The Newsroom's Latest Blather: Kochtopus! Citizens United! We're All Pawns!


The shadowy tentacles of the Koch brothers were invoked again during Sunday night's new episode of The Newsroom as it grows more and more unwatchable with each passing episode.

The rather inaccurate description of Citizens United and the Koch-funded groups involved came directly from this Think Progress piece from January 2011. This, by the way, seems to be News Night's system of gathering information. Despite these self-described media elites saying they're going to change the way news is reported, a significant amount of their coverage is based on what they've read from other news outlets and blogs.

Cato has provided their own response to having themselves described as nothing but a Koch front group for Citizens United:

But, you see, this just shows Aaron Sorkin's unwavering commitment to realism in his shows. Reporters regularly get the holding of Citizens United wrong. After all, if reporters were crystal clear that Citizens United cleared the way for all manner of groups to use "corporate treasury funds" to fund broad and overtly political statements about candidates, they would inevitably conclude that their own right to make those kinds of statements would be jeopardized by much of the campaign finance regulation on the books prior to Citizens United. And it's hard to demonize libertarians when they're fighting for the rights of everyone, including reporters and entertainers who work for subsidiaries of Time Warner (CNN, HBO), Viacom (CBS), Disney (ABC), Comcast (NBC, MSNBC), General Electric (NBC, MSNBC), News Corp. (FOX, Fox News), etc.

It is fairly absurd that Will McAvoy, the allegedly Republican news anchor battling with his corporate masters over how to report the news, does not realize that without the Citizens United decision, laws could be used to suppress his ability to comment about the behavior of elected officials or candidates running for office on his own show. Without the Citizens United decision, that villainous CEO played by Jane Fonda would have an easy excuse to yank him off the air.

This just in: I have no idea what I'm talking about.

It's also quite amusing that these "media elites" have also apparently never heard of the Cato Institute or the Heritage Foundation, have no idea what they are, what they stand for, or anything that they've done. If McAvoy were the rational Republican he claimed to be in a previous episode he would know full well about the Cato Institute's efforts toward both civil and economic liberty (just this past weekend Cato Scholar Walter Olson held a benefit to encourage conservative support for gay marriage equality). He would likely be familiar with the Institute for Justice's efforts to protect average citizens from oppressive government agencies trying take their homes and hand them over to rich corporations.  He should know what ultimately happened in New London following the Kelo decision. McAvoy would love those groups. But because McAvoy isn't what Sorkin thinks McAvoy is because Sorkin doesn't really understand any of this and doesn't really want to, we just end up with this stupid, thoughtless repetition of stuff Sorkin wishes were true.

Also, as an alleged arm of the Kochtopus (David Koch sits on the board of trustees for the Reason Foundation, which publishes this site), it's annoying and frustrating to be reduced to mere tools with no ability for personal agency. We see this with any invocation of the rich's involvement with politics, be it the Koch brothers or George Soros. The argument is that they pay the money for us to hold these positions. It doesn't seem to occur to folks like Sorkin that it's because we hold these positions that draws in the money. The Kochs wouldn't have much political clout at all with their millions if there weren't so many other people out there who agreed with them. I support the Citizens United decision without a single cent of outside money. It was the right and appropriate ruling.

And completely unrelated: I don't know how Sorkin makes it through a single day without getting punched in the face by every woman he comes across.

NEXT: Boston Police Overtime Scandal: Drug Unit Clocked in 900 Court Hours Not Needed by DA's Office

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. More like we’re all PWNED! Amirite?

    1. Suffering from false consciousness. You would know this if you weren’t . . .wait.

    2. The Newsroom’s Latest Blather: Kochtopus! Citizens United! We’re All Prawns!

  2. Man, Arachnophobia, Speed, and Dumb Dumber, and now this. What happened, Jeff Daniels?!

    1. He needed work. He doesn’t write that shit. He just needs a paycheck and speaks it.

      1. If I remember correctly the guy who played Archie Bunker was a raging liberal in real life.

        1. Not sure. He was a fabulous car collector and restorer. So for that alone O’Connor had more going for him than Sorkin ever will.

        2. You are correct, sir.

          More’s the pity w/Daniels, since he’s a fellow Michiganderanianite. He does support local theater, etc. in the environs near the People’s Republic of Ann Arbor, which is nice.

          Otherwise, just another hack actor about whose politics I really don’t care.

          1. I’ve always wondered why talent in acting or music qualifies someone to be an expert in politics.

            1. It only does if you mean well and play on the right team. And you don’t even have to have talent. A set of tits will get you there as well.

              1. It’s worked wonders for Barney Frank the ample bosomed representative from Massachussetts.

                1. And Chuck Schumer. No one has moobs like the Schumster.

      2. He should have been getting better offers over the last 15 years. He’s not that bad of an actor. He’s Tom Hanksian without the desire to pad his r?sum? with easy box office romantic comedies…Which backfired on him.

        1. No he is not. He has been in some very good movies over the years.

          1. I forgot he was in Blood Work.

            1. World According to Garp. He was all over the 1980s.

              1. Daniels wasn’t in Garp. You might be thinking of John Lithgow.

                1. No I am thinking of Terms of Endearment. I knew there was a movie where he was a teacher that had an affair with the married protagonist. For some reason I remembered it as being Garp. But in Garp the wife was screwing the high school student.

                  1. “‘Michael Milton’? Sounds like a flavor at a gay ice cream parlor.”

            2. That was a wonderful movie! A bit atypical for Clint, and definitely for Daniels. He was a very creepy and convincing (and surprising) bad guy.

              1. i thought the bad guy was that lady who kept screaming “Marp!” while shooting Mork.

                1. Never forget Mork. Never.

        2. Something Wild was sort of a romantic comedy.

          1. He was in a Woody Allen film, wasn’t he? As the lead, I mean.

            1. The Purple Rose of Cairo, which is one of Allen’s best. He plays the lead character in a movie who walks off the screen.

              And lest we forget his epic stache in Gettysburg.

              1. That’s it–thanks. Liked that one.

              2. He and Sam Elliott made Gettysburg. Martin Sheen sucked as Lee though.

                1. Gods and Generals I liked a lot. Stonewall came across as the saddest soul who ever lived. Stephan Lang conveyed that weighty quality very well. And Duvall outclassed Sheen in the Lee roll easily.

                  1. Gods and Generals was terrible. And I’m not talking about the surprisingly sympathetic portrayl of the Confederacy (which was how most critics savaged it), but just the writing and the pretentious dialouge that had the characters speaking in needlessly elaborate soliloquy rather than as actual people.

      3. Have you not seen any of his interviews in support of the show? He is behind it 100%.

        1. Sure he is. It is where his paycheck comes from. Give me a few hundred grand an episode and I would publicly deliver fellatio to Sorkin too. Of course being in Hollywood, I am sure he believes it. But still.

          1. It’s one thing to bite your tongue for a paycheck when playing in the standard Hollywood fare with a liberal slant, but that at least is ABOUT something else. I mean, I don’t fault that guy from the Carol Burnett show going on 30 Rock despite the fact it’s about 30% liberal backpatting, 10% comedy, and 60% pure stupidity.

            But this is way beyond that. The entire purpose of the show is liberal propaganda. You don’t attach yourself to that unless you agree with it.

    2. Something Wild has to be my favorite Daniels movie.

  3. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

    From this, they come up with “corporations are people”, and oh yeah, “fuck the Catholic Church and it’s War On Women”

    1. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

      Ah, much better.

    2. So, you’re saying that if the government censored ABC, NBC, MSNBC, FOX, or CNN news programs, that would be fine because all of them are corporations? Or are you going to say that certain parts of the first amendment apply to corporations, and certain parts don’t?

      1. Oh, wait, I think you were criticizing that viewpoint… nevermind.

        1. Of course I was criticizing that viewpoint. What else could a sane person do? The left is batshit crazy, and I believe we’re not far from violent pushback against their relentless statism.

          1. black choppers in the nite aint lefties

            1. statists are statists, left or right

            2. Get with the program, it’s black drones in the night now.

  4. But Jeff Daniels tweeted it was the best episode yet!

    1. That’s in his contract.

  5. A ‘good guy/bad guy’ dialog is highly useful to the left, it saves them the trouble of having to actually think about any of their positions and allows them to get to the part they really enjoy, feeling morally and intellectually superior to everyone else.

  6. A friend of mine made me watch this bit from Newsroom over the weekend to see what I thought.

    Holy crap this was perhaps the most disgusting thing I’ve ever seen. It’s as bad as everyone says it is.

    Just terrible. Go eat a dick Soorkin.

  7. HBO has to fill up the time with something until the next season of Game of Thrones is ready.

    1. I’d think much more highly of Game of Thrones if it were – as I originally imagined it based solely on the title – a game show involving toilets.

      Alas, alack – would that it were so!

      1. I liked it well enough to watch another Dinklage vehicle–The Station Agent. Pretty good. He’s a fine actor.

        1. I saw that movie in a theater. Thought it was very good.

          1. Very nonstandard–surprised me with what it didn’t do as much as anything.

            After Game of Thrones, the one thing The Station Agent missed was slapping. Dinklage is a master slapper.

        2. I liked The Station Agent a lot. Did very well at avoiding the obvious and boring movie tropes that it might have.

          1. Yet not too quirky, either. Very nice job, all around.

      2. I just finished the first season of GoT. Very hooked which was a pleasant surprise.

        1. It’s quite well done. No doubt, these big, sweeping novels need to be miniseries here on out.

          One thing with HBO–if there’s a scene of someone hugging in a book, it’ll be an orgy in the HBO version. In other words, not every novel may be appropriate to HBO. Or may be, depending on your preferences.

    2. After season 2, I think Game of Thrones would be better if HBO put out two seasons per year; one focused on Westeros and the other focuse on Essos (Daenerys).

      1. But I thought splitting up the storylines is what people hate about the 4th and 5th books. Why continue that misstep in the TV show?

        1. Martin addressed that at the end of A Feast for Crows. Either he split one super-huge book up into two, or just have one super-huge book. I would take either arrangement if it got Martin to write books faster.

        2. Martin addressed that at the end of A Feast for Crows. Either he split one super-huge book up into two, or just have one super-huge book. I would take either arrangement if it got Martin to write books faster.

  8. I finally had to stop watching it. The wife said she couldn’t make out the dialogue over my snorts of derision and exasperated sighing.

    1. “Worsht. Epishode. Ever.”

      1. Rest assured that I was on the internet within minutes registering my disgust throughout the world.

    2. We turn it into a kind of MST3K at my place while watching.

      I have a co-worker who tells me he can’t watch it without thinking of what my derisive reaction to each scene will be, so at least I’ve roont the show for him.

      1. I think Sorkin ruint the show before you had a chance to.

  9. At least there’s still Veep on HBO if you’re a libertarian. Boss isn’t the greatest drama, but it’s heart is in the right place.

  10. Wouldn’t the Content Czar have to approve this series if Citizens United were overturned?

    1. HBO is a corporation. And yes without Citizen’s United, the FEC could have regulated TV content. If Citizens United couldn’t make a documentary on Hillary Clinton, HBO or CBS couldn’t have either.

      1. Without Citizens United, the FEC could have censored or suppressed books. This came out during oral arguments. I have brought this up to a lefty author friend, and the response is “they wouldn’t have done that” followed by more blather about corporations buying elections.

        1. Ask your friend how much advertising it would take to get him/her to vote for a non-liberal.

          1. Doesn’t matter. The standard lefty position is that THEY are too smart and worldly to be personally corruptible. It’s all those OTHER people who are going to be persuaded by evil Korporations. Those people need to have their rights violated for their own good.

            1. Sadly, yes. Just as the government is needed to heal the sick and feed the hungry. There is no end of need, therefore there should be no end to government. And when government inevitably screws it up, well, we just need to Try Harder with more government.

              1. Of course things only became screwed up because of the nefarious influence of money on the otherwise nearly perfect system, so all we need is to get the right people ™ in charge.

          2. The Hope Change slogan/logo seemed to worked really well. War is ok now that we have Hope.

          3. Exactly! I do pretty much the same thing… “So how much would Sarah Palin have to spend on a commercial to get you to vote for her?”

        2. Wasn’t that Kagan when she was SG who admitted that? She really let the mask slip didn’t she?

          And of course they could. The could have censored anything. There is nothing special about a movie versus a book or a blog or a pamphlet. Had the minority opinion won the day, there would have been no way to limit the decision.

        3. “They wouldn’t have done that” is an absurd position. Why trust anyone with that much power over you?

          1. Why trust anyone with that much power over you?

            But if they are on our team and mean well Pro, it is okay.

            1. I know several people who think like that.

            2. It never fails to stun me that these people, with all of their wailing during the Bush years, can’t see that more power means more power for the Republicans, too.

              Fucking moronic.

              1. They beleive two things,

                1. If they get their way on Citizens United, the public will never vote Republican again.

                2. The rules would be different for Republicans because they say so.

                I have seen numerous liberals in response to the possibility that a President Romney would rule by EO like Obama has that “we wouldn’t let that happen.”

              2. Well they’ll have to have something to bitch and moan about if Romney wins. It’s not like his actual policies will be any different from Saint Barack the Hopey Changey*.

                *Not that that’s ever stopped them from whining before.

      2. If Citizens United couldn’t make a documentary on Hillary Clinton, HBO or CBS couldn’t have either.

        You’re assuming that the laws are still enforced evenly and fairly. Obviously the HBO or CBS documentary would be approved/ disapproved based on a myriad factors. None of which include whether or not the powers that be agree with the content of said documentary. Trust them, they’re TOP MEN.

    2. APPROVED! And moar of it!

      Now, off to banish Stossel to pirate radio…

  11. Who watches this show anyways when Breaking Bad is on AMC during the same time slot?

    1. I admit I laughed when BB referenced Fast and Furious in the first episode.

  12. When someone tells me they love this show, my respect for them drops in half.
    Sorkin is the epitome of a hack writer:

    1. I think even liberals have had enough of him.

      1. They will never tire of a hack that confirms their beliefs.

        1. Aaron Sorkin is why people hate liberals. That’s Even they’re sick of him.

    2. I was too young to care then, but I can see how Sorkin’s writing would have been popular in the 90s. That decade was all about the Clintonian ideal of the wonkish, Rhodes scholarly, liberal professional. Remember, The West Wing was most popular from 1999 until 2001, the last year Clinton was in office.

      1. Exactly. I watched an episode of west wing back in the day. It was amusing to see someones cartoon vision of how great, heroic technocrats selflessly fight for the “little guy”. My GF at the time loved the show, which in retrospect should have been a Red flag.

      2. It was popular until Sorkin got busted for cocaine and left the show.

    3. That’s hilarious

  13. I watched the first few minutes of this episode on my way to not watching it. I got enough into it (maybe two minutes) when one of the perky regulars breathlessly described Scott Walker’s state budget balancing on the backs of public unions – “especially teachers – by limiting their collective bargaining rights.” Seemed pretty phoned in. Who knows, maybe they had another character challenge that assertion later in the episode.

    1. At this rate, they’ll use up all of David Axelrod’s talking points in a month.

  14. I have to say it’s really quite nice to discover, despite all the evidence to the contrary, that we libertarians secretly rule the world.

    1. Those monocles and top hats have to come in handy for something.

    2. Wait a minute. Are we Jews?

      1. No. We’re more like Freemasons. Remember how all the Founders were Masons?

        Annuit c?ptis, brother!

        1. Wait, I thought all our rulers were lizard-alien hybrids? Were they also Freemasons?

            1. Damn, Freemason lizard-alien hybrids? That’s like worse than Hitler.

              1. Well, not worse than lizard-alien Hitler. Oh, you thought he was human? Come, man, do you really think a human would commit those kinds of atrocities?

              2. I hate Illinois Freemazon lizard-alien hybrids

          1. A coworker of mine, a Freemason, likes to joke “If we were trying to take over the world, don’t you think we’d have done it by now?”

            1. That’s disingenuous, as they’ve been doing that for centuries.

              1. I’ve never seen him do any “taking over the world” stuff, but his group does do quite a lot of charity work throughout the community. Fundraisers, raffles, clambakes, and the like.
                Really sinister. Downright creepy.

              2. kind of like “Pinky and the Brain”….

                1. Narf!

            2. Some people think they have.

              1. Would The History Channel lie?

            3. If the Freemasons are tied to the central banks, they have taken over.

              “Give me control of a nation’s money and I care not who makes the laws.”
              – Mayer Amschel Rothschild

        2. Screw that. We are MONOCLISTS

          1. Just make sure you get that first “S” in there.

            1. I once had a second job grading the subjective portion of 4th grade standardized test. One kid misspelled “count” by omitting the “o”. I remarked to the woman next to me that I hoped his parents would take him to the next spelling bee.

        3. We’re the Stonecutters!

          Who controls the British crown
          Who keeps the metric system down
          We do, we do
          Who keeps Atlantis off the maps
          Who keeps the Martians under wraps
          We do, we do

          Who holds back the electric car
          Who makes Steve Guttenberg a star
          We do we do

          Who robs kingfish of their sight
          Who rigs every Oscar night
          We do, WE DO!

          1. Wait, wouldn’t we want a clod like Homer for a member? President, even?

      2. Yes. Liberals just can’t be overt about their antisemitism anymore. Libertarian and “1%” and such words are total dog whistles.

        1. John, it’s not anti-semitism, it is justice for the Palestinians or whatever.

      3. If we are, I want my damn bar mitzvah money.

        1. In my family, getting married is where the cash comes from. I should’ve gotten married at 21 like my cousins.

          1. Stay single, if you still are.

            1. For a long time.

      4. Jews. Illuminati. Freemasons. Whatever.

        1. There’s a big difference. Do you want Jews catering world rule conventions?

            1. Here’s the trick to understanding Jewish cuisine: If it’s good, they stole it from someone else. If it’s shitty, it’s theirs. Unique among natives of the Mediterranean, who otherwise lead the world in awesome food.

          1. Conventions?! Look, when the two Koch brothers have dinner together at their secret castle inside a volcano inside a submarine, it’s hardly a convention.

          2. Conventions?! Look, when the two Koch brothers have dinner together at their secret castle inside a volcano inside a submarine, it’s hardly a convention.

          3. Conventions?! Look, when the two Koch brothers have dinner together at their secret castle inside a volcano inside a submarine, it’s hardly a convention.

            1. OK, server squirrels, I get the message. Apparently you actually run the world.

        2. I threw in with the Gnomes of Zurich – NOW, I find out I have chosen….poorly?

    3. If we rule the world, why am I sitting in my dining room watching my stock portfolio dwindle? I want to rule, goddammit!

  15. The even bigger reason this is idiotic is because the Koch’s didn’t need Citizens United to do any of their spending.

    Very little direct corporation spending has occurred this cycle. Almost none of it comes from the Koch’s. The Koch spending infrastructure was built in pre-Citizen’s United days, and is set up to comply with that legal regime.

  16. Oh, let me see if I can Godwin this thread:

    So to “progressives”, Corparashuns/Koch is the modern day Jewish Cabal? Who knew?

  17. Speaking of cable shows. There needs to be at least a cable movie or maybe a full series on the Life of Simon DeMonfort. That is a better real life story than Brave Heart.

    1. Seconded.

      Now that the Mel Gibson / Ezterhas *Story of Hanukkah* has fallen through, this is the least Hollywood can do for us.

      1. I agree. I am still bummed we won’t get to see Gibson play Judah Macabee. I am thinking Russell Crowe as Simon DeMonfort would be a nice consolation prize.

  18. Heritage Foundation is pretty much evil. Not so much for Cato.

    I gave up on The Newsroom after 2 episodes. It’s just awful, self-indulgent crap, and it takes a lot to turn me off to a HBO show.

    1. Why is Heritage evil? Let me guess, they hold views you don’t agree with.

      1. Well, if you’re not evil, by definition the evil people hold views you don’t agree with.

        1. Your implication goes the wrong way, again.

          evil ==} disagree

          is not equivalent to

          disagree ==} evil

          1. I believe the technical term is “Fallacy of the Excluded Middle”, or something like that.

            1. Ironically, googling “fallacy of the excluded middle” sends me to Wikipedia’s “law of the excluded middle” article. Presumably because the first thing in the article is a warning “Not to be confused with the fallacy of the excluded middle”, which contains a link to the “false dilemma” article.

              There’s a joke in there somewhere but I’m damned if I can figure it out.

              1. A priest, a rabbi and a donkey walk into a bar…

      2. I was mostly kidding, but Heritage has always struck me as a generic Republican think tank that pushes the policies encouraged by its donors.

        I just saw an editorial on Daily Caller by someone at Heritage arguing against the legalization of pot and using the same old tired, discredited excuses.

        1. Heritage is definitely more of a mouthpiece for mainstream republicans than Cato.

  19. … it’s because we hold these positions that draws in the money.

    … it’s our holding of these positions that draws in the money.

    1. Or better: … it’s our holding these positions …

  20. Sorkin fired most of the show’s writers. Because firing the guy responsible for this mess wasn’t an option.

  21. So, does Newsroom have as much nudity as Game of Thrones? Because if it’s got nudity and beheadings, I might be persuaded to watch. Otherwise, no point to it. I mean, I expect some nudity out of HBO. It’s the only reason to have premium channels.

    1. It has had no nudity so far. And Olivia Munn is on it. This is inexcusable. Sorkin should be peeled, salted and roasted for this outrage.

      1. The faux-geek? What does she do?

        1. Apparently nothing interesting enough to make me watch.

        2. She’s the super-brainy economist that no one takes seriously because she’s so pretty.

          (I’m not kidding.)

          1. I hate that false dichotomy more than anything. Just because I’m squeezing some of yo titty doesn’t mean I disrespect your opinion of quantitative easement.

        3. Agreed. If you’re going to hire a fake geek as resident sex symbol, she should at least be a fake geek who’ll go full frontal (see: Sara-Jean Underwood).

          Munn? Why is she famous again?

          1. Feed that name Sara-Jean Underwood into google image search and you get about a month’s worth of spank material. Never seen so many different pictures listed for an actress/model before.

    2. Wasn’t the first scene in the first episode of Rome some sex?

      1. Marc Antony banging Octavion’s mom?

        For some reason I feel like the opening scene was of Legio Tredici, but that might be Gladiator fucking with me.

        1. I can’t remember. I was thinking it was Atia sexing up someone, but it’s been a while.

          I liked Rome on a certain level, but it was tremendously liberal with history. Augustus’ mom, for instance, was supposed to be about as virtuous as they came.

          1. History has but one unassailable and universal truth: Everyone’s mom is a filthy whore.

            1. Everyone else’s mom. That’s how that works.

          2. They held pretty true to all the Big Events though.

            1. Yeah, but what are you going to do, have Julius Caesar survive the assassination and take over the world? With a machine gun?


      2. No, the first scene was the Battle of Alesia; the sex occurred in the next segment, albeit within the first 15 minutes or so.

    3. They say “fuck” a lot.

  22. If it wasn’t for TV, stupid people would have little to talk about.

  23. Apparently the Koch money is enough to make Scott Shackford watch this tripe and report back, so maybe it is more corrupting than we suspect.

  24. I don’t know how Sorkin makes it through a single day without getting punched in the face by every woman he comes across.

    Your understanding of what women really want is nil.

    1. Oh, I’m sure some women want to punch Aaron Sorkin.

    2. Sure, Aaron, whatever you say.

    3. Your understanding of what women really want is nil.

      LOL @ reading this on an HR thread.

      1. Knowing what women want and not having it or not willing to give it up are two different things.

        I am pretty sure most men here understand women want money….or at least know that enough of them do that the reminder do not count.

  25. There is something about this that I can’t quite put my finger on that reminds me of a prescription drug commercial.

    After each actor finishes his or her line, I can’t help but repeat in my head “…with a low risk of sexual side effects….”

    1. It’s Sorkin’s dialog.

      Once had a creative writing teacher give us an assignment of recording 10 minutes of conversation, and then transcribing it verbatim (including all the ums and uhs) and bringing it into class.

      You’d be amazed at the rather broken and halting nature of actual conversation. Virtually the exact opposite of the way Sorkin’s characters speak.

      Generally the middle ground between realistic and Sorkinized is the butter zone for good dramatic conversation. The discussion between Jules and Vincent before entering the apartment in Pulp Fiction is a great example.

      1. Exactly. David Mamet also has a most excellent ear for dialog.

      2. This is also the main reason that I have long held, even before he incorporated retarded establishment fellating political messaging, Sorkin is a shitty writer.

        When the first purpose of the writing is to make you look good, you have lost any disciplinary control of your medium.

        1. Not sure if you’re one of her fans, but Ayn Rand had similar dialogue problems in her later works.

          1. Yes, Rand’s characters in Atlas speak like they’re in a work meant to be didactic fiction.
            Come to think of it, the Fox and the Crow’s dialog seemed a little stilted, too. “That’s for me, as I am a Fox”

          2. In her *later* works?

      3. This is why it’s so annoying to watch other people talk to each other.

  26. My Newsroom drinking game:
    Every time someone follows up the use of sarcasm with the words “that was sarcasm,” drink.

  27. “…finance laws prohibiting unlimited corporate contributions TRUMP the First Amendment…”

    Does that even make the slightest fucking sense?

    1. None. None at all.

    2. There is a lot of that going on in the show.

      They claimed the Tea Party wished to eliminate the 14th amendment in 1rst episode.

      Soon I expect the show to claim that removing gun control laws violate the 2nd amendment.

    3. That’s not what she said. She said “so does the Institute for Justice, which said finance laws prohibiting unlimited corporate contributions TRUMP the First Amendment, and after the court ruled in their favour”

      So IJ is against Citizen’s United?

  28. I don’t know how Sorkin makes it through a single day without getting punched in the face by every woman he comes across.

    West Wing was not nearly as hateful towards women (especially young women) as he is with Newsroom.

    My guess is between the two someone broke his heart….That or he went on some idiotic rants and more then a few women chose to ignore him.

    “But but but I am a !!GREAT MAN!!! you cannot dismiss what i am saying you stupid woman!!!”

  29. I don’t know how Sorkin makes it through a single day without getting punched in the face by every woman he comes across.

    Proof there is no justice.

  30. The last thing said is that CU allowed corporations to make unlimited anonymous donations to political candidates. Damn. They got it wrong at least three ways.

    1. Didn’t they almost get a guy killed by making him reveal his identity?

  31. This is the shittiest show I have ever seen. Liberal Bullshit at its best.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.