the raid, their bluff was that they were going to broadcast the raid. There wouldn't be anything to see on the channel until after the FBI called their bluff, at which point, in the FBI's opinion anyway, it would have been too late, which is why the bluff worked. What they put up on the monitors for the FBI's benefit, they never represented that as being their live air; they represented that as what they were shooting and were going to switch their live air over to. The only thing the FBI didn't know at that point was that Heckyll and Jeckyll in the control room were never going to be able to make that happen.


Given the way things for for ACN, more likely they would accidentally put it on the air.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

So AWM thinks they can raise $4 billion by selling off the division of their company that is not profitable (ACN)? Why is the BJ Novak character willing to pay $4B for an unprofitable division?

Going back to some of the previous discussion:

When Leona said the company was a $62 billion company, that's not meant to be the market value of the stock. That type of language generally means revenue. She's saying that AWM makes $62B a year in revenue, in which case $4B to retain controlling interest is a steal. 

Of course Neal would have known how to image an existing ACN computer rather than having to buy a new one. And of course an IT guy would know that Linux is better than Windows in that situation. But this is a TV show and they have to do everything in shorthand that the average viewer will understand. Watching Neal open up a brand new laptop and boot to the Windows setup screen is something nearly every viewer can understand and it only takes about 10 seconds. How much time and dialogue and what other hoops would they have to jump through to depict Neal imaging an existing computer with Linux in a way that the average viewer would understand? 

Not to mention that by having Neal buy the laptop with Will's AMEX Black, that now implicates Will in the potential espionage as well, thus complicating the drama.


----------



## tlc (May 30, 2002)

Clearly some of the stories resemble things that happened IRL. I was wondering about the doomer EPA guy. Did someone like that go on the news somewhere?


----------



## Robin (Dec 6, 2001)

TonyD79 said:


> Given the way things for for ACN, more likely they would accidentally put it on the air.


That's what I was waiting for.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

tlc said:


> Clearly some of the stories resemble things that happened IRL. I was wondering about the doomer EPA guy. Did someone like that go on the news somewhere?


No, the basis for that story was completely different...an NSA guy who was talking off-the-record to a journalist on the phone while commuting; somebody overheard him and live-tweeted his side of the conversation. He also said some pretty disparaging things about the Administration.

The EPA thing, I think, is just Sorkin expressing his annoyance at the way the media tends to false-balance the climate change issue.


----------



## astrohip (Jan 7, 2003)

DevdogAZ said:


> So AWM thinks they can raise $4 billion by selling off the division of their company that is not profitable (ACN)? Why is the BJ Novak character willing to pay $4B for an unprofitable division?


{total wild @ss guess}
I think maybe Mr. Richie Rich wants his own media company. I got the impression, with all these changes he's going to make, that he thinks he can turn around American's exposure and approach to news/media by running his own. With his own wacky ideas.

A 24 hour {insert celeb} channel!


----------



## aindik (Jan 23, 2002)

DevdogAZ said:


> So AWM thinks they can raise $4 billion by selling off the division of their company that is not profitable (ACN)? Why is the BJ Novak character willing to pay $4B for an unprofitable division?


Especially if it's a company that doesn't do the news the way he wants to do the news. Why not just start up his crowdsourced thing himself?


----------



## zalusky (Apr 5, 2002)

astrohip said:


> {total wild @ss guess}
> I think maybe Mr. Richie Rich wants his own media company. I got the impression, with all these changes he's going to make, that he thinks he can turn around American's exposure and approach to news/media by running his own. With his own wacky ideas.
> 
> A 24 hour {insert celeb} channel!


Reminds me when G4 bought TechTV. Maybe they just want the media channel and not the news stuff.


----------



## MikeAndrews (Jan 17, 2002)

zalusky said:


> Reminds me when G4 bought TechTV. Maybe they just want the media channel and not the news stuff.


COMCAST! Imagine the only thing that was holding back G4, the channel for Gamers, was market penetration - not at all that _gamers don't watch TV on their TVs._


----------



## aindik (Jan 23, 2002)

What we were talking about last night isn't protected. OK, let's get married today.

How dare you think I leaked something you told me! Did you? Yep.

So, Will doesn't really know the name of the source, does he? Neal gave him a fake name. When he tells the judge he "just can't" reveal the name of the source, he means it quite literally.


----------



## zalusky (Apr 5, 2002)

Does anybody know what the longest somebody has been locked in contempt jail for refusing to reveal information?


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

aindik said:


> So, Will doesn't really know the name of the source, does he? Neal gave him a fake name. When he tells the judge he "just can't" reveal the name of the source, he means it quite literally.


I don't think Neal ever told him anything. I think Will was just claiming he did to take the heat off of Neal and onto his untouchable self.

Oops!


----------



## MikeAndrews (Jan 17, 2002)

aindik said:


> What we were talking about last night isn't protected. OK, let's get married today.
> ...
> So, Will doesn't really know the name of the source, does he? Neal gave him a fake name. When he tells the judge he "just can't" reveal the name of the source, he means it quite literally.
> 
> ...


I took it that Wil knew that "he" was a "she."

What doesn't make any sense is that even Neal had no reason to know her real name. She could have stayed anonymous to him, too. And let's not go back to the MacGuffin that Neal needed a few more documents to prove she was legit and told her how to send them.



aindik said:


> How dare you think I leaked something you told me! Did you? Yep.


How many times in the last few weeks has Sorkin done the
"So meet so and so who says some kind of slam about so and so (or who I know some secret about)"
"You're that person, huh? (or I shouldn't know or shouldn't say)"
"Why didn't you tell me?!!!"



zalusky said:


> Does anybody know what the longest somebody has been locked in contempt jail for refusing to reveal information?


Judith Miller served 85 days until Scooter Libby allowed her to reveal his name. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judith_Miller


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

No, I think he really does know who it is.


----------



## madscientist (Nov 12, 2003)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> I don't think Neal ever told him anything. I think Will was just claiming he did to take the heat off of Neal and onto his untouchable self.


This is what I have thought from the beginning (after the second episode I asked if we'd ever actually seen Neal give Will any info). I still think so, although nothing is definitive yet.

My question is how Mac could get in touch with the leaker to arrange that meeting.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

That had to be the worst wedding setup and scene in the history of TV. Yeah, Sorkin just can't write romance, and the problem is, is that he writes in speeches, with little or no emotion. That doesn't play well for romantic scenes, (but plays really well for political scenes).

I think rich dude is going to gut ACN and rebuild it in his image, meaning the news staff will be gone. At least that's his plan. It ends one of two ways...

Charlie gets axed, the crew stands behind him and they get axed too

or 

Charlie gets axed the crew stands behind him and rich dude relents (for some contrived reason)


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

Jim was being a huge dick in this episode. I get his lamentations of the state of the media, and he doesn't have to be happy that his girlfriend is being part of the problem rather than the solution, but he needs to understand that she dug herself into a hole and doesn't really have the luxury of principles at that point. He should have been more supportive and held his nose and bit his tongue.

That being said, Hallie litigating their relationship in an online column was out of line as well.


----------



## Azlen (Nov 25, 2002)

busyba said:


> Jim was being a huge dick in this episode. I get his lamentations of the state of the media, and he doesn't have to be happy that his girlfriend is being part of the problem rather than the solution, but he needs to understand that she dug herself into a hole and doesn't really have the luxury of principles at that point. He should have been more supportive and held his nose and bit his tongue.
> 
> That being said, Hallie litigating their relationship in an online column was out of line as well.


But if Jim didn't do that, how else would Sorkin get his views on new media shoehorned into the story?


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

Sorkin sure hates new media, doesn't he?


----------



## aindik (Jan 23, 2002)

Azlen said:


> But if Jim didn't do that, how else would Sorkin get his views on new media shoehorned into the story?


He could have had Charlie scream about it.

Oh wait, he did.

I don't have a problem with the girlfriend working where she works. I have a problem with her reminding her editors of a statement made by Will a year ago because Jim reminded her of it (in addition to the problem I have with her litigating her fight with Jim in a column).


----------



## zalusky (Apr 5, 2002)

Sometimes people do things to create the future they want. In this case both Jim and Hallie wanted out and started doing things to destroy the relationship IMHO.


----------



## TAsunder (Aug 6, 2003)

That was a lot of pent up horse crap romance storylines in a season that was otherwise doing pretty well at avoiding horse crap.


----------



## MikeAndrews (Jan 17, 2002)

Steveknj said:


> Sorkin sure hates new media, doesn't he?


Sorkin is hammering the point that Twitter and YouTube ain't journalism, with the central story being the half dozen red herrings after the Boston bombings.


----------



## TAsunder (Aug 6, 2003)

His point seems to be that NOTHING is journalism pretty much. Lots of "legit" organizations go live with stories that haven't been properly vetted and confirmed as they should be.

I think there are very few publications or sites that are doing things in a way that even loosely resembles what Sorkin wants ACN to be shown doing.


----------



## Azlen (Nov 25, 2002)

TAsunder said:


> His point seems to be that NOTHING is journalism pretty much. Lots of "legit" organizations go live with stories that haven't been properly vetted and confirmed as they should be.
> 
> I think there are very few publications or sites that are doing things in a way that even loosely resembles what Sorkin wants ACN to be shown doing.


Sorkin's problem is that the world has changed and journalism had to change with it and he doesn't want it to. Rather than offering a solution for how things could work in an internet connected world where anyone can put up a video of an event on youtube and tweet about it in real time, he wants to glorify the old way of doing things. Journalism has changed both for good and for bad but he is taking something that is incredibly nuanced and giving it a very ham fisted approach.


----------



## MikeAndrews (Jan 17, 2002)

Azlen said:


> Sorkin's problem is that the world has changed and journalism had to change with it and he doesn't want it to. Rather than offering a solution for how things could work in an internet connected world where anyone can put up a video of an event on youtube and tweet about it in real time, he wants to glorify the old way of doing things. Journalism has changed both for good and for bad but he is taking something that is incredibly nuanced and giving it a very ham fisted approach.


Dunno why Sorkin can't figure out the prefect solution when teh news industry itself can't come up with it.

Print is on life support. News magazines are gone.


----------



## Ereth (Jun 16, 2000)

He gave that part to Jims girlfriend.

You aren't mad that crap journalism exists, you are mad that people like it more than what you think of as real journalism. Or something like that.

And that's a really good point. I miss journalism, too. I wish it would come back. And I hate crap journalism. I always have. But it's clearly where the money is, because the large masses DO like it.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

Ereth said:


> He gave that part to Jims girlfriend. You aren't mad that crap journalism exists, you are mad that people like it more than what you think of as real journalism. Or something like that. And that's a really good point. I miss journalism, too. I wish it would come back. And I hate crap journalism. I always have. But it's clearly where the money is, because the large masses DO like it.


I don't know if they like crap journalism. What they like is small digestible bits on the run. We are all so busy anymore (different problem) that we don't have time to sit and absorb.

The solution is closer to what the little prick wants to do. Lots of information distilled by experts who do take journalism seriously but feed it in a way that makes it digestible.

Twitter is not the problem. Crap on Twitter is. I have selected Twitter sources I find I trust for news, sports and entertainment. If they fail in being good sources, I drop them.


----------



## zordude (Sep 23, 2003)

TonyD79 said:


> We are all so busy anymore


Is this a regional use of "anymore"?


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

zordude said:


> Is this a regional use of "anymore"?


No. Just an iPhone typing.


----------



## Azlen (Nov 25, 2002)

TonyD79 said:


> I don't know if they like crap journalism. What they like is small digestible bits on the run. We are all so busy anymore (different problem) that we don't have time to sit and absorb.
> 
> The solution is closer to what the little prick wants to do. Lots of information distilled by experts who do take journalism seriously but feed it in a way that makes it digestible.
> 
> Twitter is not the problem. Crap on Twitter is. I have selected Twitter sources I find I trust for news, sports and entertainment. If they fail in being good sources, I drop them.


Pretty much this. You have to be selective as to how you digest new media. There's so much available that you have to be a lot more discerning than you were in the past because there's a lot more out there to choose from.


----------



## Ereth (Jun 16, 2000)

I would disagree. Facts are that the most successful news media in the country is also the one that consistently spreads disinformation and has the least informed viewers. 

I think people DO like crap. Everything else on TV also supports that. The rise of voyeurism-TV really talks to that.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

TonyD79 said:


> Twitter is not the problem. Crap on Twitter is. I have selected Twitter sources I find I trust for news, sports and entertainment. If they fail in being good sources, I drop them.


Agree with this. I follow lots of professional journalists on Twitter and I trust the things they post (when they're actually posting news). But I wouldn't expect some random citizen to provide trustworthy news coverage. I use Twitter primarily as a news source for subjects I'm interested in. I don't use it to follow people I actually know.


----------



## aindik (Jan 23, 2002)

zordude said:


> Is this a regional use of "anymore"?


Sounds like one that's pretty popular in the mid Atlantic.

Growing up in New York, I'd never year "anymore" following anything that wasn't a negative. "This show's not so great anymore."

Move 90 miles south, where I live now in Philadelphia, you hear things like "food is so expensive anymore."


----------



## MikeAndrews (Jan 17, 2002)

zordude said:


> Is this a regional use of "anymore"?


Anymore, people use "anymore" in a lot of ways.

The use of "anymore" like that was the subject one of the "Bob Greene discovers common knowledge" columns about 20 years ago.

Another one: "You may not have noticed, but a lot of people are driving "SUVs" - Sport Utility Vehicles."

Not any more. Bob Greene doesn't have a column anymore.


----------



## scooterboy (Mar 27, 2001)

I love regional U.S. English language usage differences. I find them fascinating. "Stand in/on line", "pop/soda", etc.

Years ago I hired a programmer from Minnesota, and one day he asked "I'm going to Home Depot at lunch - do you want to come with?"

I stood there for a few seconds, waiting for him to finish his question.


----------



## SoBelle0 (Jun 25, 2002)

That's one of my favorites. My freshman year of college I made a great friend who was from Chicago. I went home Christmas break and caught myself asking people if they wanted to 'come with.' All. The. Time. I still say it now and again... HA! 
She was saying y'all and there was another I can't recall - so we all got good laughs from the reactions from home.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

Azlen said:


> Pretty much this. You have to be selective as to how you digest new media. There's so much available that you have to be a lot more discerning than you were in the past because there's a lot more out there to choose from.


I think it's much more than this. The "legitimate" sources (the mainstream newsmedia...including Fox News, even though they pretend not to be), if they run snippets of news on twitter and other social media based on what THEY think is news. If this is all you're reading, you have little or none of the whole story and are missing out on much of the real news that used be covered by newspapers and magazines. And of course, tweets and such from less than legitimate sources are just that. People who rely on tweets and other social media for their news, often tend to think that ANY source is legitimate.


----------



## Azlen (Nov 25, 2002)

Steveknj said:


> I think it's much more than this. The "legitimate" sources (the mainstream newsmedia...including Fox News, even though they pretend not to be), if they run snippets of news on twitter and other social media based on what THEY think is news. If this is all you're reading, you have little or none of the whole story and are missing out on much of the real news that used be covered by newspapers and magazines. And of course, tweets and such from less than legitimate sources are just that. People who rely on tweets and other social media for their news, often tend to think that ANY source is legitimate.


Most of the time "legitimate" news organizations are putting up links to longer articles on their home pages rather than just putting short snippets on twitter. 
Less legitimate sources typically do the same thing as they don't get ad revenue if you are just reading what you see on twitter. Thus is born what is known as clickbait.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

Azlen said:


> Most of the time "legitimate" news organizations are putting up links to longer articles on their home pages rather than just putting short snippets on twitter.
> Less legitimate sources typically do the same thing as they don't get ad revenue if you are just reading what you see on twitter. Thus is born what is known as clickbait.


Agreed, but we are talking about social media substituting for news. The quick 112 character twit or whatever it is now becoming a huge source of news.


----------



## Azlen (Nov 25, 2002)

Steveknj said:


> Agreed, but we are talking about social media substituting for news. The quick 112 character twit or whatever it is now becoming a huge source of news.


I think it is much more prevalent in that way when you are referring to news as it happens. Less so with after the fact reporting.

For example on the Eric Garner case. Numerous new sources tweeted out that there would be no indictment in the case right when it was announced. They will then follow up with stories on their home pages with reactions, quotes etc.


----------



## frombhto323 (Jan 24, 2002)

Ereth said:


> He gave that part to Jims girlfriend.
> 
> You aren't mad that crap journalism exists, you are mad that people like it more than what you think of as real journalism. Or something like that.
> 
> And that's a really good point. I miss journalism, too. I wish it would come back. And I hate crap journalism. I always have*. But it's clearly where the money is, because the large masses DO like it*.


I think Sorkin's point is that there is an entire generation that grew up with social media that haven't been given a real option to "like" traditional journalism, let alone choose it over "new media." From the character Charlie's standpoint, if no one will fight for real journalistic values, then we will all sorely miss real journalism if it is not saved. As always, Sorkin is a bit preachy with it, but within the ranks of real journalists, the prevailing view is that alarms should have been sounded years ago. Just look at the way David Simon approached this subject in the last season of The Wire. He was perhaps a bit more subtle, but no less alarmist.


----------



## Ereth (Jun 16, 2000)

For that matter, you could just watch "Network". 

Depressingly enough, watching "Network" today finds the audience puzzled as to what Howard Beale is "mad as hell" about. The things he complains about are all commonplace now, and the new "normal".


----------



## Dawghows (May 17, 2001)

frombhto323 said:


> I think Sorkin's point is that there is an entire generation that grew up with social media that haven't been given a real option to "like" traditional journalism, let alone choose it over "new media."


Sure they've been given the choice. Real news sources still exist, and the vast majority of them are available via all the major social media outlets, just as the "new media" are. The choice is there; people just aren't choosing wisely.


----------



## MikeAndrews (Jan 17, 2002)

You just need the right New Media Journalism training, Aaron:
https://learn.fullsail.edu/nmjma_1a...=NMJMA_1A: Reporting for the Digital Age NFHC


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

Dawghows said:


> Sure they've been given the choice. Real news sources still exist, and the vast majority of them are available via all the major social media outlets, just as the "new media" are. *The choice is there; people just aren't choosing wisely.*


And that's the problem. When you get fed junk news as a rule, you start to believe it and have a tough time distinguishing between the two.

It was/is that way with traditional print media. Think NY Times vs. NY Post. But it's MUCH more prevalent and harder to distinguish in the new media.


----------



## Dawghows (May 17, 2001)

Steveknj said:


> And that's the problem. When you get fed junk news as a rule, you start to believe it and have a tough time distinguishing between the two.
> 
> It was/is that way with traditional print media. Think NY Times vs. NY Post. But it's MUCH more prevalent and harder to distinguish in the new media.


Well, I agree that there's more junk out there now than ever before, but I don't think that makes it harder to distinguish between junk and real news. I wish I did think that, but unfortunately I believe Ereth is right. People simply _prefer_ sensationalism, innuendo, and celebrity gossip over hard news about important issues. If people really wanted hard news, you can bet media companies would be tripping over themselves trying to provide it.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

With print media (newspapers), they never had a good way to tell what people were reading once they bought the paper. They could tell themselves that readers wanted the hard news when maybe the people were subscribing to the paper for coupons and sports and obits. 

Now with online media, they can see exactly what stories and links and headlines generate the most clicks, and so we're now seeing them chase the money because the data is clearly telling them that readers prefer the junk and don't care nearly as much for the long-form hard news stories.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

DevdogAZ said:


> With print media (newspapers), they never had a good way to tell what people were reading once they bought the paper. They could tell themselves that readers wanted the hard news when maybe the people were subscribing to the paper for coupons and sports and obits.
> 
> Now with online media, they can see exactly what stories and links and headlines generate the most clicks, and so we're now seeing them chase the money because the data is clearly telling them that readers prefer the junk and don't care nearly as much for the long-form hard news stories.


Our elections reflect this. People just don't care. That's why we have terrible turnouts for midterm elections and even around 50% for Presidential elections.

One of the things that lead to the fall of Rome was apathy. Is that where we are heading now?

Anyway, 2 episodes left, lets see where this goes.


----------



## Dawghows (May 17, 2001)

Steveknj said:


> One of the things that lead to the fall of Rome was apathy. Is that where we are heading now?


Meh... who cares?


----------



## Ereth (Jun 16, 2000)

Steveknj said:


> One of the things that lead to the fall of Rome was apathy. Is that where we are heading now?


We are already past the turning point. The more interesting point (to me) will be when people start to notice, and who will they blame at that point? I think we may be another couple of decades out for that.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

Ereth said:


> We are already past the turning point. The more interesting point (to me) will be when people start to notice, and who will they blame at that point? I think we may be another couple of decades out for that.


People have noticed...they just don't care 

Seriously, we've got it too good and people just want to live their own lives. Until a real crisis hits (on the level of WW II or worse) and people have to sacrifice, nobody will ever care and the only things we'll worry about is that we don't have enough space on our TiVO


----------



## MikeAndrews (Jan 17, 2002)

For the first time, ever, I worked on campaign for our sitting house rep. I sat next to the folks making phone calls.

It occurred to me that those who say they will not vote achieve perfection - they can ALWAYS b*tch that it (he/she) is not going the way they want.

Hey, I got to talk to member of congress several times!

He lost reelection.


----------



## smak (Feb 11, 2000)

Steveknj said:


> That had to be the worst wedding setup and scene in the history of TV. Yeah, Sorkin just can't write romance, and the problem is, is that he writes in speeches, with little or no emotion. That doesn't play well for romantic scenes, (but plays really well for political scenes).


They're also one of the worst TV couples ever, so that doesn't help.

-smak-


----------



## smak (Feb 11, 2000)

Dawghows said:


> Sure they've been given the choice. Real news sources still exist, and the vast majority of them are available via all the major social media outlets, just as the "new media" are. The choice is there; people just aren't choosing wisely.


You can follow all the major news networks and outlets on twitter and Facebook, and know everything that happens in the news, and the weekly magazines, and the daily newspapers, and even the nightly one hour news show would still be dinosaurs.

And it's not because I'm receiving news from crappy places, I'm still getting the info from the exact same places, it's just almost in real time.

The old school news media outlets aren't dinosaurs because they're being replaced by crap, they're being replaced by themselves in different form.

-smak-


----------



## Ereth (Jun 16, 2000)

smak said:


> You can follow all the major news networks and outlets on twitter and Facebook, and know everything that happens in the news, and the weekly magazines, and the daily newspapers, and even the nightly one hour news show would still be dinosaurs.
> 
> And it's not because I'm receiving news from crappy places, I'm still getting the info from the exact same places, it's just almost in real time.
> 
> ...


Except it's not. The whole point is that you can't possibly vet your facts in real time. If you are publishing the instant you learn something, you are, by definition, not doing journalism.

A guy on a street corner tweeting "Police Car just went by. don't know why" is not a journalist.

There was a news story not that long ago that Buddy Hacket was dead. He wound up going on the air to prove he wasn't dead. Clearly they didn't even try to vet that story. THAT's what's wrong with the "new" news. They don't care if they are right, as long as they are first. Retractions belong on page 17, and nobody will ever see them.


----------



## frombhto323 (Jan 24, 2002)

smak said:


> You can follow all the major news networks and outlets on twitter and Facebook, and know everything that happens in the news, and the weekly magazines, and the daily newspapers, and even the nightly one hour news show would still be dinosaurs.
> 
> *And it's not because I'm receiving news from crappy places, I'm still getting the info from the exact same places, it's just almost in real time.
> 
> ...


This is the point was attempting to make in earlier posts. I think it is becoming more difficult to distinguish legitimate from junk because those who should be more professional are diluting their standards for the short-term bottom line.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

Agree with last two posts. It is all getting diluted by the rush for clicks and followers. It was cnn that messed up on the Boston bombings, not some schmo in the street but they were competing with the schmos to get out quickly and get clicks. Vetting is gone. And because social media gives equal voice to nonsense (people on social media not caring if it is true because it is a "nice story"), we all lose real information. Disinformation and bad information hurts even good information because it casts doubt on it all.


----------



## frombhto323 (Jan 24, 2002)

TonyD79 said:


> Agree with last two posts. It is all getting diluted by the rush for clicks and followers. It was cnn that messed up on the Boston bombings, not some schmo in the street but they were competing with the schmos to get out quickly and get clicks. Vetting is gone. And because social media gives equal voice to nonsense (people on social media not caring if it is true because it is a "nice story"), we all lose real information. *Disinformation and bad information hurts even good information because it casts doubt on it all*.


Well said, and that is the real danger with all of this.


----------



## Ereth (Jun 16, 2000)

TonyD79 said:


> Agree with last two posts. It is all getting diluted by the rush for clicks and followers. It was cnn that messed up on the Boston bombings, not some schmo in the street but they were competing with the schmos to get out quickly and get clicks. Vetting is gone. And because social media gives equal voice to nonsense (people on social media not caring if it is true because it is a "nice story"), we all lose real information. Disinformation and bad information hurts even good information because it casts doubt on it all.


I confronted my nephew once about something he posted that he knew wasn't true, but it was "a nice sentiment". He didn't care that it wasn't true, he agreed with how the fake story made him feel.

Truth wasn't important at all. Facts don't matter. I was aghast but couldn't figure out how to argue against that.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Ereth said:


> I confronted my nephew once about something he posted that he knew wasn't true, but it was "a nice sentiment". He didn't care that it wasn't true, he agreed with how the fake story made him feel.
> 
> Truth wasn't important at all. Facts don't matter. I was aghast but couldn't figure out how to argue against that.


The first time I encountered that attitude (albeit at a distance) was in the aftermath of the Tawana Brawley hoax. It blew me away that people continued to support her after it was proven she had lied, because her lie fit their agenda.


----------



## NorthAlabama (Apr 19, 2012)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> The first time I encountered that attitude (albeit at a distance) was in the aftermath of the Tawana Brawley hoax. It blew me away that people continued to support her after it was proven she had lied, because her lie fit their agenda.


kind of like false news stories on certain 24-hour cable channels - it doesn't matter they're fake, so no retractions, just as long as they follow the desired agenda.


----------



## cherry ghost (Sep 13, 2005)

Sort of a similar situation at The New Republic

Shakeup at The New Republic: Foer, Wieseltier out; mag moves to N.Y.

Mass Resignations at TNR Follow Departures of Foer, Wieseltier


----------



## Azlen (Nov 25, 2002)

This to me is the worst type of web news story. The pundit pulls up a few people's thoughts on twitter and thinks it's something worth publishing.

http://www.bizpacreview.com/2014/12...christmas-because-racism-163381#ixzz3L4hNWNIk


----------



## Gunnyman (Jul 10, 2003)

NOOOOOOOOO!
RIP Charlie.

Great episode tonight. Is it me or did Will's dad look like his cellmate?


----------



## Squeak (May 12, 2000)

Gunnyman said:


> NOOOOOOOOO! RIP Charlie. Great episode tonight. Is it me or did Will's dad look like his cellmate?


There was no cell mate. He was in solitary.

That was his manifestation of his Dad.

Or am I being zoomed?


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Squeak said:


> There was no cell mate. He was in solitary.
> 
> That was his manifestation of his Dad.
> 
> Or am I being zoomed?


No, you're exactly right.

Which explains why the "****kicker" was so articulate even for Sorkin, which bugged me at the time.

One interesting thing...the rape victim looked familiar, so I looked her up. And it turns out I've never seen her before...but she's Kiefer Sutherland's daughter.


----------



## Squeak (May 12, 2000)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> No, you're exactly right. Which explains why the "****kicker" was so articulate even for Sorkin, which bugged me at the time. One interesting thing...the rape victim looked familiar, so I looked her up. And it turns out I've never seen her before...but she's Kiefer Sutherland's daughter.


Also plays the daughter on Veep


----------



## Ereth (Jun 16, 2000)

Squeak said:


> There was no cell mate. He was in solitary.
> 
> That was his manifestation of his Dad.
> 
> Or am I being zoomed?


Wow, I did not get that at all.


----------



## Jesda (Feb 12, 2005)

Fantastic season. Less in-your-face preachiness, more storytelling.


----------



## smak (Feb 11, 2000)

And some very lucky timely stuff, even though they are 18 months behind.

And stuff that was probably easy to figure out would happen (TNR type blowup), but very smart in doing it.

-smak-


----------



## Gunnyman (Jul 10, 2003)

Squeak said:


> There was no cell mate. He was in solitary.
> 
> That was his manifestation of his Dad.
> 
> Or am I being zoomed?


Holy crap. Yeah you're absolutely right.


----------



## Cainebj (Nov 11, 2006)

Squeak said:


> There was no cell mate. He was in solitary.
> 
> That was his manifestation of his Dad.


wow. i totally did not get that either !!!


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Ereth said:


> Wow, I did not get that at all.





Gunnyman said:


> Holy crap. Yeah you're absolutely right.





Cainebj said:


> wow. i totally did not get that either !!!


I was impressed that they were so subtle about it. Maybe that was a mistake...


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

Ereth said:


> Wow, I did not get that at all.


Me either, but it makes sense when I think about it.


----------



## goblue97 (May 12, 2005)

Squeak said:


> There was no cell mate. He was in solitary.
> 
> That was his manifestation of his Dad.
> 
> Or am I being zoomed?


It was a total a-ha moment for me when they showed the untouched bedroll at the end of the scene. I even said "Well done" out loud even though I was watching by myself.


----------



## debtoine (May 17, 2001)

Great season indeed, and great episode. It did take me until the final scene in his cell with the untouched bed to realize what it was all about.

And, RIP Charlie.

T


----------



## Squeak (May 12, 2000)

goblue97 said:


> It was a total a-ha moment for me when they showed the untouched bedroll at the end of the scene. I even said "Well done" out loud even though I was watching by myself.


Same here. The bedroll was the trigger for me.


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

Between Will, President Bartlet, and Casey McCall, Aaron Sorkin has got some seriously unresolved daddy issues.


----------



## dswallow (Dec 3, 2000)

Squeak said:


> Same here. The bedroll was the trigger for me.


Ditto.

Awesome season. Awesome show.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

goblue97 said:


> It was a total a-ha moment for me when they showed the untouched bedroll at the end of the scene. I even said "Well done" out loud even though I was watching by myself.





Squeak said:


> Same here. The bedroll was the trigger for me.


Same here.

And I think his increasing level of sophistication as his scenes progressed was a neat touch, too...at first, he was plausible as a relatively uneducated working-class type, but he got more and more eloquent as the episode progressed until I was rolling my eyes at his sophisticated rhetoric. And then it turns out it wasn't the writer being lazy, it was just Will's imagination getting lazier as his incarceration dragged on.


----------



## kaszeta (Jun 11, 2004)

Ereth said:


> Wow, I did not get that at all.


I didn't get it until I was thinking about it 30 minutes after the show. Between the cellmate's bedroll, and him knowing things he shouldn't, that clinched it.

Regarding Charlie, I actually said to myself, "The way he's yelling, I bet he has a heart attack."


----------



## TAsunder (Aug 6, 2003)

I thought it was a bad episode. The Will in prison stuff was ok, I liked the celeb stalker and college sexual assault storylines, but I don't understand what they are doing with most of the rest of the stories. Was this season unexpectedly cut short? Why did they gloss over the AP coverage of their leak story? 

I don't understand why they bothered to mention Snowden at all. It seemed really strange that they would have this plot with a Snowden-esque leak, talk about that a little bit, then turn the Snowden story itself into a MacGuffin for more painfully moronic romance horse crap between Jim and Maggie? Do people actually care about them as a couple?


----------



## aindik (Jan 23, 2002)

So, Leona put in Pruitt's contract that only Charlie can fire anyone from the news division, and now Charlie is dead.

Seemed like either the app guy or Pruitt would have figured out what Sloan was going to do before she did it. Did he really think she just had a change of heart just standing there talking to him? She's a likely person to be stalked on that app, isn't she?


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

I kept thinking to myself this is going to end with Charlie dead. So, does it end with them all quitting/getting fired or with the new owner selling?


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

TAsunder said:


> I thought it was a bad episode. The Will in prison stuff was ok, I liked the celeb stalker and college sexual assault storylines, but I don't understand what they are doing with most of the rest of the stories. Was this season unexpectedly cut short? Why did they gloss over the AP coverage of their leak story?


It wasn't cut short...they've given Sorkin the number of episodes he wants (10 the first season, 9 the second, 6 this season). So for better or worse, what's happening is happening the way Sorkin wanted it to.


----------



## aindik (Jan 23, 2002)

I agree, though, that it's written in a way that makes it appear that he didn't know before he started writing that he only has 6 episodes.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

It will be interesting to see if the final episode pulls things together in a way that makes sense, or if he really was just throwing stuff out there for the hell of it...

E.g., at this point it looks like Snowden was simply an excuse to get Jim and Maggie alone together for a couple of days, which as pointed out above is an odd choice considering the Lily Hart story which in general replaces Snowden. But maybe there's a reason for that which we haven't seen yet?


----------



## NorthAlabama (Apr 19, 2012)

Gunnyman said:


> NOOOOOOOOO!
> RIP Charlie.


not surprising someone died towards the end, my money was on leona, sad it was charlie.


Gunnyman said:


> Is it me or did Will's dad look like his cellmate?





goblue97 said:


> It was a total a-ha moment for me when they showed the untouched bedroll at the end of the scene. I even said "Well done" out loud even though I was watching by myself.


the first clue was the reference to wil's dad being alcoholic, i had a flashback to wil's therapy, and wondered how it was deduced from such a brief encounter. then, when they showed the photo, i put it together, and the bedroll confirmed it.

i never saw it coming, great twist. thier dialog was some of the eps funniest moments.


----------



## Azlen (Nov 25, 2002)

I wonder if he is going to be able to squeeze in any commentary on the CNN coverage of the missing Malaysia flight.

On this episode, I really do think Sorkin handled the rape story quite poorly. I am just uneasy with saying that morality tells us that we should always believe the denials of the accused even if they are less credible than the accuser. It's nowhere near as clear cut as that. It's just another thing that furthers the argument that Sorkin has a real issue with women.


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

When the cellmate asked about the source, I started to get suspicious. I figured he was a planted informant trying to sneakily get the name of the source from Will. 

When he started in with the Quixote stuff and his speech started getting more refined, I figured he was a professional interrogator who was planted undercover trying to sneakily get the name of the source from Will. 

When they showed the picture of the father, I figured it out.

When they showed the bedroll, I was like, "yeah, I got it already, thanks for the anvil."


----------



## Ereth (Jun 16, 2000)

Well, I must be oblivious then. I didn't think the picture on the wall looked like the guy at all, I was trying to see if it was Jeff Daniels in makeup. And when I saw the other bedroll in shrink wrap I just assumed the other guy had left before Jeff Daniels did.

The guard did make a point of saying which bunk was Jeffs, which is odd if he was going to be there alone the whole time.


----------



## aindik (Jan 23, 2002)

Ereth said:


> Well, I must be oblivious then. I didn't think the picture on the wall looked like the guy at all, I was trying to see if it was Jeff Daniels in makeup. And when I saw the other bedroll in shrink wrap I just assumed the other guy had left before Jeff Daniels did.
> 
> The guard did make a point of saying which bunk was Jeffs, which is odd if he was going to be there alone the whole time.


Same here. I totally didn't get it either.


----------



## NorthAlabama (Apr 19, 2012)

Ereth said:


> Well, I must be oblivious then. I didn't think the picture on the wall looked like the guy at all...




aindik said:


> Same here. I totally didn't get it either.


the actor is kevin rankin, here's a side by side from the newsroom ep 5, cellmate vs cellpic:










he was the rev. in gracepoint, and in 7 eps of breaking bad:


----------



## Ereth (Jun 16, 2000)

I believe you. I just didn't see it when I was watching is all I meant.


----------



## The Spud (Aug 28, 2002)

Steveknj said:


> I kept thinking to myself this is going to end with Charlie dead. So, does it end with them all quitting/getting fired or with the new owner selling?


Is it OK to speculate that they



Spoiler



Fire everyone and hire Ted Baxter?





Not really a spoiler, but you never know, someone might think this spoils another show.


----------



## NorthAlabama (Apr 19, 2012)

Ereth said:


> I believe you. I just didn't see it when I was watching is all I meant.


i understand, wasn't trying to hammer you, checking for me, too.  looking at his imdb page, found his résumé interesting, i hadn't recognized him from gp or bb.


----------



## aindik (Jan 23, 2002)

I saw the resemblance but didn't think it was the same guy.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

Ereth said:


> Well, I must be oblivious then. I didn't think the picture on the wall looked like the guy at all, I was trying to see if it was Jeff Daniels in makeup. And when I saw the other bedroll in shrink wrap I just assumed the other guy had left before Jeff Daniels did.
> 
> The guard did make a point of saying which bunk was Jeffs, which is odd if he was going to be there alone the whole time.


Don't feel bad, the reviewer in the NYT missed it too:

http://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/2...latest-victim-of-twitter/?partner=rss&emc=rss


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

The Spud said:


> Is it OK to speculate that they
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Funny, but that's the first thing that occurred to me as soon as their was new ownership who wanted to take the network in a different direction.


----------



## Cainebj (Nov 11, 2006)

goblue97 said:


> It was a total a-ha moment for me when they showed the untouched bedroll at the end of the scene.


I thought the other guy got out before him and they were making a commentary that a domestic violence abuser got released first. D'oh!



kaszeta said:


> Regarding Charlie, I actually said to myself, "The way he's yelling, I bet he has a heart attack."


I actually did too and then I jumped up when his head hit the desk. Saw it coming and then was shocked when it did.



Rob Helmerichs said:


> Snowden was simply an excuse to get Jim and Maggie alone


I think the Jim and Maggie storyline is what ruined season 2. I could have done with out them being alone for a large section of this episode.


----------



## SoBelle0 (Jun 25, 2002)

Oh Charlie, what will they do without you? And that song makes me tear up every time!

At the end, after the previews, there was a screen with



Spoiler



Final Episode - just that on a black screen - is there no more? 3 seasons? That's not enough! Or did they just mean season finale?

I spoiled in case people didn't watch the preview part.


----------



## aindik (Jan 23, 2002)

No need to spoil. The Season 3 finale is the Series Finale.


----------



## SoBelle0 (Jun 25, 2002)




----------



## Peter000 (Apr 15, 2002)

Azlen said:


> On this episode, I really do think Sorkin handled the rape story quite poorly. I am just uneasy with saying that morality tells us that we should always believe the denials of the accused even if they are less credible than the accuser. It's nowhere near as clear cut as that. It's just another thing that furthers the argument that Sorkin has a real issue with women.


The critics are in an uproar over that storyline.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/09/a...-over-rape-plot.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&_r=0

ETA: A bunch of critics quotes

http://www.vulture.com/2014/12/newsroom-campus-rape-plotline-criticism.html


----------



## tlc (May 30, 2002)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> No, you're exactly right.
> 
> Which explains why the "****kicker" was so articulate even for Sorkin, which bugged me at the time.


I pegged him as imaginary early on, because he was too articulate and knew stuff. But I didn't know it was his dad until the picture.

I almost wonder if the series will end with the network falling apart, everybody fired and moving on.


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

Azlen said:


> On this episode, I really do think Sorkin handled the rape story quite poorly. I am just uneasy with saying that morality tells us that we should always believe the denials of the accused even if they are less credible than the accuser. It's nowhere near as clear cut as that. It's just another thing that furthers the argument that Sorkin has a real issue with women.


Legally, though, it _is_ that clear cut. Innocent until *proven* guilty.

From a journalistic standpoint, I agree that morally it is not so clear. But even so, there should be _some_ standard of proof for good journalism. It should not just be a case of saying, well, the accused seems less credible than the accuser, so we will go with the story that the accused is _likely_ guilty.

Having standards of proof like this is certainly frustrating to victims who are unable to see justice done because there is no solid evidence of the truth of their accusation. But if we want to have a system based on evidence and proof rather than speculation and supposition, then that is the price that must sometimes be paid.


----------



## TAsunder (Aug 6, 2003)

At least they did something more interesting -- if dubious -- than they did with the Snowden story. Again, I must complain about how they have handled one of the biggest and morally ambiguous stories in many years.


----------



## madscientist (Nov 12, 2003)

I think the problem here is the word "morally". It's not clear (to me) what Don really meant by that. If he'd said "legally" then that's clear. If he'd said "journalistically" (e.g., as a journalist what we report needs to be non-partisan and not skewed by personal feelings) then that's clear as well.

But when he says he's "morally" obligated to believe the guy, that doesn't sound right. "Morally" we can make a judgement about who is lying and who is telling the truth, even without proof, and I see no obligation morally to believe someone that we think is lying, just because the case against them wouldn't hold up in a court of law.

I do believe we have a moral obligation to reserve judgement until we have a reasonable way to judge. So for example, I think that morally we are obligated to not condemn people based on accusations posted (anonymously or not) to a web site for outing alleged rapists.

But in this case, Don had interviewed both people. There's nothing morally wrong with him, himself, deciding that the guy probably raped her. It would journalistically wrong of him to go on air and state that decision as a fact: he would need to present both sides fairly and let the viewer decide.

So I really don't understand what that sentence was supposed to mean at all.

On the other hand, I think the rest of the conversation was interesting and useful, so I'm hesitant to throw out the entire episode on the strength of one confusing sentence, even if it also seemed very insulting.


----------



## Shaunnick (Jul 2, 2005)

busyba said:


> When the cellmate asked about the source, I started to get suspicious. I figured he was a planted informant trying to sneakily get the name of the source from Will.
> 
> When he started in with the Quixote stuff and his speech started getting more refined, I figured he was a professional interrogator who was planted undercover trying to sneakily get the name of the source from Will.
> 
> ...


I followed this same line of reasoning, except when the cellmate asked about Will's mission to civilize. For some reason, having been a fan of the West Wing, I had a flashback to Bartlett's chat with the dead Mrs. Landingham. Somehow it just clicked. Why would an FBI agent (which is who I thought it was) ask that. Then I just knew it had to be in Will's head (50 days of solitary confinement, alone with his thoughts, worry over everyone around him). I patted myself on the back when they did the reveal of the bedroll. One of the few times I actually picked up on the little clues while watching a show.


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

Speaking of repeated themes.... Jim/Maggie/Hallie is pretty much just warmed over Casey/Dana/Sally, right? Complete with the "He doesn't really like me" from Hallie/Sally.


----------



## Shaunnick (Jul 2, 2005)

busyba said:


> Speaking of repeated themes.... Jim/Maggie/Hallie is pretty much just warmed over Casey/Dana/Sally, right? Complete with the "He doesn't really like me" from Hallie/Sally.


Yes. Sorkin does like to re use his own material. I have noticed it with American President, Sports Night, Studio 60, and the West Wing.


----------



## Gunnyman (Jul 10, 2003)

I'm just glad I'm not the only one who didn't notice it was all in Will's head. 
After this week's episode I'm kind of sad it all ends this Sunday.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

madscientist said:


> I think the problem here is the word "morally". It's not clear (to me) what Don really meant by that. If he'd said "legally" then that's clear. If he'd said "journalistically" (e.g., as a journalist what we report needs to be non-partisan and not skewed by personal feelings) then that's clear as well.
> 
> But when he says he's "morally" obligated to believe the guy, that doesn't sound right. "Morally" we can make a judgement about who is lying and who is telling the truth, even without proof, and I see no obligation morally to believe someone that we think is lying, just because the case against them wouldn't hold up in a court of law.


I think what's being missed is that for a journalist, what's journalistically correct and what's ethically correct are synonymous with morally correct. What's moral for a random person off the street is different than what's moral for a trained reporter. The reporter has to look at things from both perspectives, weigh whether or not there is corroborating evidence, figure out if the story can be vetted. And if not, the morally correct thing to do is not run the story, even if that's counter to the reporter's personal opinion.

That's the whole theme of this season. Will is maintaining journalistic integrity by not giving up the source, even when he no longer had anything to protect. The staff in the newsroom is railing against citizen journalism because it's unprofessional, unvetted, often untrue, and potentially dangerous. Don's speech in the dorm room was the same theme. I'm just not sure what Jim and Maggie making out on an airplane has to do with any of it.


----------



## Gerryex (Apr 24, 2004)

WOW!!! I totally did NOT get it that the cell mate was Will's father. However I did note that when Will was taking down his photos one of them definitely looked like the cell mate. And then the other bunk with the bedroll on it seemed strange. But all I could think of was: where's the cell mate. Until I read this thread I had no idea the cell mate was Will's imagination of his father.

And yeah Sorkin's handling of man-woman interactions is HORRIBLE!! But ignoring that this final season has been very good!!

Gerry


----------



## Robin (Dec 6, 2001)

It's not just his handling of male/female relationships. It's his writing for women on the whole.

(But I still love his shows.)


----------



## madscientist (Nov 12, 2003)

DevdogAZ said:


> I think what's being missed is that for a journalist, what's journalistically correct and what's ethically correct are synonymous with morally correct. What's moral for a random person off the street is different than what's moral for a trained reporter. The reporter has to look at things from both perspectives, weigh whether or not there is corroborating evidence, figure out if the story can be vetted. And if not, the morally correct thing to do is not run the story, even if that's counter to the reporter's personal opinion.
> 
> That's the whole theme of this season. Will is maintaining journalistic integrity by not giving up the source, even when he no longer had anything to protect. The staff in the newsroom is railing against citizen journalism because it's unprofessional, unvetted, often untrue, and potentially dangerous. Don's speech in the dorm room was the same theme. I'm just not sure what Jim and Maggie making out on an airplane has to do with any of it.


If Don is saying that morally he shouldn't run the story, then I completely agree with that and I guess the dialog was just not clearly written. The victim asks Don his _personal_ opinion and he says he's morally obligated to believe the guy... that's very different.

I don't really agree that journalists must forgo having any difference in their personal opinion and their journalistic/ethical opinion. That's simply too high a bar. It's quite possible, and in fact required, for journalists to be able to separate their personal beliefs from their journalistic and ethical beliefs. I totally get that journalistically and ethically Don can't run a story where he isn't impartial but that doesn't mean he can't have a different opinion personally.

Even Will, when talking to the judge, states that personally he actually agrees with the prosecutor ... but he still doesn't give up his source.

That's why I don't like this wording: what does Don mean by "morally"? Does he mean legally? Ethically? Journalistically? Personally? Any one of those words would make his meaning more clear. Using "morally", on its face, causes me to disagree with him (and Sorkin)--I don't think it's morally problematic for anyone, even a journalist, to have a personal opinion, especially once they've heard the different sides of the argument.


----------



## Peter000 (Apr 15, 2002)

madscientist said:


> If Don is saying that morally he shouldn't run the story, then I completely agree with that and I guess the dialog was just not clearly written. The victim asks Don his _personal_ opinion and he says he's morally obligated to believe the guy... that's very different.
> 
> I don't really agree that journalists must forgo having any difference in their personal opinion and their journalistic/ethical opinion. That's simply too high a bar. It's quite possible, and in fact required, for journalists to be able to separate their personal beliefs from their journalistic and ethical beliefs. I totally get that journalistically and ethically Don can't run a story where he isn't impartial but that doesn't mean he can't have a different opinion personally.
> 
> ...


IIRC, Don was talking more about the revenge website the victim set up naming her rapist, and enabling others to do the same. His argument was that there'll surely be false accusations of guys because the girl wants revenge for something else. Her response was that doesn't matter, as long as the accusers get some kind of justice against real rapists. So he was morally obligated to believe all the accused, to protect the falsely accused.


----------



## madscientist (Nov 12, 2003)

Peter000 said:


> IIRC, Don was talking more about the revenge website the victim set up naming her rapist, and enabling others to do the same. His argument was that there'll surely be false accusations of guys because the girl wants revenge for something else. Her response was that doesn't matter, as long as the accusers get some kind of justice against real rapists. So he was morally obligated to believe all the accused, to protect the falsely accused.


Well, I don't think you are morally obligated to believe all the accused. I do think you shouldn't judge someone based on something someone else posts on a website without any investigation or rebuttal. Here Don had done investigation and talked to both people involved so it's ok (morally) for him to have a personal opinion on who was telling the truth. I didn't think they were talking about the website at that point. Here's the transcript:

Mary: Do you believe me?
Don: Do I believe you? Of course I do.
Mary: Seriously.
Don: I'm not here on a fact-finding mission.
Mary: I'm just curious.
Be really honest.
Don: Okay.
I've heard two competing stories.
One from a very credible woman who as far as I can see has no reason to lie.
The other from a guy I judge to be a little sketchy who has every reason to lie and I am I'm obligated to believe the sketchy guy.
Mary: This isn't a courtroom.
You're not legally obligated to presume innocence.
Don: I believe I'm morally obligated.

I read it like she's asking him what he believes about her case, where he's talked to both parties, and that's what he's responding to.


----------



## Peter000 (Apr 15, 2002)

Okay, I phrased it wrong. Substitute "presume the accused innocent" for "believe the accused."


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Peter000 said:


> Okay, I phrased it wrong. Substitute "presume the accused innocent" for "believe the accused."


And in context, I think his point wasn't "I have to believe the accused", but rather "better the guilty go free than the innocent be punished."

But if that was his point (and I'm pretty sure it was), it was VERY clumsily made.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Based or re-reading the quote, I think Don is saying that because our American system of justice presumes innocence until proven guilty in a court of law, and because he believes in the morality of that system, therefore he is morally obligated to presume the accused innocent, even if he believes her story.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

Peter000 said:


> IIRC, Don was talking more about the revenge website the victim set up naming her rapist, and enabling others to do the same. His argument was that there'll surely be false accusations of guys because the girl wants revenge for something else. Her response was that doesn't matter, as long as the accusers get some kind of justice against real rapists. So he was morally obligated to believe all the accused, to protect the falsely accused.


This is how I saw it. It's not so much that the accused, if guilty should get justice, but the way the victim is going about seeking revenge is going to lead to probably as many false accusations than real ones and destroy lives undeservedly, which in some ways is as bad as if they actually raped someone.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

madscientist said:


> If Don is saying that morally he shouldn't run the story, then I completely agree with that and I guess the dialog was just not clearly written. The victim asks Don his personal opinion and he says he's morally obligated to believe the guy... that's very different.
> 
> I don't really agree that journalists must forgo having any difference in their personal opinion and their journalistic/ethical opinion. That's simply too high a bar. It's quite possible, and in fact required, for journalists to be able to separate their personal beliefs from their journalistic and ethical beliefs. I totally get that journalistically and ethically Don can't run a story where he isn't impartial but that doesn't mean he can't have a different opinion personally.
> 
> ...


You posted this as a reply to me, but I just wanted to be clear that I never said journalists aren't allowed to have personal opinions. What I said is that journalists often have to make journalistic decisions that run counter to their personal opinions.

I think in this case, Don knows the girl is telling the truth, and so his personal opinion is that she was raped. But from a professional standpoint, there's not enough verifiable evidence to corroborate her story, and so he's professionally obligated to presume innocence. And because he holds strong beliefs about the right journalistic/professional/ethical decision all being the same as the morally-correct decision, he's saying that he's morally obligated to presume innocence.

In a broader sense, I think this is Sorkin's way of making his personal case that we, as individuals, should not be choosing sides and coming to decisions about the guilt or innocence of accused criminals. The legal system is set up to deal with that, and individuals making up their minds without all the facts can only lead to trouble (i.e. Ferguson).


----------



## jr461 (Jul 9, 2004)

Gerryex said:


> WOW!!! I totally did NOT get it that the cell mate was Will's father. However I did note that when Will was taking down his photos one of them definitely looked like the cell mate. And then the other bunk with the bedroll on it seemed strange. But all I could think of was: where's the cell mate. Until I read this thread I had no idea the cell mate was Will's imagination of his father.
> Gerry


Put me in this camp, and also glad I'm not alone in this!

Great season and wish it was going to be longer. It would have been interesting to see how the newsroom itself played out over a little more time. But then again that would have meant more Jim and Maggie!


----------



## Gerryex (Apr 24, 2004)

jr461 said:


> But then again that would have meant more Jim and Maggie!


Yes, its a great show EXECPT for ANYTHING dealing with man - woman relationships. Those are just plain painful to watch and at best are so high-school!!!

Gerry


----------



## MikeAndrews (Jan 17, 2002)

Steveknj said:


> I kept thinking to myself this is going to end with Charlie dead. So, does it end with them all quitting/getting fired or with the new owner selling?


My bet is that it ends with the whole newsroom fired or walking ala The new Republic.

I did pick up that the picture of Dad was the cellie and the bedroll sealed it.

Ya think Will would have happily rotted for a year or so refusing to give up the name of a dead source?

I wonder if Dev Patel will get one more paycheck when Neal shows up next week.


----------



## frombhto323 (Jan 24, 2002)

Just watched last week's episode. That interview of temp Digital Editor was cathartic!


----------



## Gunnyman (Jul 10, 2003)

It can't be over!

Excellent finale. 
I'm glad it went the way it did rather than everyone fired/walking out.

I'm going to miss this show.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Yeah, I thought they (he) did a great job not only of wrapping things up, but using the flashbacks to show not only how they all came together, but how each of them got started on the path the led to, well, where they ended up.

And I also liked that Sorkin acknowledged that his ideas for how to fix the news business are Quixotic.


----------



## GoPackGo (Dec 29, 2012)

Sorkin loves the titling episodes "What Kind of Day Has It Been"


----------



## Ereth (Jun 16, 2000)

That was one hell of a series finale. Very very sad. I'm really sorry this show is over.


----------



## Peter000 (Apr 15, 2002)

Good stuff. :up:


----------



## Gunnyman (Jul 10, 2003)

The Jam in the garage was excellent.
I really enjoyed the setup that got Mac to the symposium at Northwestern.
Also, someone get Olivia Munn a show. She was the standout surprise of the entire series.


----------



## Cainebj (Nov 11, 2006)

I thought it was just OK. Not ground breaking. I dunno I expected something much more than loose ends being tied up and based on what we saw and know of the new owner to have him suddenly become docile after a car ride with Jane Fonda was out of character.

I will say the "jam in the garage" caught me off guard in its emotional impact, I suddenly got choked up half way through.



Gunnyman said:


> someone get Olivia Munn a show. She was the standout surprise of the entire series.


I concur.


----------



## kaszeta (Jun 11, 2004)

Gunnyman said:


> Also, someone get Olivia Munn a show. She was the standout surprise of the entire series.


Indeed. Before the Newsroom, she was a bit of a train wreck. She really pulled it together for this show.


----------



## Squeak (May 12, 2000)

Gunnyman said:


> The Jam in the garage was excellent.
> I really enjoyed the setup that got Mac to the symposium at Northwestern.
> Also, someone get Olivia Munn a show. She was the standout surprise of the entire series.


Agree on Olivia Munn. Both my wife and I have a crush on her.

But man, we both rolled our eyes heavily when the jam started. Felt like I was watching a Disney movie for a second (I know why they showed Jim playing guitar to set up him in the Jam, but why would he be doing lessons on simple scales when he then would just play these high-level riffs).

The flashbacks were nice, and it was great to see wrap up on the characters as they move to the next points in their lives.

The other nitpicking was how the succession planning worked for putting Mac into the President role, and then everyone else promoting people. Normally doesn't work that way.


----------



## frombhto323 (Jan 24, 2002)

Cainebj said:


> I thought it was just OK. Not ground breaking. I dunno I expected something much more than loose ends being tied up and based on what we saw and know of the new owner to have him *suddenly become docile after a car ride with Jane Fonda was out of character*.
> 
> I will say the "jam in the garage" caught me off guard in its emotional impact, I suddenly got choked up half way through.


He doesn't just have a PR problem, he has an actual problem with women in the workforce.


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

frombhto323 said:


> He doesn't just have a PR problem, he has an actual problem with women in the workforce.


Although I did find myself questioning whyTF would it be anyone else's business how he chose to celebrate his birthday.


----------



## aindik (Jan 23, 2002)

busyba said:


> Although I did find myself questioning whyTF would it be anyone else's business how he chose to celebrate his birthday.


It's a problem in the context of his other problem.


----------



## Dawghows (May 17, 2001)

Squeak said:


> (I know why they showed Jim playing guitar to set up him in the Jam, but why would he be doing lessons on simple scales when he then would just play these high-level riffs).


I can think of at least two explanations for this. One, I've been playing guitar for over 35 years, and I can play quite a lot of "high-level riffs," but I have a woefully deficient knowledge of the mechanics of music theory as it relates to the guitar neck. That is to say, I don't know what notes I'm playing when I'm playing them. A few years ago I started taking lessons to learn the theory. And two, in that scene he looked to be about half-drunk, and was clearly in a funk because his girlfriend took all his stuff. He was most likely just goofing around.

Either way, I don't think we were supposed to be thinking that he was looking those online lessons because he didn't know how to play.


----------



## DLiquid (Sep 17, 2001)

I too found it funny how he was looking at a lesson teaching how to play the major scale, but he was playing stuff way more advanced.

I liked the finale, though it felt more like an epilogue than an actual episode.


----------



## Squeak (May 12, 2000)

DLiquid said:


> I liked the finale, though it felt more like an epilogue than an actual episode.


That is a great way of describing it!


----------



## Cainebj (Nov 11, 2006)

Squeak said:


> That is a great way of describing it!


It really is!!! :up::up:


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

Cainebj said:


> I thought it was just OK. Not ground breaking. I dunno I expected something much more than loose ends being tied up and based on what we saw and know of the new owner to have him suddenly become docile after a car ride with Jane Fonda was out of character.
> 
> I will say the "jam in the garage" caught me off guard in its emotional impact, I suddenly got choked up half way through.
> 
> I concur.


This. I found it full of fluff and sentimental BS with everything tied up neatly in a bow. Mac gets Charlie's old job, everyone else goes up one step. New owner put in his place. It was just too neat and clean. I agree, that I did really like the garage jam session.


----------



## 3D (Oct 9, 2001)

Dawghows said:


> I can think of at least two explanations for this. One, I've been playing guitar for over 35 years, and I can play quite a lot of "high-level riffs," but I have a woefully deficient knowledge of the mechanics of music theory as it relates to the guitar neck. That is to say, I don't know what notes I'm playing when I'm playing them. A few years ago I started taking lessons to learn the theory. And two, in that scene he looked to be about half-drunk, and was clearly in a funk because his girlfriend took all his stuff. He was most likely just goofing around.
> 
> Either way, I don't think we were supposed to be thinking that he was looking those online lessons because he didn't know how to play.


Also, maybe he practiced some more over the next three years.


----------



## Gerryex (Apr 24, 2004)

Steveknj said:


> This. I found it full of fluff and sentimental BS with everything tied up neatly in a bow. Mac gets Charlie's old job, everyone else goes up one step. New owner put in his place. It was just too neat and clean. I agree, that I did really like the garage jam session.


This too! I was actually quite disappointed in the finale. As Steveknj said too much fluff and sentimental BS with everything tied up neatly in a bow. And I found it VERY unbelievable that the new owner turned around so easily. Here he was going to fire the two ladies and ultimately makes one of them president of the network and lets the other one stay. Just too neat!

It would have been much better if they all got fired or walked off the job and the closing could have been a collage of short scenes, a la Six Feet Under, showing where the primary characters ended up.

Anyway an enjoyable show even if the finale wasn't that great!!!

Gerry


----------



## jr461 (Jul 9, 2004)

Gerryex said:


> This too! I was actually quite disappointed in the finale. As Steveknj said too much fluff and sentimental BS with everything tied up neatly in a bow. And I found it VERY unbelievable that the new owner turned around so easily. Here he was going to fire the two ladies and ultimately makes one of them president of the network and lets the other one stay. Just too neat!
> 
> It would have been much better if they all got fired or walked off the job and the closing could have been a collage of short scenes, a la Six Feet Under, showing where the primary characters ended up.
> 
> ...


I don't agree. I thought it was well done and obviously the idea was to leave the audience with closure and feeling good about the characters (well, not Charlie ).

I enjoyed the flashbacks showing how certain things evolved as well as the garage jam. I can see how some feel it was too neatly wrapped up but for this show I liked it.


----------



## zalusky (Apr 5, 2002)

I interpreted the ending as hope. Hope that the new generation will listen to the older generation and pick the best of both worlds.

It's like the first few days after an election and everything is fresh and new and your looking at a brighter future. Then reality sets in!

One of the things highlighted in the finale was that they were number two in the ratings before Mac came in. They were also doing shlock journalism. Charlie brought in Mac to raise the bar. We also saw that their ratings started to drop after that and they became a money loser.

Pruit may effectively see the same thing happen. What we saw was only a couple of days.


----------



## robojerk (Jun 13, 2006)

It was too sappy for my taste.
I agree that the ending message was "Hope" and that there are still people out there that give a ****. Which is a nice message to have, however I am too cynical to believe that any news organizations care about anything other than money now.

Sorkin does not respect the Millennial's at all, and in order to save Mac's job, Pruit (representation of the Millennial mentality, future leaders) had to be conveniently in trouble and eat a slice of humble pie (chased down with Qwench soda) from Jane Fonda (representing yesterdays wise and morally correct generation).

It's a little condescending and pretentious. Like listening to old people complaining about the new generation even though most problems were created by the current or previous generations in power.

Better ending than other shows still..

cough, Dexter, cough, worst ending ever, cough


----------



## Ereth (Jun 16, 2000)

robojerk said:


> Better ending than other shows still..
> 
> cough, Dexter, cough, worst ending ever, cough


I take it you never watched Blakes 7...


----------



## Satchel (Dec 8, 2001)

Gunnyman said:


> The Jam in the garage was excellent.
> I really enjoyed the setup that got Mac to the symposium at Northwestern.
> Also, someone get Olivia Munn a show. She was the standout surprise of the entire series.


This...I've said it before...I want a spinoff of Sloan and Don's relationship.

Love those two characters together.


----------



## robojerk (Jun 13, 2006)

Ereth said:


> I take it you never watched Blakes 7...


I googled it, can thankfully say I was only 1 years old when it went off the air in 1981. That looks pretty bad.


----------



## Ereth (Jun 16, 2000)

It's British, so production values aren't what we are used to, but it was very popular. A ragtag group fighting impossible odds, in space of course. 

Then the show was cancelled, so the final episode saw our heroes... lose. Everybody lost their freaking minds. "We followed this show just to see the good guys lose?"

It's a good thing we didn't have so much Internet back then, it might have melted from all the geek rage.


----------



## Gunnyman (Jul 10, 2003)

Satchel said:


> This...I've said it before...I want a spinoff of Sloan and Don's relationship.
> 
> Love those two characters together.


Thomas Sadoski needs to be on my TV more too.

Their chemistry was really great.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Gunnyman said:


> Also, someone get Olivia Munn a show. She was the standout surprise of the entire series.


As long as she can learn to enunciate. I found myself frequently having to rewind her lines to hear them again because she has a tendency to mumble.



Squeak said:


> (I know why they showed Jim playing guitar to set up him in the Jam, but why would he be doing lessons on simple scales when he then would just play these high-level riffs).


My take on it was this was just another indication of Jim being a pretentious dick, always wanting to feel superior to his surroundings, so he turns on the beginner guitar lessons so that he can feel superior. That's probably kind of cathartic when you're sitting in an empty apartment because you just broke up with your girlfriend and she took everything.


----------



## Robin (Dec 6, 2001)

I can see that. It's like taking an online typing test.


----------



## TriBruin (Dec 10, 2003)

DevdogAZ said:


> As long as she can learn to enunciate. I found myself frequently having to rewind her lines to hear them again because she has a tendency to mumble.
> 
> My take on it was this was just another indication of Jim being a pretentious dick, always wanting to feel superior to his surroundings, so he turns on the beginner guitar lessons so that he can feel superior. That's probably kind of cathartic when you're sitting in an empty apartment because you just broke up with your girlfriend and she took everything.


The guitar lesson were years prior to the funeral. He was doing lesson when Mac came to offer him a job at ACN with her. I don't think it was unreasonable that he has learned a few things in the interceding years.


----------



## aindik (Jan 23, 2002)

TriBruin said:


> The guitar lesson were years prior to the funeral. He was doing lesson when Mac came to offer him a job at ACN with her. I don't think it was unreasonable that he has learned a few things in the interceding years.


Right there in the same scene with the guitar lesson he was playing things more advanced than the lesson.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

TriBruin said:


> The guitar lesson were years prior to the funeral. He was doing lesson when Mac came to offer him a job at ACN with her. I don't think it was unreasonable that he has learned a few things in the interceding years.


I realize the guitar lesson scene was several years before the funeral. But within that scene, the laptop would indicate some beginning guitar concept, and then Jim would play a complicated riff, clearly showing that he wasn't a beginner.


----------



## MikeAndrews (Jan 17, 2002)

DevdogAZ said:


> As long as she can learn to enunciate. I found myself frequently having to rewind her lines to hear them again because she has a tendency to mumble.


Not so much mumbling as speed spewing the lines. She even said easlry on that they keep telling her to slow down.

I don't know what you guys see - other than the eye candy- but Olivia Munn gave no indication that she can act.

I'll grant that she seems like a nice kid, but c'mon. I've been turned off after seeing her, I think on Live!' talking about how she batted her eyes into getting on camera on Fox Sports in about a week after getting off the bus by walking into the CEOs office.


----------



## madscientist (Nov 12, 2003)

I agree with Mike. She's IMO pretty wooden and unnatural as an actress. I thought it was just trying to get Sorkin's massive amount of dialog out that was using all her energies and left no room for any actual acting, personally. I'm certainly not going to NOT watch a show in the future just because she's on it. But I didn't see much amazing about her here that would cause me to watch a show ONLY because she's on it, either.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

I could never tell if Munn is a bad actor, or if she's a brilliant actor playing a wooden, semi-autistic character. After I've seen her in a few other things I could probably tell better.

But she worked for this show. Even if she's a bad actor, then the role must have been perfectly tailored to her, because I believed Sloan as a wooden, semi-autistic character.


----------



## robojerk (Jun 13, 2006)

madscientist said:


> I thought it was just trying to get Sorkin's massive amount of dialog out that was using all her energies


Sorkin characters talk more then Gilmore Girls.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> I could never tell if Munn is a bad actor, or if she's a brilliant actor playing a wooden, semi-autistic character. After I've seen her in a few other things I could probably tell better.
> 
> But she worked for this show. Even if she's a bad actor, then the role must have been perfectly tailored to her, because I believed Sloan as a wooden, semi-autistic character.


Sorkin's dialogue makes people sound wooden and semi-autistic. It's generally read as a monologue with little emotion. It's only because what is said is interesting usually that I watch. He writes with no emotion, and that goes back as far as Sports Night, which I love, but it's the same thing. I don't think you can judge any actor by what they do with a Sorkin script.


----------



## aindik (Jan 23, 2002)

Steveknj said:


> Sorkin's dialogue makes people sound wooden and semi-autistic. It's generally read as a monologue with little emotion. It's only because what is said is interesting usually that I watch. He writes with no emotion, and that goes back as far as Sports Night, which I love, but it's the same thing. I don't think you can judge any actor by what they do with a Sorkin script.


----------



## MikeAndrews (Jan 17, 2002)

Steveknj said:


> Sorkin's dialogue makes people sound wooden and semi-autistic. It's generally read as a monologue with little emotion. It's only because what is said is interesting usually that I watch. He writes with no emotion, and that goes back as far as Sports Night, which I love, but it's the same thing. I don't think you can judge any actor by what they do with a Sorkin script.


The other, professional, actors know the acting principle of "being in the moment" - humans aren't thinking 4 lines ahead, They are reacting to what is happening and/or being said _now_ (usually) without having pre-planned what they will say.

Even though actors may use several techniques to memorize the lines like speed saying them or learning everybody's lines, or memorizing backwards and forwards, they still need to deliver the lines naturally.

Look at how well Jeff Daniels and Emily Mortimer (or Martin Sheen, John Spencer) handled the dialog vs. Olivia Munn.

I will allow that Olivia got better as the Newsroom seasons went on, but maybe she shouldn't have had the role in the first place.


----------



## zordude (Sep 23, 2003)

I enjoyed her performance in Magic Mike.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

MikeAndrews said:


> The other, professional, actors know the acting principle of "being in the moment" - humans aren't thinking 4 lines ahead, They are reacting to what is happening and/or being said _now_ (usually) without having pre-planned what they will say.
> 
> Even though actors may use several techniques to memorize the lines like speed saying them or learning everybody's lines, or memorizing backwards and forwards, they still need to deliver the lines naturally.
> 
> ...


I don't think Emily or Jeff are all that much better at it frankly. I've never seen The West Wing but have watched Sports Night over and over, and the actors have the same cadence and lack of emotion. I think it's not only the writing but the directing as well. I know Sorkin doesn't direct these but I'm sure he has some input.


----------



## markz (Oct 22, 2002)

We watched the last 3 episodes last night finally. Loved the show and will miss it. Regardless of how the characters deliver lines with/without emotion, Sorkin shows always make me feel emotions.

I loved the scene with Will playing guitar in the garage at Charlie's wake.

I also love the patriarch characters in Sorkin's shows (Leo, Isaac, and Charlie) .


----------



## tlc (May 30, 2002)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> I could never tell if Munn is a bad actor, or if she's a brilliant actor playing a wooden, semi-autistic character. After I've seen her in a few other things I could probably tell better.


I've wondered that as well.



MikeAndrews said:


> Even though actors may use several techniques to memorize the lines like speed saying them or learning everybody's lines, or memorizing backwards and forwards, they still need to deliver the lines naturally.


I imagine it's more challenging to sound natural _at the speed it takes_ to suqeeze Sorkin dialog into the allotted time.

Speaking of "natural", IMO it's natural for normal people to occasionally get tongue tied and flub "a line" and say "I mean..." IRL, but I never see it on TV. I also like it when people talk over each other on TV (which they did on The Newsroom) because it's more realistic than everyone taking turns.

Has Sorkin written any Southern Drawl characters? As many characters as passed through The West Wing, did _any_ of them speak slowly?


----------



## tlc (May 30, 2002)

Thinking back to The American President, there certainly were monologues and snappy dialogs, but I don't remember any dialog feeling rushed. Perhaps it takes the right director to control the speed of things.


----------



## markz (Oct 22, 2002)

tlc said:


> Has Sorkin written any Southern Drawl characters? As many characters as passed through The West Wing, did _any_ of them speak slowly?


Emily Procter as Ainsley Hayes in The West Wing is from North Carolina and definitely speaks with a southern accent.


----------



## Gunnyman (Jul 10, 2003)

But fast...


----------



## Peter000 (Apr 15, 2002)

markz said:


> Emily Procter as Ainsley Hayes in The West Wing is from North Carolina and definitely speaks with a southern accent.





Gunnyman said:


> But fast...


IIRC she seemed to lose it over time. Or it was downplayed.


----------



## markz (Oct 22, 2002)

Peter000 said:


> IIRC she seemed to lose it over time. Or it was downplayed.


But it is her real accent. She is really from NC.


----------



## MikeAndrews (Jan 17, 2002)

MikeAndrews said:


> The other, professional, actors know the acting principle of "being in the moment" - humans aren't thinking 4 lines ahead, They are reacting to what is happening and/or being said _now_ (usually) without having pre-planned what they will say.
> 
> Even though actors may use several techniques to memorize the lines like speed saying them or learning everybody's lines, or memorizing backwards and forwards, they still need to deliver the lines naturally.
> 
> ...


Heh.



> Jeff Daniels recently told The Hollywood Reporter that the scariest part about working on Aaron Sorkin's HBO series "The Newsroom" is "the amount of dialogue and the speed of it, and to make it sound like it's thoughts falling out of my head versus I was just able to memorize it. That's the big battle with Aaron."
> 
> http://www.chicagotribune.com/entertainment/theater/news/ct-how-actors-memorize-lines-column.html


Jeff should have coached Olivia a little more.


----------



## spartanstew (Feb 24, 2002)

Wow, finally got a chance to see the final season. Watched it all yesterday and today. I had forgotten how great this show was. 

Just couldn't stop watching the final season, even though I have a bunch of other shows lined up (just got HBO and Showtime and haven't had them in awhile). GOT, Veep, True Detectice(2), Ray Donovan. All took a backseat (for now) to watch Newsroom.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

spartanstew said:


> Wow, finally got a chance to see the final season. Watched it all yesterday and today. I had forgotten how great this show was. Just couldn't stop watching the final season, even though I have a bunch of other shows lined up (just got HBO and Showtime and haven't had them in awhile).
> 
> GOT, Veep, True Detectice(2), Ray Donovan. All took a backseat (for now) to watch Newsroom.


You can put True Detective S2 at the end of your queue.


----------



## SteveD (Oct 22, 2002)

My Wife and I just recently finished binge watching all three seasons. It was part of our Aaron Sorkin tour of Sports Night, Studio 60, and The Newsroom. Still haven't gotten around to watching The West Wing.

We really enjoyed the show, and, while watching, we couldn't help but wonder how Will McAvoy would be covering the current Presidential election. I still think that would have made for some great television.


----------

