S03.E05: Oh Shenandoah

[Tara Ariano]

Will's jailed for contempt, but still won't give up the name of Neal's government source; Charlie goes along with Pruit's order to cater to younger viewers by sending Don to investigate a sexual-abuse case at an elite college; Sloan objects to a new digital site; Jim and Maggie are stranded in a Russian airport, but try to book seats on a plane bound for Cuba so they can interview a noteworthy passenger.

[Eolivet]

Jim and Maggie are stranded in a Russian airport, but try to book seats on a plane bound for Cuba so they can interview a noteworthy passenger.

 

Wow, Sorkin really is going full-blown fanfic scenario with those two. Bonus points if there's a nearby Russian hotel with just one room left and only one bed.

[Pallas]

Sorkin already referred to that scenario last season, when it was Jim, Hallie and Other-Guy-thrown-off-the-Romney bus, who finally arrived at the hotel to find that the Romney folk had cancelled their reservations and bought up additional rooms, as well.  Jim noted something about how there being only one room left, was in keeping with the trope.  

 

Not to say that Sorkin won't quote himself again.  But if so, he'd have to forfeit the bonus points. 

[HollaMcDollar]

So Will had an imaginary friend?

[CaughtOnTape]

I wanna be Sloan Sabbath when I grow up.

 

And I knew Charlie was gonna go down at the end.  I saw it coming when he came flying into the room screaming.

 

I dunno how I feel about Don's story this go round.  I love him and I get what he was trying to say but damn.....I just dunno.  I think I need a minute to process how I really feel about it.

 

I want Neal back.

[Primetimer]

Finally, Aaron Sorkin places himself where no one wanted him: at the intersection of campus rape and the internet.

Read the story

[Deputy Deputy CoS]

Finally, Aaron Sorkin places himself where no one wanted him: at the intersection of campus rape and the internet.

http://previously.tv/the-newsroom/aaron-sorkin-dedicates-the-penultimate-episode-of-the-newsroom-to-some-men-notallmen/"> Read the story

 

I haven't watched the episode yet but between Tara's and Buzzfeed's review, I think I am better off. Sounds like a disturbing view on rape victims to say the least. 

[pinklemonade]

Any other Buffy fans get a serious "Conversations with Dead People" vibe from this episode? 

 

I wanna be Sloan Sabbath when I grow up.

 

Me.Too. 

[HollaMcDollar]

I haven't watched the episode yet but between Tara's and Buzzfeed's review, I think I am better off. Sounds like a disturbing view on rape victims to say the least.

I found it rather nuanced; it is a difficult, emotional issue to discuss, to be sure, but I found it rather gutsy that he went at it in this way- especially with what happened in the news this week.

Hopefully I don't take too much heat for saying this.

Edited December 8, 2014 by HollaMcDollar

[TVHappy9463]

Aaron Sorkin always makes me cry. He did it over and over during the West Wing run and again with Newsroom.  I knew what was coming, but when Charlie went down it was too much, then to find out Will was talking to his dad the whole time. Anyone who laughed when Jeff Daniel's won the Emmy two years ago should take it back based on his work this season. Storytelling was tight tonight, Don and the Princeton girl, Sloane and the Digital guy. Congrats to the whole team, some damn fine acting all the way around. And thank you Mr Sorkin, as a fan of these characters you brought it all home tonight. And I am sure next week's finale will be equally satisfying. 

I hope the rumors that Sorkin is adapting his Broadway play "A Soldier's Story" for NBC to do live next year is going to happen, enough with the crappy musicals.  

[madam magpie]

I thought Don was exactly right. I agree with him 100%.

What I don't understand is why anyone who could leave stayed on with Pruitt. Don, Sloan, Mac, Jim...they could get jobs anywhere and they have plenty of money. Why not just quit? Maybe they have contracts that don't allow it? But it seems to me that in an acquisition, the contracts would be up for renegotiation.

Sloan is a frakkin badass. I adore her.

Jim/Maggie....saw that coming, but still. Bleck.

Edited December 8, 2014 by madam magpie

[Eolivet]

Ah, it's that "presumption of innocence" argument that has been trotted out by every celebrity apologist every time they're accused of something. People who routinely make judgments on others when their favorites are accused suddenly act as if Lady Justice herself is watching them, like some legal version of Santa Claus, and bow to the holiness and might of The Almighty Legal System, as if an errant thought of doubt against the accused will cause the courts to fall down in shambles.

 

Guess what? That's not your job, Aaron Sorkin. It's the job of the legal system -- to presume innocence -- but it certainly doesn't apply to private citizens! I don't have to keep my mind scrubbed clean just in case Lady Justice Santa Claus is watching me, like a Legal System Big Brother. I can have an opinion and think someone is guilty and the justice system still stands. Oh my word, it's an opinion! I believe anyone who says otherwise thinks really, really highly of their opinion.

 

This is why The Newsroom will never be a feminist show. I don't believe any feminist show would've done this episode ever. Ever. EVER.

 

Sorry, Aaron Sorkin -- this was way above your paygrade. This conversation does not need to be written by someone whose cultural I.Q. is stuck somewhere around 1995.

[HollaMcDollar]

News people generally have 6-12 month non-competes in their contracts but I tend to think they could survive while waiting to go to a new network.

[CaughtOnTape]

I haven't watched the episode yet but between Tara's and Buzzfeed's review, I think I am better off. Sounds like a disturbing view on rape victims to say the least. 

 

Please watch the episode and make your own judgments.  While I'm not sure I agree with how it was presented, this is exactly the type of thing the show was making a statement about with Sloan's story this episode

That being said, I had to hand it to Thomas Sadoski for his scenes with the rape victim.  He made it very plain that he was walking the line between insulting a rape victim and trying to help her.  What I got from what he was saying was, she was going to regret it.  People were going to make their judgments and slut shame her and she would end up regretting it.  What I didn't like was the suggestion that this kid wouldn't get a job because of what he'd done.  He absolutely SHOULD NOT get a job because of what he's done.  So I dunno what was trying to be said in that scene but.....no.

[madam magpie]

This is why The Newsroom will never be a feminist show. I don't believe any feminist show would've done this episode ever. Ever. EVER.

The fact that it does is exactly what makes it a feminist show. Feminism isn't about protecting women at the expense of men. And a rapist is not a different or unique kind of violent criminal; he's just a violent criminal. Women can't have equality AND special treatment. Feminism wants equality.

Edited December 8, 2014 by madam magpie

[pennben]

 

I thought Don was exactly right. I agree with him 100%.

 

So he was right to not let the alleged victim come on the show to confront her alleged attacker? 

 

P.S.  A reporter has an obligation to find facts, test both sides of the story.......a reporter does not have an obligation to say "nothing to see here" just because a prosecutor, or, let's say a grand jury even, says no to a prosecution or a jury comes back with "not guilty".  That may be the end for legal remedies but it sure as hell shouldn't be the end for seeking/testing the truth.

 

P.P.S  As Chris Hayes of MSNBC said earlier this week in response to the Rolling Stone mess and their response thereto:  Fuck You Rolling Stone.

 

Fuck them for making it so much worse for victims by not doing their jobs; and fuck them for making Sorkin seem like he had a point when he was just railing against his personal demons once again..

[Eolivet]

The fact that it does is exactly what makes it a feminist show. Feminism isn't about protecting women at the expense of men. And a rapist is not a different or unique kind of violent criminal; he's just a violent criminal. Women can't have equality AND special treatment. Feminism wants equality.

 

I strongly disagree with you. The majority of Don's argument read like it was written by a combination of MRA (men's rights activists) talking points and the #notallmen hashtag. Men and women are not equal when it comes to rape and rape accusations -- as the recap pointed out, the false accusation percentage is 2%. And a tiny percentage are even prosecuted.

 

This was not a reasoned argument, in my opinion -- not as it was presented. That kind of backwards thinking, that it's more important to protect men's reputations than it is to identify rapists is the antithesis of a feminist argument. I don't think it's special treatment if we're talking about criminals and victims. Victims do deserve better treatment than criminals, especially in the case of rape, where 98% of the accusations are true.

 

For Aaron Sorkin to make Don's argument seem logical and reasoned, when he's really standing up for the 2%...I cannot possibly see that as feminist. And I hate Sorkin so much for doing that to Don.

[madam magpie]

So he was right to not let the alleged victim come on the show to confront her alleged attacker?

Yes, he was absolutely right. Just like Mac was right not to let that kid come out on News Night last season. The news isn't a courtroom, and I have no interest in crime as public theater. Solving crimes by vigilante is hugely dangerous, and I agree that our justice system is not set up to protect victims. That was Don's point.

Rolling Stone screwed EVERYBODY. If the girl is lying, the story ruined innocent lives. If she's telling the truth, no court will ever believe her. Hell, most of the public won't believe her. She's branded a liar. And that's the reason we're not supposed to try people in the press. That RS story had a clear agenda, was crime as public theater, and it's appalling.

For Aaron Sorkin to make Don's argument seem logical and reasoned, when he's really standing up for the 2%...I cannot possibly see that as feminist. And I hate Sorkin so much for doing that to Don.

One of the main original points of our justice system was to stand up for the 2%. I don't care who they are: women who are raped and not believed, men who are accused of being rapists and aren't, kids who are coerced into confessions, whatever. Don has been shown as being on that side before with the Troy Davis case, and it was that episode that made me like him. Men and women deserve to be treated equally in the eyes of the law, period. Women don't deserve special treatment just because they're girls. Aaron Sorkin isn't towing the PC party line. That pisses a lot of people off. I like it. Edited December 8, 2014 by madam magpie

[HollaMcDollar]

Yes, he was absolutely right. Just like Mac was right not to let that kid come out on News Night last season. The news isn't a courtroom, and I have no interest in crime as public theater. Solving crimes by vigilante is hugely dangerous, and I agree that our justice system is set up to protect victims. That was Don's point.

Rolling Stone screwed EVERYBODY. If the girl is lying, the story ruined innocent lives. If she's telling the truth, no court will ever believe her. Hell, most of the public won't believe her. She's branded a liar. And that's the reason we're not supposed to try people in the press. That RS story was had a clear agenda, was crime as public theater, and it's appalling.

Great post.

It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer"

Edited December 8, 2014 by HollaMcDollar

[WatchrTina]

 

So Will had an imaginary friend?

 

 

then to find out Will was talking to his dad the whole time.

 

Thank you!  I did not catch that.  I figured he was a figment of Will's imagination when he asked about the "mission to civilize" but I did not make the connection between the actor in the cell and the man in the fishing photo.

 

So, am I the only one who thinks Will never did actually know who the source was?

 

Was bored with the whole Moscow story since of course I knew Snowden never flew to Havana.  And as for the rape website story . . . I just don't want to talk about it.

 

Loved the Sloan on air smack-down but I knew Charlie was a dead man walking as soon as he went off on his tirade.  

 

I can't imagine what the last episode is going to be.  Here's hoping the series goes out with a bang and not a whimper.

[HollaMcDollar]

Don's view this week is also consistent w/ the story in season premier about how citizen journos on reddit did serious damage during the Boston Marathon Bombers hunt.

So, am I the only one who thinks Will never did actually know who the source was?

I have also thought that maybe Will never knew the source.

[pennben]

 

Women don't deserve special treatment just because they're girls.

 

As a woman, I'm always disappointed I'm not treated like a girl.   Sigh.

 

 

The fact that it does is exactly what makes it a feminist show. Feminism isn't about protecting women at the expense of men. And a rapist is not a different or unique kind of violent criminal; he's just a violent criminal. Women can't have equality AND special treatment. Feminism wants equality.

 

So, the guy was willing to go on the show.  The woman was willing to go on the show.  The man producing the show then decided for the woman that she shouldn't go on the show.  And you see this as a victory for women???!!!!   Sigh.

[CaughtOnTape]

Yes, he was absolutely right. Just like Mac was right not to let that kid come out on News Night last season. The news isn't a courtroom, and I have no interest in crime as public theater. Solving crimes by vigilante is hugely dangerous, and I agree that our justice system is not set up to protect victims. That was Don's point.

Rolling Stone screwed EVERYBODY. If the girl is lying, the story ruined innocent lives. If she's telling the truth, no court will ever believe her. Hell, most of the public won't believe her. She's branded a liar. And that's the reason we're not supposed to try people in the press. That RS story had a clear agenda, was crime as public theater, and it's appalling.

One of the main original points of our justice system was to stand up for the 2%. I don't care who they are: women who are raped and not believed, men who are accused of being rapists and aren't, kids who are coerced into confessions, whatever. Don has been shown as being on that side before with the Troy Davis case, and it was that episode that made me like him. Men and women deserve to be treated equally in the eyes of the law, period. Women don't deserve special treatment just because they're girls. Aaron Sorkin isn't towing the PC party line. That pisses a lot of people off. I like it.

 

Thank you.  This helped me to figure out how I felt about the show finally.  I'm ok with how it was handled now.

[madam magpie]

So, the guy was willing to go on the show. The woman was willing to go on the show. The man producing the show then decided for the woman that she shouldn't go on the show. And you see this as a victory for women???!!!! Sigh.

I see it as a victory for justice. How exactly do you envision that segment going? They scream at each other, hurl insults, she's called a liar, he's called a rapist, some tweeters call for his balls on a plate, others call her a whore, and...what? ACN gets big ratings? How is that a victory for anyone but ACN's advertisers and big wigs? It helps women how? By having someone who was brutally assaulted put on TV for us to gawk at? Or maybe it makes us feel good to be able to eat popcorn and curse the asshole rapist? No thanks. That case belongs in court. If there's not enough evidence to bring it to trial, that absolutely sucks. But the news isn't the place to air it. I'm against public executions too.

What I see as a victory for women is not treating them like poor little creatures who deserve special protection under the law. Children get special protection because they're less capable of understanding and protecting themselves than adults. So do people with mental disabilities. I don't see women as inherently less capable because of their sex.

Edited December 8, 2014 by madam magpie

[CaughtOnTape]

I see it as a victory for justice. How exactly do you envision that segment going? They scream at each other, hurl insults, she's called a liar, he's called a rapist, some tweeters call for his balls on a plate, others call her a whore, and...what? ACN gets big ratings? How is that a victory for anyone but ACN's advertisers and big wigs? It helps women how? By having someone who was brutally assaulted put on TV for us to gawk at? Or maybe it makes us feel good to be able to eat popcorn and curse the asshole rapist? No thanks. That case belongs in court. If there's not enough evidence to bring it to trial, that absolutely sucks. But the news isn't the place to sit it. I'm against public executions too.

What I see as a victory for women is not treating them like poor little creatures who deserve special protection under the law. Children get special protection because they're incapable. So do people with mental disabilities. I don't see women as inherently incapable because of their sex.

 

I agree.  It would've become a circus.  Rape is not entertainment for people and that's what it would've become.  It would've stopped being about what happened to this girl and started being about taking sides.  She's a slut, he's a rapist and blah blah blah.  Tried in the court of public opinion.  And THAT is what Don was warning her against.  

[pennben]

 

That case belongs in court. If there's not enough evidence to bring it to trial, that absolutely sucks. But the news isn't the place to sit it.

 

Lots of these cases don't end up in court for lots of reasons; date rapes especially don't; and god forbid a victim is drunk...she's sunk.  Because a court system fails them, doesn't mean that they shouldn't be heard in other forums.  Nor, does it mean that those falsely accused shouldn't pursue all of those forums.

 

 

I'm against public executions too.

 

So am I.  That was cheap and unworthy of a real conversation on the issues being addressed.

[madam magpie]

Lots of these cases don't end up in court for lots of reasons; date rapes especially don't; and god forbid a victim is drunk...she's sunk. Because a court system fails them, doesn't mean that they shouldn't be heard in other forums. Nor, does it mean that those falsely accused shouldn't pursue all of those forums.

So am I. That was cheap and unworthy of a real conversation on the issues being addressed.

Obviously I disagree. A public flogging of any kind, whether an execution or a Twitter war, comes from the same place. I'm against all of it.

Lots of crimes of ALL types don't make it to court for many reasons. Rape isn't unique there. Violent assault is a horrific crime. I don't want any of them tried on TV or the internet.

Edited December 8, 2014 by madam magpie

[AlliMo]

What I see as a victory for women is not treating them like poor little creatures who deserve special protection under the law. Children get special protection because they're less capable of understanding and protecting themselves than adults. So do people with mental disabilities. I don't see women as inherently less capable because of their sex.

 

Except, by making the decision for her as to what she can and can't handle, Don was doing exactly that. He didn't decide not to go ahead because of his journalistic ethics; he did it because he decided he was going to save some poor little girl from herself.

Edited December 8, 2014 by AlliMo

[madam magpie]

Except, by making the decision for her as to what she can and can't handle, Don was doing exactly that.

I don't think it had anything to do with what she could handle. It wasn't about her; it was about the kind of news Don wanted to produce.

[CaughtOnTape]

Except, by making the decision for her as to what she can and can't handle, Don was doing exactly that.

 

He didn't.

He gave her her options, gave his opinion on how he thought it would end and asked her not to do it.  He didn't make any decisions.

[shelwood]

I hate this show so much. So very much. I hate the characters. I really, really, really hate the writing. I hate the overt sexism. I am so glad it's almost over. This show is toxic.

[AlliMo]

He lied about not being able to find her at all, thus killing the story. It had nothing to do with his journalistic ethics; it was all about him deciding to save her from himself.

[CaughtOnTape]

He lied about not being able to find her at all, thus killing the story. It had nothing to do with his journalistic ethics; it was all about him deciding to save her from himself.

He lied to Charlie.  You are making an assumption that that meant she still wanted to do it.  We don't know that in the context of what was shown on the show.  

 

And there are 3 other networks she could go to.

Edited December 8, 2014 by Lisin

[pennben]

 

They are protesting the issue at hand, not throwing the cop and Garner's family on TV separated by a news anchor to fight it out.

 

So, point of clarification, you'd be okay with the victim telling her story on tv if it wasn't presented as a confrontation/debate with her alleged rapist?

Edited December 8, 2014 by pennben

[DrivingSideways]

This show is so maudlin and corny.  I can't.

 

Just a few of the things that bugged me... the corny ass conversation Will was having with his 'cellmate'... Maggie learning Russian in a 7 hr flight enough to be fluent to converse... this college rape story coming out of nowhere and the victim speaking in the same bitchy, pedantic and verbose manner that everybody in this show speaks.

 

The thing that bugs me most is that everybody constantly interrupts each other, one-upping the previous person with some trenchant, 'hilarious' biting comment.  Everybody speaks in the same annoying way, it's lazy writing.

Edited December 8, 2014 by DrivingSideways

[thuganomics85]

Well... I did enjoy watching Sloan take down Bree.  Even if it was an easy victory and they managed to make Bree as smug and easy to hate as possible, in the short time they had.  Oh, and that the whole incident was what help set off Charlie's fatal heart attack.  Whoops!
 

Besides that, yeah, I don't think Sorkin is able to handle a story-line like this at all.  Whatever he is trying to do, to me, it felt like Don was basically taking it upon himself to be the rape victim's "protector", and shield her from her plan, and come off the most condescending way possible.  Even if there is truth that it would have turned into a shouting-fest on the show, the victim knew that going in, and was stilling willing to go forward.  But, Don took that away from her by lying to Charlie.  Since we didn't see her call him or anything and say she changed her mind, that's the story I'm going with.  And, it just made feel icky.  And hate what Sorkin did to both the victim and Don as a character.

 

Won't even touch much on the more underlining "Your website could also bring out false accusations, who just want revenge on their exes!" stuff. Yeah, I'm sure it will happen, but I would think more actual victims voices would be heard, then false accustations. This isn't a 50-50 situation, I don't think.  It just made Don come off like someone who hangs out at the redpill section on Reddit or something.  Ugh.

 

As for the rest... well, lets see.  We've got Will locked in a cell, talking to his dead dad (Kevin Rankin!), until he gets sprung, thanks to the source offing herself, and Rebecca making a deal with that government dude.  Jim and Maggie fail to get Snowden, but finally make out, which is not a fair trade at all.  Mac frets over Will, when she's not having to deal with Pruitt and a now complacent Charlie turning ACN into the next CNN (not a compliment.)  Neal is still gone.  Oh, and Charlie died.  Yeah, overall, not impressed with this episode.

[pennben]

Why do you view rape victims confronting their accusers on air as entertainment-driven "shaming". You've lost me. 

 

Sometimes that's their only forum.  Must they never speak out if a court won't hear their case? 

 

So, if you are alive after being ignored by the court system and speak out, it's "shameful entertainment"; if you are dead and others speak on your behalf, it's "civil disobedience".

 

Also, who do you assume will be shamed? 

Edited December 8, 2014 by pennben

[madam magpie]

Why do you view rape victims confronting their accusers on air as entertainment-driven "shaming". You've lost me.

Sometimes that's their only forum. Must they never speak out if a court won't hear their case?

So, if you are alive after being ignored by the court system and speak out, it's "shameful entertainment"; if you are dead and others speak on your behalf, it's "civil disobedience".

Why are rape victims more deserving of a voice than other victims of unprosecuted crimes? Or do you think everyone whose assault doesn't have enough evidence to prosecute should go on TV and make public accusations? Whom do you see as benefiting from this platform you want to give her? Who sets the rules of the platform? What if she is lying? Is it ok to ruin someone's life so that next time the victim gets a voice? What if she's not lying? Is it ok for her to be branded a liar and whore in a public forum? Do you think the role of the news is to prosecute crimes that prosecutors don't think have enough evidence?

I think everyone would be shamed: the victim, the rapist, the network, and Don.

Edited December 8, 2014 by madam magpie

[pennben]

 

Do you think the role of the news is to prosecute crimes that prosecutors don't think have enough evidence?

 

I personally think that the role of the news is to report the news. 

 

 

Why are rape victims more deserving of a voice than other victims of unprosecuted crimes?

 

In my thoughts, I'm quite supportive of other victims taking their case to the news, such as the Eric Garner's of the world, you are the one trying to say rape victims should shut up and distinguishing them from others. 

 

 

Whom do you see as benefiting from this platform you want to give her?

 

She would by telling her story.  I'm assuming the network would vet it fully (although we've seen that not always the case), he could if he has a better story.

 

 

Who sets the rules of the platform?

 

Both parties could submit their demands, but the network should control what is shown on their airwaves.  If the network's demands can't be met, after input from both sides, the interview shouldn't air.

 

 

What if she is lying? Is it ok to ruin someone's life so that next time the victim gets a voice? What if she's not lying? Is it ok for her to be branded a liar and whore in a public forum?

 

Well, I would assume a national network wouldn't air this until they fact-checked.  I know this assumption seems stupid since the RS article where they just decided to give a big hug to the victim wiithout any reporting.

 

 

Do you think the role of the news is to prosecute crimes that prosecutors don't think have enough evidence?

 

I think the role of the news is to tell the truth about the underlying story.  The press shouldn't care if the prosecutors don't think they have enough evidence, or that the prosecutors don't think they can win so don't proceed, or that the prosecutors have a slam-dunk court case, or that the prosecutors have a good case because they are able to exclude evidence even though it is relevant.  That is the job of the legal system.

 

The press should care about what really happened.And if the press has enough facts even though a prosecution failed or succeeded.....hell yes, I want them to tell the facts they have.

 

Why would anyone want them to sit on facts?

Edited December 8, 2014 by pennben

[VeryNot]

No one is making up "special" rules for rape or wishing the law would treat women differently (btw, men can be raped, too). The fact is, most rapes are never prosecuted and unless it's stranger rape, most rapists aren't convicted. Many victims don't come forward because society has a way of gaslighting victims into thinking they are somehow at fault or should be ashamed (and often, ignorant comments from strangers on the internet bears this out (NOT speaking of comments here, just to be clear)). I find it rather offensive that anyone could claim women are looking for special treatment by the law, when the law and society have completely failed the victims. Demanding justice isn't asking for special treatment.

I totally saw Don as white knighting the victim, protecting her from her rash choices. DId he work just as hard to talk the accused out of being on the show? Or did he just go for what he thought would be the softer target? He doesn't have the balls to say no to the story, so he tries to appeal to the victim on the grounds of injustice? Is he for real? And then tries to put fear into her that she'll be slut-shamed? Even if I somewhat agree that such a website could become dangerous, how dare he appeal to the victim in such a way. It was despicable.

I adore Sloan, and considering I'm completely allergic to Olivia Munn, that's really saying something.

I must be the only one who didn't see Charlie's heart attack coming. I literally said, "oh no!" out loud when he collapsed. This show has been so uneven and I've loved it, hated it, and hate-watched it all in turn, but I love Charlie. Totally broke my heart.

Also, fuck Maggie and Jim and their romcom "we're such idiots because we love each other!" crap.

Edited December 8, 2014 by VeryNot

[Marguerite]

That's not why Mac doesn't let the kid on the air. It's because he was trying to hijack the issue of a fellow student (that he didn't even know) being humiliated into suicide so that he could come out to his parents publicly rather than in person.

Mary does everything a good rape victim is supposed to: she goes to campus/local police and gets tested with a rape kit. The result being, of course, that absolutely nothing is done to bring her assailants to justice. If she wants to take her own story to a public forum (and, presumably, the accused has no issues with appearing as well), it's not up to Don to tell her it's not in her best interests.

[morgankobi]

This is like the "darkest timeline" of Quo Vadimus.

(yes, I'm mixing two shows for this...)

[pennben]

 

Mary does everything a good rape victim is supposed to

 

Exactly!!!  And even good victims lose in court or their cases aren't prosecuted.  And they are the good victims,  But sure, they should be quiet if they can't sustain their cases in court.  And the "bad" victims, well, you should have been raped better so you could have your day in court apparently. Just shush now all of you that didn't get convictions.

Edited December 8, 2014 by pennben

[paigow]

Everybody has to quit ACN because they killed Charlie. The final episode will be job interviews. Don ends up with Maury Povich 

[madam magpie]

That's not why Mac doesn't let the kid on the air. It's because he was trying to hijack the issue of a fellow student (that he didn't even know) being humiliated into suicide so that he could come out to his parents publicly rather than in person.

 

Right. Because he was using the news broadcast as a means of entertaining and connecting with an audience, rather than as a public service. It did the public no good to know that this kid was gay and couldn't tell his family. That's exactly what was happening here; the circumstances were different, but the purpose was the same.

 

The press should care about what really happened.

 

Of course, we all should. But what criteria do you use to decide what the press should and shouldn't investigate and report? And are you really saying that the media should be the ones to set the rules about how someone who's been raped tells her story?

 

In my thoughts, I'm quite supportive of other victims taking their case to the news, such as the Eric Garner's of the world, you are the one trying to say rape victims should shut up and distinguishing them from others.

 

I'm not, actually. I'm distinguishing between public shaming as a means of entertainment and civil disobedience. If a person who'd been raped chose civil disobedience because she got no response from the legal system or people in charge--for example, if she walked around her campus every day carrying a mattress as a means of protest that her school wouldn't do anything about her assault--I'd support it wholeheartedly. And if the news saw that as something the public ought to know about and brought her on TV to discuss her protest and the reasons behind it, I'd think it was a story worth reporting. But if the network also brought on the guy she'd accused to comment about her protest and so they could argue on air about who was right, I'd think it was out of line. The news isn't the rape or the killing of Eric Garner; the news is the protest and the larger social implications. The rape or killing is a crime. I don't see the news or social media as the place to go try a case when the courts don't work.

 

I have also thought that maybe Will never knew the source.

 

I wondered about that too, but I have trouble believing he'd outright lie to Mac.

 

News people generally have 6-12 month non-competes in their contracts but I tend to think they could survive while waiting to go to a new network.

 

Do you think that holds if they're fired, or just if they quit? Because now I'm wondering if Mac, Sloan, and Don were trying to get fired. Maybe quitting outright would screw them, but getting fired wouldn't be as punitive?

Edited December 8, 2014 by madam magpie

[izabella]

With Charlie gone, I guess that means Pruitt can fire whoever he wants, and turn the network into YouNews now.

[Artsda]

I love Sloan so much.  She needs a show all of her own, when I saw the series finale promo made me realize how much I've loved this season and how I'm going to miss this show.  Sloan should have been thrilled to be fired by Pruitt, she can get a big time job anywhere, she probably has people wanting her badly.

 

When Will first got the cellmate and started talking to him, I thought it was unreal that they'd put anyone in with Will. Then in the end it was his dead Dad that Will was having conversations with. 

 

52 days and Charlie lost all his integrity? 

 

Don was right. The ACN newsroom isn't a courtroom, it's not the place for the victim and accused to face off. When he kept bringing up the word trial to her, she kept saying that wouldn't happen. That's not the platform to confront, if you want that go on Jerry Springer. Or you know, file actual charges. 

[ottoDbusdriver]

Everybody has to quit ACN because they killed Charlie.

 

You bastards !!!  </SouthPark>  I liked Charlie, they didn't need to killl him off with only one episode to go.

 

Charlie seemed really out of character this entire episode.  I get that he was under a lot of pressure from Ryan-Howard-with-money.  I wonder if the Danny Glover stalker app had come out yet in the intervening 52 days ?

 

Until they showed that final closeup on the fishing photo, I figured for sure that Will's cellmate was a Justice Dept. plant trying to casually get info out of him but finally gave himself away when he brought up the 'mission to civilize'.  

 

ETA: Edited to remove a mistake about where Will was arrested, per Madam Magpie's note below.  My bad.

Edited December 8, 2014 by ottoDbusdriver

[madam magpie]

Why was Will being held in a Manhattan Detention complex -- since he was arrested in Washington ?  Why would they drive him back to New York to be incarcerated ?  It can't be the closest Federal facility to, you know, Washington.

 

He was arrested in NY at the city hall there (I believe since it was right after the wedding, though maybe the courthouse is attached?). They'd already come back from DC for the contempt hearing.

Edited December 8, 2014 by madam magpie

[Proclone]

So, point of clarification, you'd be okay with the victim telling her story on tv if it wasn't presented as a confrontation/debate with her alleged rapist?

This wasn't directed at me, but I thought I'd chime in anyway. I feel like like I should just put this out there, that I am a woman who considers herself a feminist, and I agreed with pretty much everything Don said in this episode. Yes, I think a story about a woman who was raped and was ignored by the police is a valid story that should be told and if that woman wanted tell her story on air I think she should (without naming her rapist on air). I don't think that she should use either the Internet or television to get revenge on her attacker. And let's face it that's what she was doing with that website, getting revenge. Whether this guy deserved to get his life ruined or not (and he probably did) that was what she was doing by naming him first on her site and then was going to do it on TV. And yes, false rape accusations are rare but I still feel like if even one innocent person's life is ruined because of a site like that, that's one life too many. There's a difference between shedding light on the very real problem of rape on college campuses which is a story that should be done and the grotesque theater that a rape victim and her accused rapist yelling back and forth at each other was bound to become. At least that's my two cents.