21 Adjectives (and 4 Adverbs) to Describe Aaron Sorkin’s “The Newsroom”

Screenshot: <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lgFZbrwmndA&feature=youtu.be">HBO</a>/YouTube

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.

Whiny, sententious, stale, tedious, rambling, unamusing, flat, ho-hum, childish, embarrassing, jejune, twitchy-eyed, daffy, obvious, frustrating, self-congratulatory, left-leaning, emotionally manipulative, alarmingly candy-ass, maddeningly idealistic, and arduously quirky.

The Newsroom (premiering Sunday, June 24 at 10 p.m. EST on HBO) is a regrettable homecoming to television for writer Aaron Sorkin, the noted wit-and-quotable-monologue maestro behind Sports Night, The West Wing, Charlie Wilson’s War, A Few Good Men, and a whole bunch of other plays and movies. After tanking so severely with NBC’s one-season Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip, you’d think that taking five years off from TV—and winning an Oscar in that interim—would have heralded a rebirth of Sorkin’s small-screen touch; the kind of flair and insight that gave us the triumphant second and third seasons of the Bartlet administration.

Verdict: It is now clearer than ever that Aaron Sorkin should stick to churning out scripts for profitable and critically hailed Oscar bait, and stop trying to revisit the brief era when he was considered by many to be the best thing to happen to television since RCA color.

The deeply flawed if well-intentioned series does not waver one bit from the Sorkin plot formula. It’s a behind-the-scenes look at News Night, an hour-long cable news program anchored by Will McAvoy (played by a magnetic Jeff Daniels), an addled, middle-aged sex symbol of primetime. His staff is dysfunctional, immature, and clumsy, but also allegedly the best in the business. His executive producer Mackenzie MacHale (an irritating and miscast Emily Mortimer) is his former lover. The crew try to produce a news show with as much guts, integrity, and smarts as possible, all the while hampered by the constraints of corporate ownership. The first season of The Newsroom takes place in the Obama era and incorporates real-life breaking news, so if you had forgotten that Deepwater Horizon happened, this show will remind you.

For the first four episodes, Sorkin and co. spend their time preaching loyalty over career moves, virtue over success, informed debate over hoopla, camaraderie over cheap individuality, and art over commerce. It’s essentially the exact opposite of HBO’s Veep. But really what it boils down to is Sorkin shouting at the audience, “GUYS! JOURNALISTS CAN BE GOOD HUMAN BEINGS, TOO! GUYS!” His approach to tackling the shortcomings and the folly of American society and corporate media borders on being too sophomoric to entertain. For instance:

  • “There’s nothing more important in a democracy than a well-informed electorate,” Mackenzie sheepishly pronounces, before insisting that she’d “rather do a good show for a hundred people than do a bad one for a million people!”
  • “We passed laws, struck down laws for moral reasons…and we never beat our chest…and we didn’t scare so easy,” Will reminisces, as he speaks of America’s long-past golden era. (It’s worth noting that Will perhaps gives America’s past decades far too much credit.)

Such lines set the tone for an overabundance of stodgy dialogue—exchanges and rants that are packed so full with naivety and bromides that they fail to provoke thought. The gravitas is hollowed out, the heavy-handedness doesn’t sell, the attempts at wry humor stall, and Sorkin’s rapid-fire sarcasm doesn’t flutter the heart the way it used to.

There is, however, precisely one good scene during The Newsroom‘s inaugural four episodes: The fourth episode concludes as the crew scrambles to report on an assassination attempt on a public figure. The scene is perfectly paced, smoothly directed, and invigorating. “You’re a fucking newsman, Don, and if I ever tell you otherwise, you punch me in the face!” Will proudly yells at a producer.

It’s a sublimely executed and genuinely moving few minutes, whatever that’s worth. Here’s to hoping that the rest of the season adapts accordingly, and jettisons the holier-than-thou, smart-alecky insufferability.

Click here for more movie and TV features from Mother Jones. To read more of Asawin’s reviews, click here.

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate