S03.E01: Boston

[oceanblue]

That was Jane Barrow.  

[Boundary]

I don't know, does CNN have Bloomberg terminals?

 

They used to be big into finance, even having a separate CNNFN channel.  But that bombed out.

 

Now they mostly report how much the stock market went up or down, report on the big business news that every other media outlet reports.

 

Since they're not doing any kind of sleuthing, why would they need them?

 

I'm just saying they'd have a bunch of subscriptions around to make their jobs easier, there are others who offer a similar service to Bloomberg. So I'd expect a news org to have a bunch news, finance and sports agencies on tap. It's like any university having access to a number of journals/journal portals, you wouldn't use all of them all of the time but it is handy to have them when the need arises. 

[loriro]

Wasn't that Jane Barrow? I think Terry is the one who's always "coming up next with the Capitol Report."

 

yep...my bad. Y'all are correct! Thanks for the clarification. 

[txhorns79]

I'm just saying they'd have a bunch of subscriptions around to make their jobs easier, there are others who offer a similar service to Bloomberg. So I'd expect a news org to have a bunch news, finance and sports agencies on tap. It's like any university having access to a number of journals/journal portals, you wouldn't use all of them all of the time but it is handy to have them when the need arises.

 

I agree with this.  It makes sense that a worldwide news organization is going to have all these things, because they don't want to purposefully put themselves at a disadvantage should a story break where those sources would be very useful. 

[HyeChaps]

When would Will come in if his program airs at 9 p.m.?

[oceanblue]

Will doesn't seem like he's a 9-5 (or 1-10) kind of guy.  I think he usually gets there mid-morning, just the sense I've gotten.  

[madam magpie]

Mid-morning would be my guess too. He's always there, Jenna was bringing him breakfast, and he's not just the anchor: he writes the show, is always at the run down meetings, and is also the managing editor. I'd guess he's there at least 12 hours a day.

Edited November 13, 2014 by madam magpie

[Boundary]

Is he the editor of just his show? Same question goes for MacKenzie. They seem to have overriding priority when the news breaks.

[madam magpie]

My impression is that Will is the main ACN anchor and Mac is the highest level producer. So they have their daily prime time show, of which he's the managing editor and that they write together, but then they also lead breaking news. Will would probably be comparable to someone like Anderson Cooper, John King, or Wolf Blitzer. Or in the old days, Walter Cronkite or Dan Rather.

Edited November 13, 2014 by madam magpie

[Boundary]

Although Cronkite or Rather only had a nightly show that they had full control of, which was well received. Will seems to be held responsible for the whole network, which could be said too be unfair but with he money he's paid I suppose it's a fair deal.

[madam magpie]

I don't get the sense that Will's responsible for the content of all the shows on the network, just his. He doesn't write or drive The Capitol Report, say, or Sloan's daytime financial show. It would be impossible for one person to have the time to do that. But he is the network's main anchor and star. He's the one who is supposed to bring in the main prime time audience, which is where the money is, and he's the highest paid. So when the network loses money or credibility, a lot of the responsibility for that would fall on Will and his boss (Charlie) and his EP (Mac). They'd be the ones the execs would look to replace, starting with Will, who is the most expensive. Charlie is probably responsible for the network's content, though he'd mostly delegate that the to the writers, managing editors, and EPs of the various shows.

Rather and Cronkite's situations were a little different because they did the news on a network that had many types of shows. But had the CBS News division lost money and credibility, the execs would definitely have looked to them for solutions.

Edited November 14, 2014 by madam magpie

[Boundary]

I agree completely. But in a way, even without content responsibility for the other shows, Will takes the blame when ratings tank not only for his show (the most important one) but for the network as a whole. He is part of the exec team in that sense.

Edited November 14, 2014 by Boundary

[madam magpie]

Oh for sure. But I think that's mainly because he (and Charlie, Reese, Leona, and Mac to some extent) see him and News Night as carrying the network. He's kind of a de facto exec, and only part of that team as much as his rating rise or dip because if he becomes a liability, it's a HUGE liability since he's so famous. Plus, of course, he has a relationship with Leona and Charlie that seems to go way back, so he's probably more involved with their decisions than just a regular anchor might be.

Edited November 14, 2014 by madam magpie

[NoWillToResist]

The nut allergy cracked me up but as someone who has one it's not actually a joke.

 

I'm trying to figure out how someone who has a nut allergy would eat ANYTHING they didn't make themselves without asking about the potential presence of nuts in said item. Particularly if you are eating it three minutes before you are due to go on air.

 

Nine bridesmaids? NINE? I'm sorry but no. That would be a deal-breaker for me. Your sister can be a bridesmaid. Maybe even the groom's sister if you know her well and like her. All your female coworkers and Diane Fucking Sawyer? No. That's a fucking Bridezilla in the making. Shut it down, Will. SHUT IT DOWN.

 

I enjoyed the scene with Reese and Sloan. Not sure why he's bringing their financial woes to her per se, but I appreciated the inherent compliment to her intellect that he did

 

I can't believe how quickly I went from being invested in Maggie/Jim to not giving even a single shit about them, together or individually. That 'plot' ruined them both for me.

 

I adore that Don and Sloan are a thing. BUT. I have a slight beef: Don got out of jury duty (hilariously, I might add) to rush back to the newsroom because there'd been a bombing in Boston. He finally gets there and the first thing he does is...pop by his girlfriend's office to say 'hi'? Really?

 

And Neil. Poor Neil. I can't believe he asked for MORE illegally obtained gov't docs. I don't know whether to laugh or cry. I guess that's the point of Will having him repeat the story over and over, because the brain can gloss over details it deems unimportant. Through re-telling, you might be able to piece all the bits together to get a pretty complete narrative.

 

I am glad the show is back but I will say one thing that I hate and hope we don't get a lot of: people talking/arguing over each other. When Will and Charlie were yelling at each other and over each other in Will's office, I simply could not understand what either one was saying. This pulls me right out of the show because I sit back in a huff and wait until that shit is done. Unfortunately, I think this is a Sorkinism, so I'm probably doomed to be disappointed.

[madam magpie]

I don't get the outrage with the number of bridesmaids (not just here, elsewhere as well; it seems to be a thing people have zeroed in on). First, it seems to obviously be a bit that was meant to be funny and likely won't play out. But second, if you're as rich as these people are, how is nine different from five...or four...or seven...or twelve? A big wedding doesn't seem like something Mac would want, but if it is, who cares?

[oceanblue]

Personally, it seemed out of character for me, but in general, 9 bridesmaids seems like something you do when you're really young, like just out of high school. By Mac's age, you get that most people would rather be in the audience than up on the altar.  

[madam magpie]

I don't know. Who can afford nine bridesmaids when you're young? It seems to me that bride or groom or one of the families has to be rich to have a wedding that big. As for the other, I generally find weddings boring, but I also know tons of people who love them and are hurt when they aren't asked to participate. Siblings and friends seem standard. The Diane Sawyer mention came out of left field, but again, it seems obvious that it was meant to be funny. Diane Sawyer probably isn't really going to come on The Newsroom, play herself, and be in Mac and Will's wedding.

Edited November 15, 2014 by madam magpie

[Inquisitionist]

And...Watertown is pronounced Water. Town. TOWN. How do you get "Waterton" out of that? No major media outlet ever called it "Waterton," and yet it was pronounced that way in the ACN background news and by Jim.

 

Water. Town. It's not that difficult! No wonder you people are in fourth place!

 

Thank you!  I just watched the episode On Demand this morning and was ready to punch through my TV set.  Who TF are the Boston consultants on this show? And you don't even have to be from Boston to know this -- as you said, just listen to the actual Boston-based newscasters who pronounced it Water. Town.  Yeesh.

[NoWillToResist]

I don't get the outrage with the number of bridesmaids (not just here, elsewhere as well; it seems to be a thing people have zeroed in on). First, it seems to obviously be a bit that was meant to be funny and likely won't play out. But second, if you're as rich as these people are, how is nine different from five...or four...or seven...or twelve? A big wedding doesn't seem like something Mac would want, but if it is, who cares?

 

For me, it was more about who the intended bridesmaids were rather than the number. I mean, if you've got five sisters, two best friends and you are close to two of your fiance's siblings, I can get that it would hard to exclude anyone. But when Mac listed her nine, it honestly felt like she was simply listing every woman she knows, most of whom are people who work for/with her. I don't think the ladies at the newsroom would even count as friends, to be honest, and as such are not candidates for bridesmaids, IMO.

 

It just struck me as one of those over-the-top, I-want-it-all bride moments that I cannot fucking stand...

[madam magpie]

She only listed Maggie (the person she mentored) and Sloan (a close friend) from work. The others were her sisters, Will's sisters, her sister-in-law, and Diane Sawyer (whom I agree was random, but I think was meant to be funny; and anyway, would eight instead have made any difference??). For the groomsmen she listed Charlie and Jim (who seem like givens), Don (I can see it), and Elliott. I don't see how that's a bridezilla moment at all. It's just a woman with a crap ton of money who's marrying a guy with even more money planning a big, society wedding. This is a woman whose go-bag looked like Louis Vuitton and contained a pair of Louboutins. And her fiancé gave her a ring that cost more than my mother's house. But the number of bridesmaids is what's over-the-top? And that makes Mac a bitch somehow?? I don't see it. From where I sit, she's just rich.

Edited November 17, 2014 by madam magpie

[NoWillToResist]

It's just a woman with a crap ton of money who's marrying a guy with even more money planning a big, society wedding. This is a woman whose go-bag looked like Louis Vuitton and contained a pair of Louboutins. And her fiancé gave her a ring that cost more than my mother's house. But the number of bridesmaids is what's over-the-top? And that makes Mac a bitch somehow?? I don't see it. From where I sit, she's just rich.

 

I don't think I ever called her a bitch.

 

I would agree that nine bridesmaids would be a marker of a big, society wedding (and that right there is reason enough for me to hate everything about it). I also think it's odd because I've never been under the impression that Mac and Will cared all that much about making a big splash in the glitterati...

[madam magpie]

You aren't the only one to latch on to this. Bitch is implied...or at least bridezilla from hell who needs her man to shut her down. (No matter that for Will what's in character is...whatever Mackenzie wants, she may have.)

I agree that a big society wedding seems out of character for Mac. I don't know where that came from and hope that it will be explained. But if it's not, even though I hate when writers make the audience fill in the backstory, I can see how finally getting the guy you want would shift one's priorities. And even if it is a snobbish, high-society thing, I don't get the big deal. It's somewhat out of character for her, but it's not a bizarre life choice. The excess of it actually fits pretty well with the blinding rock on her finger and the shoes that cost as much as my rent. I don't hold any of that against her, though, because even though she's always clearly been very wealthy and comes from privilege, she's also pretty compassionate, loyal, and attuned to the reality of people who aren't as lucky as she is.

[NoWillToResist]

 

bridezilla from hell who needs her man to shut her down. (No matter that for Will what's in character is...whatever Mackenzie wants, she may have.)

 

Which is all the more reason I want him to stand up to her about this. She's forcing him to scrounge up 8 men to be groomsmen because she has to have every woman of her acquaintance as a bridesmaid? I find that ridiculous. If she's so damned set on having 9 bridesmaids, fine, but then he should be able to say "my number of groomsmen is not changing. Figure it out."

 

For me, it's not a matter of 'the man has to shut the woman down' but simply Person A should stand up for themselves when Person B is forcing their own questionable wants on them.There should be a compromise, not 'Mac gets whatever she wants and too damned bad for Will.'

Edited November 17, 2014 by NoWillToResist

[madam magpie]

Forcing him?? My guess is that Will doesn't really care...mainly, because it's unimportant. He's a fairly big-hearted guy with a lot of resources who is deeply in love with the woman he's about to marry and is happy to give her what she wants. If nine bridesmaids will do that, OK. He wouldn't be Will if he didn't give her shit; that's how they flirt with each other. But in the end what he cares about is Mackenzie, not whether the wedding is big or small. She's also giving him crap about what he eats. He makes like he objects to that too, but really, he just loves her and wants her around giving him shit. I don't believe for a second that a Will feels anything but thrilled about the wedding, the planning, and the woman leading it all. He's getting exactly what he wants, and so whatever he can do to make it so that Mackenzie gets what she wants, he'll do it, not because she's forcing his hand, but because he's all squishy in love with her and it makes him happy to make her happy.

I also think it's bizarre that when Sloan flat out calls Don dumb, it's just funny, but when Mac wants a big wedding, she's being cruel. It's all funny! That's the point of the writing.

Edited November 17, 2014 by madam magpie

[NoWillToResist]

I also think it's bizarre that when Sloan flat out calls Don dumb, it's just funny

 

Speaking for myself, I did not laugh at that at all. I thought it was appalling. I get that I was supposed to laugh and chalk it up to Sloan having poor social skills but that shit was just rude. Don may not be well versed on economic theory and whatnot, but the man is not dumb.

[madam magpie]

Of course he's not. That's why it's funny. Just like Will's clearly not upset about Mac and her bridesmaids. That's why it's funny. All the characters involved are confident enough in themselves and their relationships to get that. That's one of the very best things about this show.

Edited November 17, 2014 by madam magpie

[fastiller]

Not specifically about the number of bridesmaids, but about the 'society' wedding. I think it is entirely in keeping with that wedding being the wedding of the daughter of The Queen of England's Ambassador to (the US? UN?).

[Cramps]

The bridesmaids thing just felt like bad writing - done for a "quirky" bit, and not really in character with the show or for a bride her age.

Aside from that, I thought this episode was great-- much better than I expected. The show is at it's best when it stays away from star crossed lovers.

[romantic idiot]

I would agree that nine bridesmaids would be a marker of a big, society wedding (and that right there is reason enough for me to hate everything about it). 

 

This is probably the Indian in me showing - but I don't get why a big wedding is a problem? What's wrong with a big wedding - especially since they can both afford it. Are they simply not supposed to make a big deal of it, have something smaller because they are older? Would that make the wedding any less of a celebration? Are they supposed to have a marriage instead? I'm not being ironic here - I genuinely don't get why a big wedding is noteworthy at all - especially since you guys don't even seem to have really long ones.  

[NoWillToResist]

This is probably the Indian in me showing - but I don't get why a big wedding is a problem? What's wrong with a big wedding - especially since they can both afford it. Are they simply not supposed to make a big deal of it, have something smaller because they are older? Would that make the wedding any less of a celebration? Are they supposed to have a marriage instead? I'm not being ironic here - I genuinely don't get why a big wedding is noteworthy at all - especially since you guys don't even seem to have really long ones.  

 

It's always just been a personal beef of mine when it seems like it's large numbers just for large numbers' sake. It just strikes me as a status thing which bugs me. Obviously Mac and Will can afford a big wedding...I just don't get why they'd want to have one. Neither has any friends as far as I can see and putting coworkers, with whom IMO Mac isn't close, in order to justify nine bridesmaids...it just makes me roll my eyes.

Edited November 17, 2014 by NoWillToResist

[CaughtOnTape]

I'm trying to figure out how someone who has a nut allergy would eat ANYTHING they didn't make themselves without asking about the potential presence of nuts in said item. Particularly if you are eating it three minutes before you are due to go on air.

 

Because he was in the midst of a huge breaking story with a ton going on around him?  And he assumed that when he was told the food was a salad that it wouldn't have nuts in it? 

I know plenty of people who have nut allergies that run the gamut of the spectrum as far as severity and while the severe ones sniff out nuts at every turn....those who aren't so severe, don't.  Out of everything on this show that defies logic....this scene was fairly believable.

[lucindabelle]

Person b giving person a a hard time is not loving or romantic or even daringly honest, it's just mean. I'm old fashioned enough to think the wedding is the brides day. Will is flummoxed but he should do his best to make it work. There are times to stand up for yourself and for whats right and will does that constantly wrt news. But just o show off to his bride? That's not particularly being true to himself but being selfish. Different thing entirely.

It's not really out of character for Mac... Sometimes unassuming people do love jewelry, fine clothes, and parties. Jane Seymour, henry viii's third wife, was plain and shy, and loved her some gems.

[kieyra]

Hmm. I must be watching this show wrong. I'm familiar with all of Sorkin's tics, including the occasionally unsettling gender stuff, but I generally enjoy his shows (except for Studio 60), and I really enjoy The Newsroom. But my favorite recap sites (elsewhere, not sure if prev.tv is doing it), sites that will spend a very long time giving a detailed and loving analysis of shows like Arrow (and no, that's not a gripe against Arrow), and rarely have a negative word to say on any other show they take the time to recap, will rip Sorkin up on side and down the other, absolutely going for the throat. I thought those sites were blowing the bridesmaids outrage way out of proportion, but no, apparently it really bothered people?

 

TL;DR: I feel like there is something wrong with me for liking this show, and liking it fairly unabashedly. 

 

I'm also familiar with Sorkin's long sordid history with the Internet (and TWOP), but I respect the way he's taking the time to break down the way it's affecting the way we consume news, while also giving technology its deserved shoutouts via Neal, if grumpily. 

[madam magpie]

There's nothing wrong with you. It's a fantastic show.

[Diane]

Hmm. I must be watching this show wrong. I'm familiar with all of Sorkin's tics, including the occasionally unsettling gender stuff, but I generally enjoy his shows (except for Studio 60), and I really enjoy The Newsroom. But my favorite recap sites (elsewhere, not sure if prev.tv is doing it), sites that will spend a very long time giving a detailed and loving analysis of shows like Arrow (and no, that's not a gripe against Arrow), and rarely have a negative word to say on any other show they take the time to recap, will rip Sorkin up on side and down the other, absolutely going for the throat. I thought those sites were blowing the bridesmaids outrage way out of proportion, but no, apparently it really bothered people?

 

TL;DR: I feel like there is something wrong with me for liking this show, and liking it fairly unabashedly. 

 

I'm also familiar with Sorkin's long sordid history with the Internet (and TWOP), but I respect the way he's taking the time to break down the way it's affecting the way we consume news, while also giving technology its deserved shoutouts via Neal, if grumpily. 

Nothing wrong with you.  I love it too. Really who cares how many bridesmaids she wants. Not sure why it bothered people so much, it was a very small part of the show.

Edited November 18, 2014 by dcmjdc2

[CaughtOnTape]

Hmm. I must be watching this show wrong. I'm familiar with all of Sorkin's tics, including the occasionally unsettling gender stuff, but I generally enjoy his shows (except for Studio 60), and I really enjoy The Newsroom. But my favorite recap sites (elsewhere, not sure if prev.tv is doing it), sites that will spend a very long time giving a detailed and loving analysis of shows like Arrow (and no, that's not a gripe against Arrow), and rarely have a negative word to say on any other show they take the time to recap, will rip Sorkin up on side and down the other, absolutely going for the throat. I thought those sites were blowing the bridesmaids outrage way out of proportion, but no, apparently it really bothered people?

 

TL;DR: I feel like there is something wrong with me for liking this show, and liking it fairly unabashedly. 

 

Nothing wrong with you.  I, too, love it without fail.  Even last season when it wasn't as great I still loved it.  Most of the things people pick on this show about I would never even notice if someone didn't point it out to me.  The nut allergy, the bridesmaids, Mac's to go bag, Sloan not having the right computer....I have a pretty healthy suspension of belief (hey, I watch Sleepy Hollow LOL) when it comes to TV shows and I routinely find myself reading critiques going "Uh....that's a weird thing to stick on."

 

*shrugs*  I tend to feel sorry for critics who can't just sit down and enjoy a TV show without picking it apart.  

[fastiller]

*shrugs*  I tend to feel sorry for critics who can't just sit down and enjoy a TV show without picking it apart.  

Not a TWoPper then?  (Kidding!)

[NoWillToResist]

I don't think there's any inherent contradiction with liking a show yet finding some things which bother you about it.

[VeryNot]

I love the Newsroom, despite Sorkin's tendency to write women as if, gosh, aren't women just so silly sometimes! I think that's why the bridesmaid things bugs -- it's that he tends to have his women characters either get so hung up on "woman" things, or so inexplicably inept in some way that makes no sense for someone in their line of work. Whoops! Mac can't use a smartphone! Silly thing! Tee hee, Sloan is considered awkward because she's driven and lacks a filter (but she's so, so pretty, so it's adorable!). Maggie and her love-life, so screwball, right!?

He's notoriously horrible at writing women, but since there doesn't seem to be any malice intended, I grit my teeth and hope he quickly moves on from whatever silly little thing he has his silly little female character obsessed with, and hope he allows them to be competent grownups for the rest of the episode.

(To be fair, he doesn't spare his male characters silliness, who can also be quite stupid at times, but he avoids defining them by how closely they conform to gender stereotypes.)

So for me, that's why the bridesmaid thing grates. It could be that Mac is someone who is practical but secretly harbors a wish for a big splashy wedding, but I don't think Sorkin was thinking that deeply about her character. Her desire for an excessive amount of bridesmaids amounts to a lazy stab at humor because brides be crazy, amirite?

Edited November 19, 2014 by VeryNot

[madam magpie]

I'm never going to understand the objection to the characterization of women on this show. I think that's one of the absolute best things Aaron Sorkin has done here; he's created a cast of characters where the women and men are presented as and come at each other as equals. Mac, Sloan, Will, Don, Jim, Maggie, Hallie, Neal, Gary, Jenna, Leona, Charlie, etc. are all smart, capable, driven people who are respected by their peers. The women have just as much intelligence and sass and great lines as the men do (in the case of Sloan, more); they run things, make huge decisions, and are driving forces for the plot. Just because they also sometimes make silly mistakes or like shoes and bridesmaids or are pretty but socially awkward doesn't make Sorkin a bad writer of women. It does women a disservice to say they can only be one thing, whether the one thing is smart, bumbling, a housewife, an executive, a wife, a girlfriend, or whatever it is. I know women who are smart and suck at email, who are in charge of huge departments of companies and love weddings and shoes, who are smart and also young and do stupid things. I don't personally know anyone like Sloan, but she's so awesome, who does? This new idea that women have to fit a modern feminist stereotype of liberated perfection to be "good" women is just as bad as the old idea. The point of feminism is that men and women are seen as equally valid and capable, and that it's OK to be whatever kind of woman you want. So if Mac loves shoes and bridesmaids and she's a kickass producer who is also wildly in love with a guy she can't let go of...OK, especially since he treats her like and she demands that she be seen as his intellectual equal. No one matches Will better than Mackenzie. No one can take him on or stand up to him or give him the what-for better than she does. There's also no one's opinion he respects more and no one he takes more seriously. And in return, he is all of those things for her. So if she also wants to get girly about a wedding and love him so much that it sometimes turns her bumbling, I say, go get it, Mac!

Edited November 19, 2014 by madam magpie

[CozyKat]

I'm never going to understand the objection to the characterization of women on this show.

 

 

I had a huge problem with that characterization in Season 1, when Maggie and Mac never seemed to stop whining and screaming about their love lives at work. (There were other, peripheral women who acted professional, but, M&M were clearly the female leads, and their constant histrionics took up a LOT of screen time.) It was a pretty stark contrast with the women of Sports Night and the West Wing, who had love interests and complications at work but never failed to snap out of it and FOCUS when an actual pressing work situation arose. I almost didn't come back for S2 because of M&M, but I think Sorkin corrected course pretty well. (Maggie still had problems in S2, but they weren't exclusively boy problems.) The occasional minor digressions into girly stuff like fashion and weddings don't bother me a bit. The whole point of the "nine bridesmaids" exaggeration, I'm pretty sure, was to get us the funny image of Charlie walking each one down the aisle individually. And I laughed, so it worked!

[madam magpie]

Did it bother you that Will and Jim were equally consumed at work by those two women? I mean, I can see finding it annoying that people get wrapped up in their love lives at work; though it didn't bother me here, that's a fine line and I've complained about that on other shows. But (especially in the case of Will and Mac), it's not exclusive to women on this show. I mean, Jim threatened to quit if Mac didn't send him out of town because of Maggie, and Will screamed at Mackenzie in the office more than once. Hell, he even brought in Brian Brenner specifically to screw with her.

P.S. I also laughed at Charlie fetching bridesmaids! And wish they'd actually do that!

Edited November 19, 2014 by madam magpie

[NoWillToResist]

P.S. I also laughed at Charlie fetching bridesmaids! And wish they'd actually do that!

 

Well, if Will holds firm with just Charlie, even if Mac scales back to just her sister and sister-in-law (I think those were the only family mentioned), Charlie would still need to run back for the second (unless he has one on each arm. Heh).

[CozyKat]

Did it bother you that Will and Jim were equally consumed at work by those two women?

 

 

It did (as did all the excessive-to-me ranting and screaming by men and women alike for all kinds of reasons in S1, including Will and Charlie), but Sorkin seemed to be framing the men more nobly -- Will having been the cheated-on party who got blindsided by Mac's hiring and Maggie constantly hovering by Jim's desk and flirting even though SHE was the one with an S.O. in the office. And Jim seemed to keep his incomprehensible (to me) infatuation on Maggie pretty well-contained, as least to the point where it wasn't in the face of casual bystanders. I'm somewhat tech-impaired myself and don't link that to my being female, nor do I think it signals low intelligence/leadership ability/general competence, but "reply-all" is a very basic concept that gets more basic when you're dealing with emotionally sensitive material, and Mac totally lost me for the rest of the first season when she sent her email about having cheated on Will to the entire company. I get that it was supposed to be "screwball," but (shudder) just no.

 

If I thought the existence of workplace romantic drama was a failing in characters of either gender, I probably wouldn't watch TV at all! :) There are definitely many ways of handling it, though, without anyone's behaving idiotically. I'm enjoying the healthy, low-key but humorous Will/Mac and Don/Sloan pairings so far this season. 

[madam magpie]

Fair enough, though it's funny...I've always felt like the show portrays Mackenzie much more nobly than it portrays Will. Charlie blindsided them both, which seemed fair. And then sure, Will had been wronged initially (which I really liked because so often it's the woman who's wronged by a guy who just can't get his shit together), but it seemed that from the start Mac was the soul and conscience of the operation. She made a mistake years ago, which just made her a real person to me; I feel like a Mackenzie without at least one big mistake would be unbearable in her relentless goodness and optimism. But since then, she has been very firmly placed "in the right" in all other things. So Will's treatment of her, while understandable and ultimately forgiveable given how screwed up he is, squashed his personal nobility. That's why Mac is Don Quixote and Will is the donkey. :) Theirs may be my favorite relationship ever on TV, actually; we'll have to see how it ends, though.

 

Plus as someone who was once on the receiving end of a ranting (and cursing) break-up email at work from someone I didn't know who'd sent it to the wrong person, I totally empathized with Mac there. If memory serves, I don't think she hit "reply to all." It sounded like she put in a letter of Will's name or something, but then chose the wrong thing when a bunch of names came up...or she didn't add an asterisk when she needed to?

 

Jim and Maggie...yeah, I can't argue with you there except to say that I don't so much think it's got anything to do with Maggie's gender. I like Jim in his interactions with everyone else, but really don't like him with Maggie. And Maggie has always been my least favorite character: believable, I think, but just a personality type that I generally dislike in real life too. This season, though, I'm liking her a lot more.

[CaughtOnTape]

If you ask me, the Don/Sloan relationship is pretty ground breaking.  She's a smart woman who can take care of herself and doesn't need a man for anything.  She can handle herself.  She may be awkward and have no filter but she's a force and Don knows it.

 

And it turns him on.  

 

I'd be hard pressed to find another relationship on TV that is portrayed that way.  I'm not as socially awkward as she is, but I am successful and don't need a man to take care of me financially in any way.  You'd be shocked how hard it is to find a man who wants to take that on.

[madam magpie]

If you ask me, the Don/Sloan relationship is pretty ground breaking.  She's a smart woman who can take care of herself and doesn't need a man for anything.  She can handle herself.  She may be awkward and have no filter but she's a force and Don knows it.

 

And it turns him on.  

 

I'd be hard pressed to find another relationship on TV that is portrayed that way.  I'm not as socially awkward as she is, but I am successful and don't need a man to take care of me financially in any way.  You'd be shocked how hard it is to find a man who wants to take that on.

 

I totally agree! I think this is the case for both of this show's key relationships, actually, and that's why I appreciate those four characters and Aaron Sorkin so much. Sloan and Mackenzie, although very different in many ways, are similar in that they're incredibly successful, smart, rich, formidable, opinionated, and (many would say) "pushy" and "bossy" women. They know who they are, what they want, how to get it, where to get it, and they don't take anyone's crap (OK, Mac took Will's for awhile, but she was feeling guilty about something specific). And yet, they also exhibit some traditionally feminine qualities: they're compassionate, sensitive, loyal, open, and loving. Sloan fell apart about those nude photos; that was a totally "girly" response, yet it was one that I think most women could relate to. Mac is into shoes and bridesmaids and her love for Will is palpable, also stereotypically girly. And even as these two women fully embody both sides of the gender-qualities coin, Don and Will love them. Not only love them, but respect and admire them tremendously and see them as equals, so much so that they also call them out when they start to slide into bullshit. Don, especially, is great for that: He pointed out to Mac last season how insane it was to get wrapped up in how it looks for a woman to be sitting alone at a bar, and he told Sloan that if a woman had lashed out at an old boyfriend with embarrassing photos, most women would all say, "you go, girl!" And when Will said to Mac last week, "Fuck you, no, I haven't read Euripides," I cheered because most men would never speak to a woman that way, a fact that drives me absolutely insane in real life. But on this show, Will treats Mackenzie like a person, not like a girl. It's just fantastic.

 

For me, The Newsroom is probably the most feminist show on television right now, which is why it boggles my mind that people consider it sexist or, worst, mysogynistic.

Edited November 19, 2014 by madam magpie

[NoWillToResist]

If you ask me, the Don/Sloan relationship is pretty ground breaking.  She's a smart woman who can take care of herself and doesn't need a man for anything.  She can handle herself.  She may be awkward and have no filter but she's a force and Don knows it.

 

And it turns him on. 

 

Don will always have a place in my heart for the fact that he finds her impressive, rather than intimidating. I loved how supportive he was of Sloan during the nude pic scandal. He didn't judge and he didn't step in and offer to beat the guy up for her. He went with her but totally let her handle it.

Edited November 19, 2014 by NoWillToResist

[Hanahope]

Just started catching up on this show. 

 

I'm curious about the "air gap" computer.  Does that mean that most 'normal' computers we buy have previously been hooked up to the internet that you have to specify "air gap" to buy one that hasn't?

 

And after getting, what was it, 27,000 illegal documents (that he said he didn't completely read), Neal says he needs, "1 or 2 more" to prove to his boss?  Really, the other 27,000 wasn't enough?

 

If Mac has enough money to through a pair of Louboutins in her "go bag" that she probably doesn't use all that often, I'm guessing she can afford the big nine bridesmaid wedding with Vera Wang bridesmaid dresses.

 

Loved how Don got out of jury duty.

Edited November 25, 2014 by Hanahope

[Eolivet]

For me, The Newsroom is probably the most feminist show on television right now, which is why it boggles my mind that people consider it sexist or, worst, mysogynistic.

 

I just could not let this remark pass without commenting, and I will beg the mod's pardon to briefly list a few examples from previous seasons to illustrate the point.

 

I could name five shows off the top of my head that are more feminist than The Newsroom. When the majority of men still get plots about the news and their human flaws and frailties, and the majority of women get plots about how awe-inspiring it is that they are capable of doing their job, that's not feminist. Yes, the show has Sloan, and I love Sloan and I appreciate that we're pretty much seeing Don/Sloan through her perspective as the more developed character. But when Maggie scored the story in Boston, the focus wasn't really about the story, but how impressive it was that she got the story. When...that's her job. The show celebrating that a woman is competent is not feminist. Sorkin did the same thing in "Sports Night" with Natalie -- both she and Maggie got "our little girl is all grown up" stories. Mac and the shot clock last year was another example. This is the show where the men routinely use sports analogies and yet none of them noticed a shot clock? The show practically injured itself trying to pat itself on the back that Mac was the only one who noticed. It had to dumb down all the men in order for a woman to crack the case!

 

And while Mac has gotten better, but for the first two seasons, we saw her and Will's relationship almost entirely through Will's gaze: Mac was the mysterious "other" in the relationship who cheated on Will and broke his heart ("the man/viewers wonder why the man's pretty fiancee became a dirty slut" trope). That is, when Mac wasn't conveniently lobotomized for purposes of the plot -- not knowing how to use "reply all" isn't quirky, it's pretty much brain dead for the executive producer of a major news show.

 

Then there was Maggie in Africa -- which we never saw from her perspective until much later in the season. When the season started, Maggie was the former girl-next-door who (gasp!) cut her hair, (double gasp!) dyed it and (GASP!) had inappropriate relationships with men! All of this was viewed through Jim's paternalistic "something's wrong with Maggie" gaze. Contrast Maggie's trauma with Josh's in "Noel." (from The West Wing) It's not even close in terms of treating one person like a human being suffering a trauma and the other like a mysterious "other." Had the show chosen to show us immediately what happened from Maggie's perspective and how Maggie was dealing with it, and show how she reacted to Jim's concern and everyone else's, there might be an argument there. But " all the men/viewers wonder why the pretty ingenue is now a dirty slut" is pretty much the epitome of an anti-feminist plot.

 

Do I think Sorkin is a misogynist? No...I think he's in awe of women too much (they like sports! they produce news shows! is there anything they can't do?!) But do I think The Newsroom has sexist tendencies -- and other than one character and a couple isolated incidents, it is in no way a feminist show.