# The Newsroom S02E07 : Red Team III



## debtoine (May 17, 2001)

Interesting episode; at least it confirmed some of the speculation we had, such as it's a wrongful termination suit for Jerry Dantana. 

The incorrect Heli manifest story was far fetched, but still entertaining.

What I don't understand, though, is that (I thought) Charlie said in the previous episode he knew at 10:05 it was all fake; it seems like it took a lot longer.

Some great interactions, especially with Don and the lawyer. 

Leona Lansing's reaction was great, although given previous season, I would have thought she'd treasure the opportunity to get rid of Will and Charlie.

Toine


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

I loved Don's "how is any of this not insane" rant. I get why it was important, dramatically, for the lawyer to win that argument with Don, but left a perfect comeback to her "institutional failure / scapegoat" argument sitting unused on the table: of all the people for whom it is arguable that they were involved in the institutional failure, the only person fired was the only person who actually acted in bad faith.


And bravo for Leona. If there were more defendants like her, there would be far fewer scumbag plaintiffs.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

busyba said:


> And bravo for Leona. If there were more defendants like her, there would be far fewer scumbag plaintiffs.


Leona, in her drunken/drugged rant, got it right. I don't see an institutional failure at all. Of the four pieces of evidence, one was faked by the guy who they fired, one was faked by a "reliable" source (who they should expose, BTW), one was uncheckable (if they could not check the sources medical records) and the last was clean in its own way.

The fact that they sat on the story for a year verifying it over and over again actually says they had checks and balances in place and took their time. They followed a pretty rigorous procedure.

Legally, I can't see where they lose. Yes, they lost some faith with the public but a self-expose on how it went wrong would help. They can show how the news can get muddled.

It is their own lack of faith that may hurt. They stood down on Benghazi because they didn't trust themselves.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Interesting that Sorkin timed the Genoa story such that it could be said to be one of the causes of Benghazi.


----------



## TAsunder (Aug 6, 2003)

I don't think Charlie said he knew it was fake at 10:05 did he? I thought it was more along the lines of, the story started to fall apart at 10:05... which it did since the General had made his irate phone call by then.

I thought this was the best episode of the season by far. Minimal romantic stupidities and insight into how getting burned might affect their ability to do their job.


----------



## Idearat (Nov 26, 2000)

I agree with the insanity of the big fight in the wrongful termination suit. He wasn't fired because of the embarrassing story, he was fired for altering the raw footage and lying to his employer about it.

If he hadn't edited the footage and they still aired the story, then he could claim to be duped like everyone else. Firing him then since he spearheaded the story would have been using him as a scapegoat and maybe then he'd have a case. The editing of the raw footage is a completely different situation.

Perhaps he's claiming that everyone else was falsifying their reports and the network has to "prove" they didn't? He probably can't get away with claiming that he didn't do the stealth edit, so he's stuck claiming that he wasn't the only one.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

Nah. He knew from the elevator he was done. He lawyered up. And that is what they do. Find anything they can claim. 

The only breakdown from a system I can see is that they let him cowboy the thing. No one else with the general during the interview. Self edit. They can change that but they focus for the law suit on them relying on him doing his job and he didn't only mess up, he was deliberate in his fakery.


----------



## Satchel (Dec 8, 2001)

I really don't think Mac has the authority to Fire Jerry...especially in an elevator. He works in a different bureau and she didn't even know him prior to him coming up to fill in.

It would have happened with HR and lawyers in the room.


----------



## astrohip (Jan 7, 2003)

One motivation I don't understand. General Stomtonovich. Why did he give the interview?

He was acknowledged in an earlier episode as a pro-chemical warfare general, who didn't want us to get rid of our arsenal. So why did he even allow an interview? And why did he keep saying "if we used Sarin"? And why did he agree to appear on camera? Even masked in darkness and voice-altered, he was introduced as a three star general. How hard could it be for someone to figure out who he was?

His motivation escapes me.

I thought it was a good episode, full frontal Sorkin. The scenes with MGH/lawyer and the cast were just spectacular. The only weak part was the Jane Fonda ending. It's like "ok, here's our get out of jail" scene, and everyone is forgiven. Kind of a cheap finish to a great episode.


----------



## Gerryex (Apr 24, 2004)

TAsunder said:


> I thought this was the best episode of the season by far. Minimal romantic stupidities and insight into how getting burned might affect their ability to do their job.


Yes, this was absolutely the best episode of the season and possibly the whole series. The hour just flew by and I really enjoyed it. And yes, having "minimal romantic stupidities" really helped make the episode all the more enjoyable.



Idearat said:


> I agree with the insanity of the big fight in the wrongful termination suit. He wasn't fired because of the embarrassing story, he was fired for altering the raw footage and lying to his employer about it.


Of course the fired guy's lawyer is going to do everything possible to get a settlement for his client, but the guy ACTUALLY edited the raw footage. There is no way that he would not be instantly fired for that. But I also agree with another post that Mac probably didn't have the authority to instantly fire him and that it would have had to taken place with Human Resources and possible network lawyers in attendance.

But again, a very good episode!

Gerry


----------



## Ereth (Jun 16, 2000)

I was thinking, "Man! Jane Fonda can still chew the scenery when she wants to!". That was such an excellent performance!


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

If the shot clock was visible in the raw footage, and they'd all watched it "a hundred times," how did nobody notice it before that? I thought it would at least be something a little more subtle like them getting a copy of the actual game footage and playing it side by side and seeing that there was a piece missing. For the shot clock to have obvious time missing and then nobody to have seen it before then kind of does speak to an institutional failure.


----------



## MegaHertz67 (Apr 18, 2005)

Satchel said:


> I really don't think Mac has the authority to Fire Jerry...especially in an elevator. He works in a different bureau and she didn't even know him prior to him coming up to fill in.
> 
> It would have happened with HR and lawyers in the room.


I think what she said was "It's pretty obvious that you're fired." I didn't take that as her firing him, but just stating the obvious that there was no way he survives this with a job at ACN.


----------



## MikeAndrews (Jan 17, 2002)

DevdogAZ said:


> If the shot clock was visible in the raw footage, and they'd all watched it "a hundred times," how did nobody notice it before that? I thought it would at least be something a little more subtle like them getting a copy of the actual game footage and playing it side by side and seeing that there was a piece missing. For the shot clock to have obvious time missing and then nobody to have seen it before then kind of does speak to an institutional failure.


That was a Sorkin bit of cheat. The shot clock wasn't visible, really.

Some guys isolated the game from the video. There's a jump in the action as the ref walks down the court, but no shot clock.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

netringer said:


> That was a Sorkin bit of cheat. The shot clock wasn't visible, really.
> 
> Some guys isolated the game from the video. There's a jump in the action as the ref walks down the court, but no shot clock.


Here's the post from last week's thread with the game footage isolated. You can clearly see the shot clock jump from 19 to 3. Not sure how none of us noticed that before.


----------



## JoeyJoJo (Sep 29, 2003)

MegaHertz67 said:


> I think what she said was "It's pretty obvious that you're fired." I didn't take that as her firing him, but just stating the obvious that there was no way he survives this with a job at ACN.


Nope. She says "you're fired" and he says he expected that.


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

JoeyJoJo said:


> Nope. She says "you're fired" and he says he expected that.


Yes, it would certainly have been much more accurate for her to say "while I personally may not have the authority to terminate your employment with ACN, your actions provide justification for me to make the appropriate requests of the appropriate managers and senior executives to initiate the process whereby such termination will be accomplished".

I believe, however, "you're fired" is a perfectly valid shorthand for that.


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

The kid who writes Will's blog probably doesn't have the authority to fire an intern either, but obviously he was able to make it happen.


----------



## NorthAlabama (Apr 19, 2012)

it took seven episodes to get here, but we finally made it. we know jerry initiated the lawsuit, and the blow by blow details of the catastrophic failure. the story plant and suicide tangent was a bit contrived and convenient to the story line, but it tied up loose ends nicely. the opportunity to confirm your own anonymously planted story seemed vaguely familiar. the holding of the manifest over a candle to reveal secret writing was amateurish.

jane fonda is perfect casting in her character, and her scenes and dialog are spectacular. almost as if she's drawing from firsthand knowledge of the complexities involved with the management of a large cable news division. 

the banter between don and becca's team was enjoyable from the start, and watching the fear in their eyes from the dod response as the story collapsed made the bengazi holdoff believable. have i said how much i love olivia munn today?


----------



## astrohip (Jan 7, 2003)

NorthAlabama said:


> have i said how much i love olivia munn today?


I you haven't, I will.:up:


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

So going back to Charlie's source: did he just happen to hear that ACN was chasing the Genoa story so he gave Charlie a fake helo manifest to help them confirm the story? Or was he the mastermind behind the whole thing, and he convinced Sweeney and Stomtonovich to also talk to ACN, knowing that Sweeney would be discredited and that the General would be smart enough to confirm it off camera but then choose his words very carefully on camera?


----------



## astrohip (Jan 7, 2003)

DevdogAZ said:


> So going back to Charlie's source: did he just happen to hear that ACN was chasing the Genoa story so he gave Charlie a fake helo manifest to help them confirm the story? Or was he the mastermind behind the whole thing, and he convinced Sweeney and Stomtonovich to also talk to ACN, knowing that Sweeney would be discredited and that the General would be smart enough to confirm it off camera but then choose his words very carefully on camera?


I think this is one of the weak links in the whole charade. It would be too easy to expose this, and bring down at least one career, and possibly criminal indictments to follow.

But hey, it's a Sorkin show. I watch for the banter. And Olivia Munn.


----------



## TAsunder (Aug 6, 2003)

DevdogAZ said:


> So going back to Charlie's source: did he just happen to hear that ACN was chasing the Genoa story so he gave Charlie a fake helo manifest to help them confirm the story? Or was he the mastermind behind the whole thing, and he convinced Sweeney and Stomtonovich to also talk to ACN, knowing that Sweeney would be discredited and that the General would be smart enough to confirm it off camera but then choose his words very carefully on camera?


The General did not confirm the use of Sarin gas even off camera. He implied it by noting that they were going to ask about sarin and then later said Genoa happened. And by nebulously speaking about his support of the use of stuff like sarin if the situation called for it. Genoa did happen so it's unclear to me whether it matters whether Maggie heard him say it happened.


----------



## NorthAlabama (Apr 19, 2012)

DevdogAZ said:


> So going back to Charlie's source: did he just happen to hear that ACN was chasing the Genoa story so he gave Charlie a fake helo manifest to help them confirm the story? Or was he the mastermind behind the whole thing, and he convinced Sweeney and Stomtonovich to also talk to ACN, knowing that Sweeney would be discredited and that the General would be smart enough to confirm it off camera but then choose his words very carefully on camera?


we know from becca that he anonymously leaked the story to will, then after jerry and team started background calls to the dod, he anonymously leaked the confirmation by way of the manifest to charlie, confident charlie and will wouldn't reveal their sorces.

my take on stomtonovich was he was found legitimately by neal, but researched jerry, and by orchestrating maggie's exit from the room, set jerry up to perform as he expected. sweeny was reacting to leading questions from mac, set up by the general.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

NorthAlabama said:


> we know from becca that he anonymously leaked the story to will, then after jerry and team started background calls to the dod, he anonymously leaked the confirmation by way of the manifest to charlie, confident charlie and will wouldn't reveal their sorces.
> 
> my take on stomtonovich was he was found legitimately by neal, but researched jerry, and by orchestrating maggie's exit from the room, set jerry up to perform as he expected. sweeny was reacting to leading questions from mac, set up by the general.


No, Sweeney was interviewed first, before they had any info from the General or the fake manifest. It was Valenzuela that provided nothing new but instead simply corroborated everything Sweeney said through the leading questions from Mac.

So the question remains: Why did Sweeney come forward and tell the story he did? Did he really believe Sarin was used? Was he being used as a pawn by Charlie's source?

And what about the tweets from the Pakistani? We know he stopped tweeting because he couldn't pay for his cell phone plan. But what about the actual tweets he made? Why did he say people were burning and dying? And what are the chances his pre-paid plan then ended right in that moment before he could follow up on his tweet about people burning?


----------



## NorthAlabama (Apr 19, 2012)

DevdogAZ said:


> No, Sweeney was interviewed first...


your right, my bad, i confused sweeny with valenzuela. wasn't sweeny sourced from jerry's panel guest cyrus west?

update: i found this from the recap on the hollywood reporter:

_



Gunnery Sgt. Eric Sweeney...was part of the Genoa extraction team
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/live-feed/newsroom-recap-genoa-falls-apart-614147

Click to expand...

_​


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

DevdogAZ said:


> So going back to Charlie's source: did he just happen to hear that ACN was chasing the Genoa story so he gave Charlie a fake helo manifest to help them confirm the story? Or was he the mastermind behind the whole thing, and he convinced Sweeney and Stomtonovich to also talk to ACN, knowing that Sweeney would be discredited and that the General would be smart enough to confirm it off camera but then choose his words very carefully on camera?


He wasn't the mastermind of the whole thing. He had a grudge against Charlie from a while back and he bided his time, waiting for an opportunity.

Then he heard about ACN making inquiries about MARSOC ops and figured out what was going on and decided that this was his chance to strike at Charlie.


----------



## Satchel (Dec 8, 2001)

These days I'm watching just for Don and Sloan. Love them. The rest? Meh.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

busyba said:


> He wasn't the mastermind of the whole thing. He had a grudge against Charlie from a while back and he bided his time, waiting for an opportunity.
> 
> Then he heard about ACN making inquiries about MARSOC ops and figured out what was going on and decided that this was his chance to strike at Charlie.


So I guess that's my question. Was the Genoa story just a spectacular confluence of conincidences that all came together at the right time to cause the gigantic screw up? Cyrus West planted the story and hooked Jerry up with Sweeney. What were their angles for telling this story? The General confirmed that Genoa happened before the cameras started rolling, and it seemed pretty clear he knew what he was saying when he did that. It was only then that they got the fake helo manifest. So if Charlie's source had nothing more to do with the story than providing one of the many pieces of evidence, that seems rather far fetched that he would expect that piece of evidence to lead to ACN reporting a false story.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

debtoine said:


> Leona Lansing's reaction was great, although given previous season, I would have thought she'd treasure the opportunity to get rid of Will and Charlie.


I take her at her word that SHE wants to get rid of Will and Charlie, not be forced to accept their resignations under bogus circumstances.


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

DevdogAZ said:


> So I guess that's my question. Was the Genoa story just a spectacular confluence of conincidences that all came together at the right time to cause the gigantic screw up?


Yes. That was the point of the soliloquy slash history lesson that Will gave to the lawyers near the end of the episode.


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

busyba said:


> Yes. That was the point of the soliloquy slash history lesson that Will gave to the lawyers near the end of the episode.


No, that was not Will's point. Will's point was that a single mistake can cause a large, dramatic failure. In this case, the doctoring of the raw interview footage was responsible (for want of a nail, the kingdom was lost). Not an institutional failure. That was Will's point.


----------



## MikeAndrews (Jan 17, 2002)

DevdogAZ said:


> Here's the post from last week's thread with the game footage isolated. You can clearly see the shot clock jump from 19 to 3. Not sure how none of us noticed that before.


 We only needed a telescope to see it.


----------



## MikeAndrews (Jan 17, 2002)

Ereth said:


> I was thinking, "Man! Jane Fonda can still chew the scenery when she wants to!". That was such an excellent performance!


I wanna see the TiVo stats on how many of us were freeze-framing and jump-backing to see how sheer Jane Fonda's gown top was.


----------



## MikeAndrews (Jan 17, 2002)

DevdogAZ said:


> So I guess that's my question. Was the Genoa story just a spectacular confluence of conincidences that all came together at the right time to cause the gigantic screw up? Cyrus West planted the story and hooked Jerry up with Sweeney. What were their angles for telling this story? The General confirmed that Genoa happened before the cameras started rolling, and it seemed pretty clear he knew what he was saying when he did that. It was only then that they got the fake helo manifest. So if Charlie's source had nothing more to do with the story than providing one of the many pieces of evidence, that seems rather far fetched that he would expect that piece of evidence to lead to ACN reporting a false story.


Hmmmm. I wonder why they didn't list Cyrus West as evidence #1?

Was he put up to it by Charlie's (and Wil's) Pentagon guy?


----------



## gchance (Dec 6, 2002)

netringer said:


> I wanna see the TiVo stats on how many of us were freeze-framing and jump-backing to see how sheer Jane Fonda's gown top was.


Really? The thought never crossed my mind, although you can feel free to post a picture to the over 40 thread.

Greg


----------



## Gunnyman (Jul 10, 2003)

Satchel said:


> These days I'm watching just for Don and Sloan. Love them. The rest? Meh.


Me too.
I love me some Olivia Munn, and Don's opening scene with the lawyer was excellent.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

netringer said:


> Hmmmm. I wonder why they didn't list Cyrus West as evidence #1?
> 
> Was he put up to it by Charlie's (and Wil's) Pentagon guy?


Cyrus West wasn't providing any direct knowledge of the op, so he wouldn't be counted as evidence. He just provided a tip that led them to Sweeney.

Oh, and I forgot about the NGO guy that Neal found during the Occupy Wall Street part. So that's one more piece of the crazy coincidence that all happened to come together to corroborate a fake story.


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

netringer said:


> I wanna see the TiVo stats on how many of us were freeze-framing and jump-backing to see how sheer Jane Fonda's gown top was.


There was almost certainly a nude-colored opaque panel underneath the lace and tulle.


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

netringer said:


> Hmmmm. I wonder why they didn't list Cyrus West as evidence #1?


Cyrus West didn't have evidence. All he had was information that someone else had evidence.

At best, all Cyrus West could be said to have is hearsay evidence.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Cyrus West just provided a tip. He was nothing more than that. It wasn't evidence. It was simply a tip to someone else who may have evidence of a story.


----------



## astrohip (Jan 7, 2003)

gchance said:


> Really? The thought never crossed my mind, although you can feel free to post a picture to the over 40*75* thread.
> 
> Greg


FYP.


----------



## MikeAndrews (Jan 17, 2002)

busyba said:


> There was almost certainly a nude-colored opaque panel underneath the lace and tulle.


Nah. It was all one dress fabric. The skin-toned part had the black lace on it and it went all the way up to her neck, but it wasn't obvious that it did.


----------



## Jesda (Feb 12, 2005)

This was worth all of the romcom BS during the rest of the season. Well written, well acted.


----------



## Gunnyman (Jul 10, 2003)

We've lost the public trust!
GET IT BACK!

So well written and acted. 
It's "West Wing" good.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Gunnyman said:


> We've lost the public trust!
> GET IT BACK!


[smash cut to black]


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

DevdogAZ said:


> So I guess that's my question. Was the Genoa story just a spectacular confluence of conincidences that all came together at the right time to cause the gigantic screw up? Cyrus West planted the story and hooked Jerry up with Sweeney. What were their angles for telling this story? The General confirmed that Genoa happened before the cameras started rolling, and it seemed pretty clear he knew what he was saying when he did that. It was only then that they got the fake helo manifest. So if Charlie's source had nothing more to do with the story than providing one of the many pieces of evidence, that seems rather far fetched that he would expect that piece of evidence to lead to ACN reporting a false story.


I don't know, I found the whole setup to the fake story, well, not very realistic. Maybe there's more to be explained. To me, there were too many coincidences for this to be, well a series of coincidences. When the CIA source talked to Charlie, my assumption was that he set this whole thing up as revenge for them firing his son. At least that's how it appeared to me. And if that's the case, I find it extremely far fetched. I guess the CIA could pull off something like this if they wanted to, but, just as revenge for firing his son, seems a bit drastic (and yes, I get that his son died). There are too many pieces he'd have to put together and get to agree to it. If that's the case, while I loved everything around it. I really didn't like that. If there's a clearer explanation than just a bunch of coincidences, I'm all ears.

The whole Jane Fonda thing to me also seemed kind of fake and out of character to me. I think in most cases someone like her would have asked for all of their resignations rather than protect them like that, a la Dan Rather. Of course if she fired them, there'd be no show. So, I'm not really sure what to make of her reaction (well she was probably drunk/stoned so maybe when she sobers up her reaction will be different). The whole McMac thing was REALLY stupid and not funny.

And what case does Dantana have to claim it was wrongful termination, unless he's just after his pound of flesh? He, alone doctored the tape and didn't tell his bosses, so he would be fired regardless of who's fault the whole thing was.

Still it was a very entertaining episode and I enjoyed it for what it was. At least we finally got to the point of the whole season.


----------



## Marco (Sep 19, 2000)

Steveknj said:


> And what case does Dantana have to claim it was wrongful termination, unless he's just after his pound of flesh? He, alone doctored the tape and didn't tell his bosses, so he would be fired regardless of who's fault the whole thing was.


Sorkin lifted the fact pattern from Operation Tailwind, complete with the news coverage, the firing(s), and the wrongful termination lawsuit.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

Marco said:


> Sorkin lifted the fact pattern from Operation Tailwind, complete with the news coverage, the firing(s), and the wrongful termination lawsuit.


Oh I know all that. But, I don't see in your link where those terminated actually doctored anything to make the story more plausible. That's different than leaving out parts of the story or information that could have refuted the claims. He clearly took footage and doctored it so that the General said something he didn't. To me that's firable.


----------



## aindik (Jan 23, 2002)

I loved it. Found myself checking the timeline hoping it wasn't over yet. 

But yeah, it seems we won't get any explanation for how the other sources (the soldier and the general, mostly) came to either believe Sarin was used or want ACN to falsely report it. 

Also surprised that the general didn't put the basketball game in the shot on purpose, and it was just good sleuthing (a bit late) by Mac to figure that out. 

Was Will's source the same as Charlie's? Or was that just something they didn't check? If not, was/is Will prepared to reveal his source as part of the lawsuit?

Also kind of surprised these meetings were only two months after the fact. Dantana got his lawsuit filed PDQ.

How many more episodes?


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

aindik said:


> How many more episodes?


I _think_ only one, but I could be wrong.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

busyba said:


> I _think_ only one, but I could be wrong.


You are...two (Election Night Parts 1 & 2).

So I think there's still plenty of time to find out how the "conspiracy" came together...


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

There are only nine episodes this season? That seems a strange number. Weren't there ten in S1?


----------



## MikeAndrews (Jan 17, 2002)

Steveknj said:


> Oh I know all that. But, I don't see in your link where those terminated actually doctored anything to make the story more plausible. That's different than leaving out parts of the story or information that could have refuted the claims. He clearly took footage and doctored it so that the General said something he didn't. To me that's firable.


Sorkin said that exactly that is is what happened at CNN on the Tailwind story. A producer edited "If we did it." into "we did it"


----------



## MikeAndrews (Jan 17, 2002)

What happened with the NGO guy? IIRC Neal dropped trying to talk to him when they said they had an alternate source...and Wil P-O'd the professor.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

DevdogAZ said:


> There are only nine episodes this season? That seems a strange number. Weren't there ten in S1?


Oddly enough, that seems to be the case.

And yes, ten in Season 1.


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> You are...two (Election Night Parts 1 & 2).


Ah, okay. I knew from earlier commentary that the season would end with the election, and I saw from the promo that the next episode would be the election. I just didn't account for the possibility of it being a two-parter.


----------



## Dawghows (May 17, 2001)

DevdogAZ said:


> If the shot clock was visible in the raw footage, and they'd all watched it "a hundred times," how did nobody notice it before that? I thought it would at least be something a little more subtle like them getting a copy of the actual game footage and playing it side by side and seeing that there was a piece missing. For the shot clock to have obvious time missing and then nobody to have seen it before then kind of does speak to an institutional failure.


If I remember correctly, during one of the first meetings where they were watching the video, Mack made some comment about the game being on in the frame. Jerry said they would block it out when it aired.

When we saw it air, the game was in the frame, but digitally blurred out.

Perhaps (for the sake of suspension of disbelief) we can assume that after that initial meeting, the digitally blurred version was the one they watched "a hundred times." Then when Mack thought to look at the game clock, she naturally had to go to the _real_ raw footage in order to see the un-blurred game.


----------



## TAsunder (Aug 6, 2003)

Dawghows said:


> If I remember correctly, during one of the first meetings where they were watching the video, Mack made some comment about the game being on in the frame. Jerry said they would block it out when it aired.
> 
> When we saw it air, the game was in the frame, but digitally blurred out.
> 
> Perhaps (for the sake of suspension of disbelief) we can assume that after that initial meeting, the digitally blurred version was the one they watched "a hundred times." Then when Mack thought to look at the game clock, she naturally had to go to the _real_ raw footage in order to see the un-blurred game.


Also, someone (Will?) made the comment that it never would have gone unnoticed if something were actually visibly happening in the section of game in the frame. So the only clue would have been the shot clock -- the rest of the game apparently was mostly the same scene.


----------



## izmack (Feb 3, 2002)

Ereth said:


> I was thinking, "Man! Jane Fonda can still chew the scenery when she wants to!". That was such an excellent performance!


And that DRESS!


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

TAsunder said:


> Also, someone (Will?) made the comment that it never would have gone unnoticed if something were actually visibly happening in the section of game in the frame. So the only clue would have been the shot clock -- the rest of the game apparently was mostly the same scene.


Pretty sure I saw a ref disappear when they showed the supposed raw footage the first time. I'm not going to download the episode to check, though. It was obvious to me it was doctored, though.


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

TonyD79 said:


> Pretty sure I saw a ref disappear when they showed the supposed raw footage the first time. I'm not going to download the episode to check, though. It was obvious to me it was doctored, though.


What I think the writers were thinking is that there was only part (maybe a third or a fourth) of the television in the shot, so any changes to the picture due to the editing could simply have been misinterpreted by the viewer as genuine camera cuts in the game. Without the benefit of the full context of the entire TV screen, it wouldn't be obvious that the cuts on the screen were in fact edits, except for the wonky shot clock, which doesn't require any other context to look wrong.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

busyba said:


> What I think the writers were thinking is that there was only part (maybe a third or a fourth) of the television in the shot, so any changes to the picture due to the editing could simply have been misinterpreted by the viewer as genuine camera cuts in the game. Without the benefit of the full context of the entire TV screen, it wouldn't be obvious that the cuts on the screen were in fact edits, except for the wonky shot clock, which doesn't require any other context to look wrong.


I can see that. Plus who is looking for it early on. Mac should've caught it on her later reviews without the clock but on the first view, everyone was focused on the answers.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

TonyD79 said:


> Pretty sure I saw a ref disappear when they showed the supposed raw footage the first time. I'm not going to download the episode to check, though. It was obvious to me it was doctored, though.


Since people seem to be too lazy to click on the post I made earlier in this thread where you can see that portion of the video, here it is:



















Not only does the ref disappear and the cut looks totally unnatural, but you can actually see the shot clock and it goes from 19 to 3. I don't know how Jerry could have done this and thought he was getting away with it, and I don't know how the rest of the staff could have reviewed the "raw" footage and not noticed that.

Frankly, with how obvious it was, I kind of think Sorkin screwed up here. He's always trying to make things sophisticated and complicated to show off the intellect of his characters and therefore of his writing. But with the way this was executed, it just makes everyone look really stupid, including him, since nobody in their right mind would alter the footage like that and leave the obvious tell of the shot clock in the edge of the frame.


----------



## NorthAlabama (Apr 19, 2012)

DevdogAZ said:


> I don't know how the rest of the staff could have reviewed the "raw" footage and not noticed that.


i was thinking the same about me!


----------



## TAsunder (Aug 6, 2003)

DevdogAZ said:


> Since people seem to be too lazy to click on the post I made earlier in this thread where you can see that portion of the video, here it is:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


How much time did he have to edit it? And I think it's important to realize that we have the benefit of dramatic irony here. I think it is reasonable that he edited it hastily and no one noticed, but I do think the first time someone looked at the footage after the general called to complain, at that point it would be obvious and should have been noticed.

I also think the machinations in the script to make Mac the person who realized it were over the top. Giant clock and conversations about shot clocks.


----------



## DeDondeEs (Feb 20, 2004)

TAsunder said:


> I also think the machinations in the script to make Mac the person who realized it were over the top. Giant clock and conversations about shot clocks.


Yeah they were over the top. Most people I know who don't like basketball but try to ask questions to sound interested would ask things like where is the game being played, who do you want to win, or is it a good game? Not what is that small clock counting down in the corner?


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Yeah, what he did was necessary (make it clear how Mac figured out what had happened, with all the necessary build-up along the way), but the way he did it was very clumsy. It would have taken a lot more work, I think, to do the same thing well, and I think in a show at this level he should have taken the effort. Perhaps Sorkin is overdoing it by writing virtually the entire series himself..?


----------



## aindik (Jan 23, 2002)

DeDondeEs said:


> Yeah they were over the top. Most people I know who don't like basketball but try to ask questions to sound interested would ask things like where is the game being played, who do you want to win, or is it a good game? Not what is that small clock counting down in the corner?


I thought "why are there two clocks" was a reasonable enough question. It's a question I could see my wife asking me, for example.

The transition from football to every sport that has a play clock was overly Sorkinian, though.


----------



## NorthAlabama (Apr 19, 2012)

aindik said:


> I thought "why are there two clocks" was a reasonable enough question. It's a question I could see my wife asking me, for example.
> 
> The transition from football to every sport that has a play clock was overly Sorkinian, though.


for me the breakdown was the introduction of a countdown clock to mac. any studio that wanted could have had added that ability at any time over the past 30 years.

up until that point, it flowed naturally for me and was believable.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

NorthAlabama said:


> for me the breakdown was the introduction of a countdown clock to mac. any studio that wanted could have had added that ability at any time over the past 30 years.
> 
> up until that point, it flowed naturally for me and was believable.


It wasn't for me. Will doesn't want one. Mac does. She had one made up to try to get him to use it again. That was implied in the dialog. She said something about him making up reasons to not use it this time.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

DevdogAZ said:


> Since people seem to be too lazy to click on the post I made earlier in this thread where you can see that portion of the video, here it is:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Excellent points. These are supposed to be professionals. They should be LOOKING for stuff like that.  And watching it, it's really noticeable that there's a jump. Isn't the whole point of the Red Teams to poke holes in the story to see if it can hold up to the holes?


----------



## TAsunder (Aug 6, 2003)

Steveknj said:


> Excellent points. These are supposed to be professionals. They should be LOOKING for stuff like that. And watching it, it's really noticeable that there's a jump. Isn't the whole point of the Red Teams to poke holes in the story to see if it can hold up to the holes?


Again, I think it's dramatic irony at play. There are many, many, many times in a sports broadcast where things jump around in time and the like as they show previous coverage, replay important moments, do halftime analysis, show other games currently happening, show prior games with one of the teams, etc. For perfect intelligence here, they'd have to get the original game footage and compare.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

And again, they have the problem of making it subtle enough that news professionals wouldn't catch it, and obvious enough that the average TV viewer WOULD catch it. Which of course is impossible.

And yet again, I don't think he did what he did at all well, but I do see why he had to do what he did.


----------



## TAsunder (Aug 6, 2003)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> And again, they have the problem of making it subtle enough that news professionals wouldn't catch it, and obvious enough that the average TV viewer WOULD catch it. Which of course is impossible.
> 
> And yet again, I don't think he did what he did at all well, but I do see why he had to do what he did.


Well, he didn't HAVE to make it so us viewers knew the key was the shot clock or the game. I would have been satisfied with seeing the edit and then being delightfully surprised to see how they figured it out once the general called.

It seemed like they made Root act in a very specific way as well in order for the edit to be possible. Otherwise it would have felt off to lop off part of the sentence.


----------



## dswallow (Dec 3, 2000)

Why does the cut look unnatural? So the scene changes. They actually do have more than one camera, even in basketball games. The only thing important is the time on the clock; everything else stays in place throughout where it was cut. There was also dialog about blurring/obscuring the game video so it's not unreasonable that for most of the people who would be reviewing the piece, they wouldn't even have the opportunity to see the shot clock well enough to notice a jump in the countdown timer.


----------



## aindik (Jan 23, 2002)

One wonders why Dantanna couldn't schedule the interview for 9 am. Or for a Monday, Tuesday, or Wednesday.

One also wonders why a three star general who wants his voice and face disguised would allow his medals so be filmed in high def, and would want to be exposed on TV as a huge basketball fanatic, so huge he can't turn off the game to talk about war crimes. Like his buddies wouldn't be able to figure it out?


----------



## zalusky (Apr 5, 2002)

aindik said:


> One wonders why Dantanna couldn't schedule the interview for 9 am. Or for a Monday, Tuesday, or Wednesday.
> 
> One also wonders why a three star general who wants his voice and face disguised would allow his medals so be filmed in high def, and would want to be exposed on TV as a huge basketball fanatic, so huge he can't turn off the game to talk about war crimes. Like his buddies wouldn't be able to figure it out?


First because Dantanna is a putz who was focused on an agenda and not thinking of the house of cards about to come down. He had no idea of what rules the general was going to apply till he got there.

Second its not entirely clear if the general was an idiot and just liked the game or if he felt it was editing protection.

We have seen time and time again in Washington how people do not think things through and get caught.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Dantanna also thought he was right. He figured he was in the "framing OJ" school...it's OK to frame him if he's guilty.

I think a lot of the issues surrounding this whole storyline really do just boil down to lazy solutions to TV writer problems..."how to get all this across to the viewer who may not be paying a ton of attention," and forgetting the part about "without making the characters look like idiots."


----------



## zalusky (Apr 5, 2002)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> Dantanna also thought he was right. He figured he was in the "framing OJ" school...it's OK to frame him if he's guilty.
> 
> I think a lot of the issues surrounding this whole storyline really do just boil down to lazy solutions to TV writer problems..."how to get all this across to the viewer who may not be paying a ton of attention," and forgetting the part about "without making the characters look like idiots."


Except we see these stories all the time. I am waiting for the full story on the KTVU asian pilot name thing to come out. I am sure a lot of people who never heard about it and it was presented as a fiction story would say it there is no way that could happen and it was lazy writing.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

dswallow said:


> Why does the cut look unnatural? So the scene changes. They actually do have more than one camera, even in basketball games. The only thing important is the time on the clock; everything else stays in place throughout where it was cut. There was also dialog about blurring/obscuring the game video so it's not unreasonable that for most of the people who would be reviewing the piece, they wouldn't even have the opportunity to see the shot clock well enough to notice a jump in the countdown timer.


It is true that actual camera cuts in a game do occur. But it's not common in the middle of a basketball play like that where the vast majority of the action is shown from the single camera angle. And in this particular case, the cut was just way too drastic. The ref was coming up the court meaning that the point guard was bringing the ball up the court as well. Then suddenly it cut and the players were in the middle of a play down in the key under the basket. It just didn't look natural. And finally, both pieces are from the same camera angle. There's no way the director of the game would cut to another camera that's basically in the same position and just as wide as the first one. What would be the point of that?



zalusky said:


> First because Dantanna is a putz who was focused on an agenda and not thinking of the house of cards about to come down. He had no idea of what rules the general was going to apply till he got there.
> 
> *Second its not entirely clear if the general was an idiot and just liked the game or if he felt it was editing protection.
> *
> We have seen time and time again in Washington how people do not think things through and get caught.


Having the game in the shot was not the general's idea, it was Dantana's. Jerry was the one that placed the chair where it was because he wanted to get the medals in the shot. He could just as easily have placed the chair somewhere else in the room, or zoomed the camera in just enough to cut off the edge of the TV screen. But instead, Sorkin had him do everything as clumsily as possible so he could then have his characters make some "brilliant" discovery a few episodes later. He just didn't calculate that the "brilliant" discovery would just make everyone look ever stupider than they had before, because it should have been so obvious.


----------



## bsnelson (Oct 30, 1999)

Best episode of the series, no doubt. 

I guess I just have a different view on the general. One doesn't rise to the three star level by being a bumbling idiot. It may not have been his direct request to have the TV in the shot, but he absolutely did it for edit protection, and knew exactly what to say and how to say it. The question is: Why? What motivation does he have to try to take down ACN? 

I agree that the big countdown clock in the press area was too much, but I thought her and Will's discussion about the shot clocks was great. There just needed to be something else to give her the final piece of the puzzle to want to review the raw footage. 

Hoping that we'll get some more explanation on the motivations here, but I fear that we won't. 

Brad


----------



## NorthAlabama (Apr 19, 2012)

just announced, by a tweet from jeff daniels last night, the show was renewed for season 3:

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/live-feed/jeff-daniels-newsroom-returning-season-620110​


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

NorthAlabama said:


> just announced, by a tweet from jeff daniels last night, the show was renewed for season 3:
> 
> http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/live-feed/jeff-daniels-newsroom-returning-season-620110


Good.


----------



## GoPackGo (Dec 29, 2012)

Does Sorkin write every episode? He didn't even do that when he was still working on The West Wing. He was credited with "Story By" on most WW episodes, but someone else had the written by credit. 

I feel like he needs to start doing that with this show too before he burns out.


----------



## NorthAlabama (Apr 19, 2012)

GoPackGo said:


> Does Sorkin write every episode? He didn't even do that when he was still working on The West Wing. He was credited with "Story By" on most WW episodes, but someone else had the written by credit.
> 
> I feel like he needs to start doing that with this show too before he burns out.


he's shared writing credits for two eps, the rest were credited solely to him.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

There's a difference between 24 episodes and 10. How many WW did he write a year?


----------



## GoPackGo (Dec 29, 2012)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> There's a difference between 24 episodes and 10. How many WW did he write a year?


You're right about that, but he's also supposed to be writing the Steve Jobs film right now. I would feel better about this show's long term chances if more people were in the writer's room.

It's one thing to have a show like Curb or Louis were the showrunners are given full control. It's another thing to have a big ensemble cast, where lots of people depend on the writers to churn out episodes. I don't feel like Sorkin can do it all on his own.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

GoPackGo said:


> You're right about that, but he's also supposed to be writing the Steve Jobs film right now. I would feel better about this show's long term chances if more people were in the writer's room.
> 
> It's one thing to have a show like Curb or Louis were the showrunners are given full control. It's another thing to have a big ensemble cast, where lots of people depend on the writers to churn out episodes. I don't feel like Sorkin can do it all on his own.


I seriously doubt Sorkin is doing it all on his own. I'll bet there is a writing staff that he works with. But then once the stories are broken and the drafts are written, then Sorkin does all the work from there, fleshing out the dialogue and polishing off the scripts.


----------



## NorthAlabama (Apr 19, 2012)

DevdogAZ said:


> I seriously doubt Sorkin is doing it all on his own. I'll bet there is a writing staff that he works with.


according to online reporting, there is a writing staff, most of who were scrapped before season 2 started production:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/19/aaron-sorkin-fires-writers_n_1688267.html​


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

NorthAlabama said:


> according to online reporting, there is a writing staff, most of who were scrapped before season 2 started production:
> 
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/19/aaron-sorkin-fires-writers_n_1688267.html​





> Sorkin, who has been criticized for credit hogging-most often, the television writing process is highly collaborative-defended his method. "I create these shows so that I can write them," he said flatly. "I'm not an empire builder. I'm not interested in just producing. All I want to do is write. I came up as a playwright-writing is something you do by yourself in a room.
> 
> "*That said, I couldn't possibly write the show without that room full of people. I go in there, and we kick around ideas. I'm writing about all kinds of things I don't know anything about. So they do research for me.*"


He let go several writers at the end of S1. It doesn't mean that he then didn't hire replacements for S2.


----------



## NorthAlabama (Apr 19, 2012)

DevdogAZ said:


> He let go several writers at the end of S1. It doesn't mean that he then didn't hire replacements for S2.


i never meant to imply they weren't replaced, only that, yes, there is a staff and, they were changed for the 2nd season. apologies if my post was misleading.


----------



## MikeAndrews (Jan 17, 2002)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> There's a difference between 24 episodes and 10. How many WW did he write a year?


Sorkin wrote about all of the West Wings for first 4(?) seasons. The reason he left in last year (or two) was because Warner was sick of him tweaking until well past the last minute and not having the scripts done in time. When the ratings dipped they got enough leverage to overcome Sorkin's clout.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

NorthAlabama said:


> i never meant to imply they weren't replaced, only that, yes, there is a staff and, they were changed for the 2nd season. apologies if my post was misleading.


I wonder, because of the nature of the show, that he hires writers with different expertise to help him research and write with him. This year, perhaps he needed writers who were more intuned to writing "spy" or "conspiracy" type things. The first season he wanted writers who could write more about the workings of a newsroom. Next season, with a different arc, I'd expect all new writers again.


----------



## aindik (Jan 23, 2002)

netringer said:


> Sorkin wrote about all of the West Wings for first 4(?) seasons. The reason he left in last year (or two) was because Warner was sick of him tweaking until well past the last minute and not having the scripts done in time. When the ratings dipped they got enough leverage to overcome Sorkin's clout.


Well, there was also the cocaine problem if I recall.


----------



## NorthAlabama (Apr 19, 2012)

not to change the subject...

there's a season one marathon coming up on hbo zone monday night, 9/16, 7pm central.


----------



## madscientist (Nov 12, 2003)

Steveknj said:


> I don't know, I found the whole setup to the fake story, well, not very realistic. Maybe there's more to be explained. To me, there were too many coincidences for this to be, well a series of coincidences. When the CIA source talked to Charlie, my assumption was that he set this whole thing up as revenge for them firing his son. At least that's how it appeared to me.


That's not what happened. The CIA guy clearly said in his rant that he waited, and when he heard that ACN was looking into the story he took the opportunity to reinforce it. My only concern with this is that if he was so upset with Charlie, etc. it seems like he would have done more. The manifest is pretty weak tea when it comes to proof; the secret manifest entry could be lots of different things. The whole point is they don't know _what_ it is.

Anyway, the ONLY thing he did was provide the manifest and his confirmation as a "secret source", and the other tricky thing was he was the source for both Charlie and Will, but unknown to each other so they thought they had two confirmations when it was really the same poisoned source.

He didn't have any part in any of the rest of it. He didn't plan any of it. It was just a series of bad decisions and mistakes, and bad luck.



DevdogAZ said:


> Not only does the ref disappear and the cut looks totally unnatural, but you can actually see the shot clock and it goes from 19 to 3. I don't know how Jerry could have done this and thought he was getting away with it, and I don't know how the rest of the staff could have reviewed the "raw" footage and not noticed that.


I agree with Doug. The cut is sloppy but sports events ALWAYS have quick cuts and jump to show different parts of the action. Sure, if you look at it for a while you may think that the cut doesn't make sense (but on live sporting events that happens too: how many times have you been watching a football game or something and they cut to a camera which is pointing at some guy's back and they have to switch away again). However remember it was actually only on in a corner of the screen and they weren't expecting the raw footage to be faked, so they weren't looking for it. The clock IS the smoking gun, but you need to really zero in on it to notice it.



aindik said:


> One wonders why Dantanna couldn't schedule the interview for 9 am. Or for a Monday, Tuesday, or Wednesday.


The general insisted on that time, when he agreed to the interview.


----------



## Robin (Dec 6, 2001)

Steveknj said:


> Excellent points. These are supposed to be professionals. They should be LOOKING for stuff like that. And watching it, it's really noticeable that there's a jump. Isn't the whole point of the Red Teams to poke holes in the story to see if it can hold up to the holes?


They had no reason to believe the raw footage would be doctored. They were looking to make sure the interviewee's intent from the raw footage was maintained in the clip. A direct parallel top the Zimmerman tape.

The reason the cut was so blindingly obvious to everyone here war because you're looking for it. I noticed a slight coherence in the position of his chin, but only because I knew about the cut and was searching for something. I was so focused on him I didn't even look at the game.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

Robin said:


> They had no reason to believe the raw footage would be doctored. They were looking to make sure the interviewee's intent from the raw footage was maintained in the clip. A direct parallel top the Zimmerman tape.
> 
> The reason the cut was so blindingly obvious to everyone here war because you're looking for it. I noticed a slight coherence in the position of his chin, but only because I knew about the cut and was searching for something. I was so focused on him I didn't even look at the game.


But these are people who watch tape all day long. Their job in this case was to see if the story had merit, and, part of that would be watching the tape and looking to see if it's credible. Sorry, but I think someone who does this for a living would (should!) notice an abnormality.

But of course it wasn't in the script, so it didn't happen that way  I'm perfectly fine with it. Normally I'm not really all that nit picky about stuff like this.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Steveknj said:


> But these are people who watch tape all day long. Their job in this case was to see if the story had merit, and, part of that would be watching the tape and looking to see if it's credible. Sorry, but I think someone who does this for a living would (should!) notice an abnormality.
> 
> But of course it wasn't in the script, so it didn't happen that way  I'm perfectly fine with it. Normally I'm not really all that nit picky about stuff like this.


Yeah, in this case I just took it as creative shorthand for something so complicated and arcane if they'd done it "for real" it would have taken the whole episode, and we still wouldn't have understood exactly how it worked.

Even super-over-simplified as it was, they had to spend a LOT of screen-time setting it up and explaining what had happened. The kinds of real video glitches that might have happened in that situation would have been a lot harder to get across.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> Yeah, in this case I just took it as creative shorthand for something so complicated and arcane if they'd done it "for real" it would have taken the whole episode, and we still wouldn't have understood exactly how it worked.
> 
> Even super-over-simplified as it was, they had to spend a LOT of screen-time setting it up and explaining what had happened. The kinds of real video glitches that might have happened in that situation would have been a lot harder to get across.


It's always interesting that when we consider a show "well written" as we do with Sorkin's shows, we gloss over stuff like that. If this had been in Under the Dome, we'd be sitting here tearing that point apart  I guess Sorkin gets a pass.


----------



## IDSmoker (Apr 11, 2004)

Steveknj said:


> It's always interesting that when we consider a show "well written" as we do with Sorkin's shows, we gloss over stuff like that. If this had been in Under the Dome, we'd be sitting here tearing that point apart  I guess Sorkin gets a pass.


That's because if it was from Under the Dome, the video would've cut between basketball, ballet, and a Shamwow commercial! <grin>


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Steveknj said:


> It's always interesting that when we consider a show "well written" as we do with Sorkin's shows, we gloss over stuff like that. If this had been in Under the Dome, we'd be sitting here tearing that point apart  I guess Sorkin gets a pass.


Well, he gets the benefit of the doubt for not being an idiot! 

Unlike the White Queen, I'm not prepared to believe six impossible things before breakfast. But I'll usually spot you one.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

IDSmoker said:


> That's because if it was from Under the Dome, the video would've cut between basketball, ballet, and a Shamwow commercial! <grin>


:up::up:

I know  When you get a reputation as a top writer, you tend to overlook stuff that might not be so great. But overall the series is well written even if this bit is a bit past believable for me. In the end it doesn't matter, it was still a great episode.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

Steveknj said:


> It's always interesting that when we consider a show "well written" as we do with Sorkin's shows, we gloss over stuff like that. If this had been in Under the Dome, we'd be sitting here tearing that point apart  I guess Sorkin gets a pass.


He is getting a pass? There are a lot of posts on this very specific topic. On a per unit basis, he is getting lambasted. If we posted the same amount for every mistake or stupidity in Under the Dome, those threads would stretch from the moon and back if printed in teeny, tiny print.


----------



## janry (Jan 2, 2003)

Kind of a weird question? Did anyone have issues with the sound from this show (the entire season)?

We are binge watching and just finished this episode and I think for every episode I've gotten a massive headache due to distortion in the sound. It is worse when McKenzie (or whatever the exe. producers name is) due to her accent but I notice it also with the others from time to time. 

I don't have this issue with other shows and I really believe my speakers and receiver are tuned nicely.


----------

