“The Newsroom,” Season 2: Not an Unpardonable Train Wreck Like Season 1

HBO

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


A little over a year ago, the first season of The Newsroom premiered on HBO. Here are the 21 adjectives and four adverbs I used to describe it:

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.

Having had nearly 13 months to reflect on season one, I stand by all 25 words. But here are two words to describe the second season of writer Aaron Sorkin‘s HBO series: Markedly improved.

To everyone else who devoutly hate-watched the 10-episode first season (including those who don’t work in news and media), I am just as surprised as you are. It appears that Sorkin wasn’t lying when he indicated he had taken note of last year’s tidal wave of criticism and made tweaks to the show.

In the first four episodes of the new season (premiering Sunday, July 14 at 10 p.m. ET/PT), much of the generic, holier-than-thou, smart-alecky insufferability has dissipated. The dialogue is sharper and the story arcs are more intriguingly structured. The season (this one running nine episodes) is presented in flashbacks, as the ACN news team are prepped by lawyer Rebecca Halliday (played by Oscar winner Marcia Gay Harden) for a deposition in a wrongful termination suit. (Sorkin is a big fan of framing stories around depositions, as evidenced by The Social Network and Malice, for instance.) The case, as well the flashbacks, focuses on News Night with Will McAvoy‘s broadcast of a since retracted exposé of the alleged government cover-up of Operation Genoa. The black op supposedly involved the US military using sarin gas on Pakistani civilians during a botched rescue mission. This story arc is based on CNN and Time‘s retracted reporting on Operation Tailwind, a covert American mission in southeastern Laos during the Vietnam War.

The new season touches heavily on drones, Occupy Wall Street, and the 2012 election (on board the Romney bus during primary season). The ensemble cast, led by Jeff Daniels, Emily Mortimer, Sam Waterston, Olivia Munn, and so forth, benefit from lines of dialogue that sound more like Sorkin’s Sports Night and less like his hyper-preachy and joyless Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip debacle. Not all of The Newsroom‘s glaring flaws have vanished, though. The series’ main love triangle (quadrangle? pentagon?) is the subplot that won’t mercifully die, and all it does is further showcase Sorkin’s lazy will-they-won’t-they narrative tendencies. Some viewers may once again get turned off by the overall liberal smugness. And nothing here rises to the quality of Sorkin’s critically acclaimed Oscar bait, or his small-screen heyday—the brief era when he was considered by many to be the best thing to happen to television since RCA color first came along (think: The West Wing‘s second and third seasons).

But this time around, The Newsroom is less smug. It’s less childish and more confident. And it’s certainly less alarmingly candy-ass and less maddeningly idealistic. The season is at its best when Sorkin and company forget that their characters are trying to run the Greatest News Program Of All Time, and instead explore how they arrived at their colossal, libelous fuck-up.

Even with the improvements, The Newsroom is not a great TV drama, no matter how much it clearly yearns to be. It has, however, now entered the realm of tolerability, and is perhaps even a worthwhile show. And that’s just enough to give it—with all due caution—a second chance.

Here’s a trailer for the second season:

Click here for more TV and film coverage from Mother Jones.

To read more of Asawin’s reviews and culture reporting, 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