Inside Job Film Review
“Wall Street is corrupt.” That is something that I have always heard, but I didn’t fully understand until watching this movie. I am stunned and angry, depressed even. I remember the news stories that broke regarding the economic crisis back in 2008. I remember bankers being put on trial, and countrywide debate about what to do about the monster that Wall Street has become. I have always ‘stuck my head in the sand’ when it comes to economic issues. There were many strong cases for and against financial reform on the news, but even The Daily Show’s snappy segments couldn’t spark my interest in the debate. I believed that people who chose to invest their money should know and understand the risks involved. If they lost money in a bad investment they should have been more diligent in diversifying their portfolios. I also believed that people who purchased houses should be held accountable for making the payments. That’s was before I had all of the facts. Inside Job provided a chilling look into America’s economic culture, and the havoc Wall Street is causing for the American society.
This film did a wonderful job of removing the smoke and mirrors to reveal the causes and effects of the economic crisis of 2008. Through one on one interviews, they were able to expose a culture of disillusioned adults who have more money than they know what to do with. These bankers have truly developed a sense of invincibility, and hold themselves above the law. I was not surprised to learn of the drug and sex culture that plagues these Wall Street money men. Private elevators, excessive airplanes, and thousands of dollars in escort services were all expensed as business charges as the bubble grew. What I was surprised by was the incredible amount of money that is involved. The figures that were thrown around for bonuses and retention fees were staggering. Investment brokers are making sales commission even when their clients lose money on a failed CDO. Company executives that were found guilty of fraudulent activity were removed from their positions with a slap on the wrist, and kept on as consultants with six figure monthly paychecks. The truly depressing reality here is that while families were being bankrupted and foreclosed on without keeping much more than a penny to their names, these corporations were handing out billions of dollars in bonuses before bankrupting themselves.
An interesting point made by the film was how these banks have made their way into our educational system- polluting academia and the minds of our future business leaders. The people and programs that are educating young economists are being funded by these investment banks. The movie exposed that many of our country’s top educators are personally paid by investment banks as academic resources and speakers. Even more disheartening, are the economic papers that are released without disclosure of funding for the study. There was an interesting parallel drawn between these studies and those of doctors presenting medical findings without disclosing which pharmaceuticals’ companies paid for their work. So, if we are able to locate the problem, and come to reasonable solutions for reform, let’s move to fix the problem, right? It won’t be that easy. Financial institutions are spending millions of dollars to keep lobbyists in Washington that will preserve present policies and trading conditions. As stated in the film, we currently have a “Wall Street government,” and the road to reform won’t be easy. This is where the title Inside Job comes from. The government is working with these bankers to ensure that the much needed reform and regulation can’t pass. They have settled themselves a place on the inside, and are not interested in what is best for the betterment of America.
One of the things that I really enjoyed about this documentary was the way that the interviews were held. Much like we see on The Daily Show segments, big-time Wall Streeters agreed to be candidly interviewed, and they were given open air to speak. Ferguson came incredibly prepared, and did not let any of his guests get away with untruths. Before watching the film, I was surprised by how many executives and government affiliates agreed to be interviewed. Upon release of the film, Ferguson was asked about his tactics in securing the interviews. He insists that there were no ‘bait and switch’ techniques, and that he was very straight-forward with the nature of his documentary. The interviews alongside the archived footage and accessible graphics helped to bring a novice like me up to speed quickly.
Across the board critics praised the work done with the documentary. I found a few letters in response that disagreed with the findings, but they didn’t carry strong arguments in response. One article titled “What ‘Inside Job’ Got Wrong” that criticizes the film for its over-simplicity of the issues, and cited that some economists were able to predict the housing burst. While agreeing that Wall Street culture runs rampant with corruption, he did not agree that the corruption caused the crash.
4 out of 5 –I really enjoyed this film, and I am happy to say that I can watch economic news with a little more knowledge of the subject under my belt. There was an incredibly diverse spectrum of interviews that really helped to paint a clear picture about what was going on. There was a great balance between narration, interviews, and explanation. I am still shocked at the large sums of money that are earned in salaries, bonuses, and severance pay. After the film I was ready to fight for Wall Street reform, but there really weren’t any solutions presented. I guess there aren’t any realistic solutions currently on the table, but that left me feeling deflated days after the movie was over. Most importantly, I now know why/how Wall Street is corrupt, and I know that I need to find an investment banker husband. I still seriously can’t believe the amount of money we are talking about here…
What I read…
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/inside_job_2010/
http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2011/feb/17/inside-job-review
http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/inside-job-2010
http://blogs.ft.com/economistsforum/2010/10/the-economists-reply-to-the-inside-job/
http://blogs.ft.com/economistsforum/2010/10/the-director-of-inside-job-replies/
http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2011/02/24/after-expose-filmmaker-sees-little-change-on-wall-street/
Getting Ready for Season Two
The Newsroom – Season 1 Review
The first season of The Newsroom has passed, and I have to say that I really enjoyed it. As I look over my weekly episode reviews, and reflect on the season as a whole, I have decided that I will definitely be tuning in next season to see how it progresses. My ratings were fairly scattered throughout the season. Some episodes I loved and others drove me insane, but that rollercoaster ride was one worth catching.
One thing that I loved about The Newsroom was reliving news stories from a behind-the-desk perspective. Almost all of the material covered I remember watching from home. I can remember where I was, and exactly how I felt about it. I was able to compare my experience with those stories to how the characters in the show were living it. The most memorable case of this for me was “5/1” and the killing of Osama bin Laden. I gave that episode a 2 star rating because my memory of the event was so vivid that I didn’t find the characters believable. On the other hand, the episode that aired the week before, “Bullies,” completely captivated me. This was Sloan’s big coming out episode, and I loved every minute of it. I remember the morning of the tsunami in Japan. The footage that was shown on the news networks was incredible. I couldn’t believe the devastation that I was seeing, and it felt so far away. It was surreal for me. One of the most touching stories that came out of that tragedy was the nuclear power plant meltdown. As the radioactive levels continued to climb, Japanese senior citizens came together to takeover shifts from the young men and women that were currently scheduled to be working. They sacrificed their bodies to the high radiation because they did not have much longer to live, and they wanted to save the next generation from the potential side effects. I still get chills when I think about their selflessness. Hearing Sloan talk about the honor of the Japanese people brought back those memories. Whether I loved or hated the way that the news stories were portrayed, the characters stuck with me throughout the week. I milled over their decisions until the next episode.
Aaron Sorkin has an incredible talent for dialog. Will McAvoy’s monologues that served as bookends for this first season are among my favorite in all of television. I replayed these scenes at the end of the season just to make sure that my memory was equal to their actual greatness. Whenever Will stepped on to his soapbox I was right there with him, and ready to join the reform revolution. The quick-paced, back and forth dialog that was placed throughout the season was also great. I know that some of my peers have commented that this is not realistic, but I feel that it was done so well that it never felt out of place. There were a couple of scenes between Maggie and Jim that were so snappy that I immediately replayed them to catch it again.
There are a couple of areas that Sorkin falls short. The first of which is a personal pet peeve that I touched on in my reviews throughout the season. I felt as though Sorkin did not trust the actors or the audience to follow his themes. When dealing with interpersonal relationships, the characters tended to speak their feelings, rather than show their feelings. There were a few scenes that were cluttered with dialog where a simple nod could have shown a character’s intention. Another blatant example of this distrust is the complete replay of the Charlie and Leona scene just one episode removed from when it originally aired. I love the use of a well-timed flashback, but I felt it was inappropriate as it was used here. I take those kinds of editorial decisions personally. It feels as if the show runners don’t believe that their audience is intelligent enough to follow along. The other area that Sorkin lacks is his ability to portray romantic relationships. Although office romances are commonplace, most of what was shown here felt forced and served as a distraction from otherwise intriguing development. I never truly cared about any of the characters’ relationships, and I think that is why it felt flat for me.
Throughout the blogosphere and in our classroom there was a lot of discussion about the portrayal of women throughout the season. While researching, I found this quote from Olivia Munn about the strength of the female characters on the show, and it helped to put into words how I feel.
“I think the female characters-Sloan, Maggie, MacKenzie-are all really strong. I just find it interesting that a man is allowed to fumble, and be silly, and have faults, and still be a man. But if a woman does those things it’s somehow anti-feminist. All of the characters on this show have strengths and weaknesses and moments when they just completely lose it. Women should be allowed to be human without losing intelligence points. As a woman there’s this anxiety and pressure that we put on ourselves and that society puts on us to be perfect, to never freak out, to get that great job, raise a family, and have the time and energy to go home and have great sex. If a woman on ‘The Newsroom’ shows any sign of cracking, it’s deemed as a step backward for feminism. But for me, playing a woman who is strong, smart and a leader, and who is allowed to have human moments without giving up her credibility, it’s the exact opposite.”
| — | Olivia Munn answering the question: There’s been chatter online about the way female characters act on the show. Do you believe they’re strong characters? |
Although there is a theme of Sloan, Maggie, and Mackenzie bearing their weaknesses, I didn’t feel outrage over their faults. Throughout the season, the male characters show weaknesses as well with Don’s revealed insecurity over Maggie and Will’s engagement ring purchase. All of the characters on the show are making triumphs and mistakes, just as we all do in our daily lives. I am not sure that I could entirely relate with any of the females on the News Night staff, but that didn’t make them unrealistic to me. I do see the shortcomings in character depth, but I think that in varying degrees this is present across all of the characters in The Newsroom. It’s only the first season, and there’s a lot of room to grow.
3.5 out of 5 – I really enjoyed following the News Night team throughout this season. There is definitely room for improvement, and a place to grow for all of the characters. I look forward to watching season two.
My blogging experience was up and down throughout the semester. Being that this is the first time that I have attempted a blog, I will say that it was not my favorite experience. I felt like a blind squirrel most of the time, and spent many late nights stressed out over what to write. I found it difficult to express and defend my opinions on some of the more controversial issues. The inherent permanence of this medium drew out many of my insecurities. Despite my struggles, I have enjoyed looking back at my work, and I hope to continue to blog to improve my skills in analysis and reflection.
Don’t Call Me Girl, Sir
Sloan Sabbith for the Win!
If you have followed by blog for the season, you will see that I was regularly impressed, and captivated by the story arc of our hero, Will McAvoy. He was the natural choice for me to use for this character study, but as I thought over the season Sloan Sabbith’s character kept coming to mind. I believe that she demonstrated a real growth throughout the season, and became an integral part of The Newsroom’s success.
When we were introduced to Sloan in the second episode of the season I was not too excited about her addition. She was not featured in the pilot episode, and it felt pretty obvious that the network said, “We need a hot chick to drive ratings – stat!” Olivia Munn lost a lot of her sparkle for me on her brief stint on the Daily Show. I expected big things from her there, and unfortunately she never quite fit with her segments. As Miss Sloan Sabbith, Munn would have to portray an incredibly gifted economist with two PhDs. When we were introduced to Sloan, Mackenzie was courting her for a five-minute economic segment that would be featured on News Night 2.0. Although Sloan was already involved in another short segment for ACN, she was hesitant to participate. From the start you see that although she is incredibly intelligent, she is socially awkward and not confident in her own abilities. She even suggests passing this offer to one of her professors that she believes may be more qualified. Mackenzie explains that she wanted Sloan to do it, because a male professor wouldn’t have her legs. This scene felt bit like Sorkin talking through Mackenzie directly to the audience, and added to my feeling that her character was added purely for ratings.
As the season progresses, Sloan gets into the groove, and shows real importance to the team. I totally bought in (and appreciated) her relationship with Will as her mentor. Sloan shows a tremendous amount of respect for Will, and the importance of delivering quality news to audiences. With her qualifications, Sloan could be making a significant amount more in her salary by working with investment banks, yet she feels her role to the American people is important. Sloan’s biggest moment of the season is during the coverage of the Fukushima nuclear power plants in “Bullies.” Always pushing forward in trying to do the right thing, she gets caught in a moral bind. Seeking advice from Will, she is hastily told that she knows what the right thing to do is, and if she allows someone to lie during her air time it is as good as lying herself. Determined to do the right thing, Sloan commits a career-ending blunder by revealing information that was given to her in off-the-record counsel. This became the main turning point for her character. Being a novice reporter on her first assignment as lead anchor, Sloan acted with complete sincerity for relaying accurate information to her audience. She was emulating skills that she had learned from Will’s broadcast. Unfortunately, this all goes wrong because she doesn’t have the experience in knowing where certain lines are drawn. With all of the good intentions in the world, Sloan has majorly dropped the ball here. This is grounds for immediate termination, and probably the destruction of a career. I love moments like this is character development, because this is where their real growth begins. Our heroine is down – how will she get out of this mess. Sloan receives a lesson in news integrity balance, and her pie-in-the-sky vision of always delivering the truth is altered. She goes on air to lie about her understanding of the situation, with Will by her side. I believe that this is why Sloan would decide to start looking outside of the newsroom for employment, as indicated in the final episode. If the newsroom is no longer a sacred utopia where she will be able to work for the good of the people, why is she sticking around?
“The greater fool is actually an economic term. It’s a patsy. For the rest of us to profit, we need a greater fool — someone who will buy long and sell short. Most people spend their life trying not to be the greater fool; we toss him the hot potato, we dive for his seat when the music stops. The greater fool is someone with the perfect blend of self-delusion and ego to think that he can succeed where others have failed. This whole country was made by greater fools.” – Sloan Sabbith
From the beginning of the season, Sloan has grown from an intelligent, quirky economist to a respected member of the News Night team. I enjoyed her balance of intelligence and socially awkward moments. She always acted with the best interest of others at heart, although certain inexperience hindered her ability to always be successful in her endeavors. At the end of the season, Sloan signs herself up as a “Greater Fool” alongside her mentor, Will McAvoy. She is on board for the long haul that will be taking over the way America receives the news.
Blurred Lines
Sullivan makes a good point here that I believe needs to be addressed further. If they blur the lines between journalism coverage and an advertiser’s sponsored content readers will lose respect for the source. By making the format of advertisements so similar to that of their unbiased reviews readers may not give their opinion enough clout to return to them for advice in future purchasing decisions. Another point that I think needs to be addressed is the authorship of the articles. Are the same journalists responsible for the sponsored content that are responsible for the critical analysis?
In reviewing these two pieces specifically they seem innocent enough. The sponsored piece is 11 fun facts about the PlayStation and its history. There are no opinions here that could be mistaken for an unbiased review of the upcoming product. This article was seemingly published with a sole purpose of generating hype about the company and the system in general. The review from the BuzzFeed team that was posted a day later has the author’s names listed at the top of the piece, and offers opinions on the reveal (although not so revealing) presentation. My main concern is the influence that a publication’s sponsors have on the quality of information that they release. If they were to post a terrible review of the PlayStation 4, and advise their readers to wait for the XBOX release, would Sony continue to pay them money as a sponsorship partner? Does the money influence the reviews, or does the quality of the product drive the interest in the sponsorship? To be honest, BuzzFeed would not be doing itself any favors to back a terrible product either.
I don’t think that this is a new problem between journalism and advertising. Companies have been paying spokespeople to tout the accolades of their products (celebrity endorsements, free products for reviews, ect) for decades. I do understand the concern, but to know a company’s sponsors and alliances is the best measure for correction.
Take Down Media
The Daily Show’s Take Down of Jim Cramer
This was the best interview of the three. Jon Stewart has an incredible talent in conducting these interviews. He is so successful in these endeavors because he takes the time to study and prepare. He studies the arguments that are being posed against him (or the cause he supports), and never seems to be thrown off course. He tends to have a perfect balance of telling it straight, and allowing a safe space for his guest to speak. He does not let his guests overrun the interview with false statements, and challenges them with hard facts.
TED Interview with Julian Assange
This was a thorough interview with many questions and open dialog between the two. I believe that it was a soft interview in an entirely supportive crowd. There are definitely valid arguments against the work that is done with WikiLeaks, but none of them were presented with any pressure. The one question that stands out was portraying the American soldier laughing at dead civilians. The father says, “My son is not like that, and he is an American soldier.” Julian’s response makes clear that the civilians see how the American soldiers are on a daily basis, this video was to show the rest of the world (specifically America) how the soldiers are behaving. There needed to be a follow-up here to say again, not all soldiers are like this, and portraying this young man to represent all is disingenuous. He needed to be challenged again to come up with a real answer to that dilemma. WikiLeaks cannot claim to be unbiased. Would they edit and release videos of soldiers helping a family, or successfully rescuing hostages? They have an agenda to take down the big guys.
The Colbert Report’s Take Down of Julian Assange
I really enjoy The Colbert Report for its take on daily news events, and Stephen’s right wing caricature. Unfortunately, that can be lost in more serious interviews like the one with Julian Assange. Although Colbert does challenge Julian on the editing of the apache helicopter footage, and demands him to release his military credentials to make certain bold statements, it doesn’t feel complete. It is hard for me to distinguish the two Stephens in interviews like this one, and it looks as if it is hard for Stephen too.
Good Night and Good Luck
Good Night and Good Luck was an entertaining look back at an important broadcast for the history of televised news. I really enjoyed the use of black and white for this film, as it gave it an air of authenticity. From the opening sequence, I was drawn into their world. Although the cast of characters was full of familiar faces, each character was portrayed so well that it felt more like I was watching a documentary than a feature film. I really enjoyed the camera angle selections, and the decision to use actual footage of McCarthy rather than finding an actor to portray him. These director decisions seemingly placed me in the scene. This movie showcased Murrow using his televised broadcast to solidify his position as a member of the 4th estate, a watchdog of the government. The movie picks up with Murrow dipping his toe in the waters of controversy by covering the story of a soldier who was discharged from the United States Air Force when his father was accused of being involved in communist activities. At the end of this tense broadcast, they chose to play music over the scenes of Murrow’s production staff applauding his (and their) feat. The importance of Murrow’s team airing the soldier’s story didn’t set in until we were witness to the juxtaposition of another show where Murrow is narrating a tour of Hollywood homes. Television news was not being used to its full potential, and Murrow’s news team wanted to realize the full and important potential of this medium. When they chose to take on McCarthy there was an incredible tension in the air. Murrow needs to convince his network executive and staff that the risk here would be worth the reward. The takedown of Senator McCarthy was skillfully crafted using McCarthy’s own words to point out the hypocrisies in his claims. Similar to the political divisions of today, there was almost immediate (darn those interns) reaction to the approach. It seemed that for many Americans, Murrow said what they were too afraid to think out loud. The reading of opposing newspaper articles was one of my favorite scenes, as those political divides still exist today. The timing and quip of Murrow’s remarks resembled the approach that shows like the Daily Show take today. Murrow vs McCarthy certainly paved the way for the television medium to be used as a watchful eye, eventually leading to Jon Stewart and his peers operating as a 5th estate – the watchdog of the watchdogs.
Self-Medication
Newsroom – “The Greater Fool” S1E10
The Tea Party is an American Terrorist organization. Can you imagine the outrage and feedback that this broadcast would have had? It’s not often that the news makes the news, but I bet this would have received replay on every major station with pundits applauding Will’s bravery or rejecting his use of the term. Terrorism is our modern-day communism, and a terrorist is about the lowest form of human being that you can be. The opening sequence with Lonny and Mackenzie sweeping the house for Will was well crafted. We know that anonymous sources have posted threats to Will’s life and know where he lives. As the scene played out I was sitting on my couch thinking “No, no, no. This can’t turn in to CSI. He lives in a secure building with cameras. Will was not attacked in his home.” Luckily, the story took a much more believable left. We know from Will’s therapy sessions that he is dealing with a lot of stress from Mackenzie’s reentrance to his everyday life. He feels betrayed (or rejected) and goes to elaborate lengths to remind her that she should feel terrible. He also goes to equal and opposite lengths to protect her from anyone pointing out her mistakes or flaws. He has changed his news program to get on board with a new delivery that has brought him scrutiny from his own political party, and threats to his life from internet bloggers. Although he feels like this is the right thing to do his stress levels are continuing to elevate. Then the news article breaks. Will’s (not well-thought out) plan predictably blows up in his face as he is described as “The Greater Fool”- overly optimistic and arrogant to believe that he is more intelligent than his peers. He knew when he set up this piece to be published that he was opening the door scrutiny, but the reveal of the piece drives Will to self-medicate with booze and antidepressants. I do not believe that this was a suicide attempt, but I do think that he was purposely careless with his mixing. Maybe a call for help to Mackenzie?
4 out of 5 – The season one finale has come, and it did not disappoint. I still haven’t decided if I am going to stick around for season two, but I have a couple of months to make that call. This episode was one of Sorkin’s stronger installments, and I enjoyed the pace that they took at Will’s hospital bedside. The show must go on while Will recovers, and there weren’t any overly cheesy gimmicks that would detract from a similar real life situation. I would have like to have seen the episode end with Will’s broadcast, and the shot of his back with the television cameras in front of him. Couple of stray notes – Although Nina (the gossip columnist) shows herself in a redeeming light here, I don’t think that it makes sense from what we have learned about her. We last left off with Will and Nina in a stand-off. Why would she reach out to Mackenzie to try to help protect Will? I really appreciated the tie in from the pilot episode with the college girl applying to become an intern with News Night. Will is still in love with Mackenzie. He told her months ago, and he thought that she knew this whole time (adding significantly to his stress levels I’m sure). Darn that meddling TMI and their secret phone hacking scandal.
Almost Shakespeare
Newsroom – “The Blackout Part 2: The Mock Debate” S1E9
We have been building pretty successfully to the reveal of the new debate format that Will and his team have been working toward. Personally, I was excited to see what they had in store, but as the debate began I knew it was going to fail. The stage was set with our cast of characters each representing one of the Republican hopefuls. Every member of the team has put in hours of studying their candidate, and Will starts the mock debate by ripping them to shreds. It didn’t feel like this would be in line with the way that Will would handle this showcase. He is a very intelligent man who knows that this mock debate display will win or lose him the opportunity to host. He has demonstrated how important this debate is to him by going against his show’s format to achieve a rise in the ratings. If that was his plan all along, how could he have believed that it would be successful? One of the more powerful scenes in this episode was a simple clip of John King asking Michelle Bachmann whether she prefers Elvis to Johnny Cash. There is an apparent need for debate reform, but the aggressiveness that Will displayed would only inhibit candidates from accepting the invitation. A middle ground where candidates are held responsible for the things that they say, but are given the opportunity to defend their positions on challenging issues is what is needed.
The other major focus of this episode was the ongoing, inter-office love triangle. While I really enjoy Will’s scenes with his therapist, I realized it is because I really enjoy Will’s character not because of what it could mean for his relationship with Mackenzie. I think this is because I just don’t care about the romantic relationships being developed. While I am really interested in the characters individually, I don’t feel invested in their romantic relationships. I have no reason to feel that Don and Maggie are actually good for each other, or bad for each other for that matter. Jim and Lisa haven’t seemed compatible from the initial set-up, and I don’t particularly care about an eventual Jim and Maggie get together. I think that this is mainly because of the other storylines that are left hanging when the show spends time on the relationship.
Stand out character: Mackenzie McHale – Mac has come a long way, and has almost gone nowhere at all. I have to say that I was really pumped up to see an inspired outside broadcast of News Night, and I was just as disappointed as Mackenzie when the power came back up. She had some good dialog in sorting out her love triangle, and I love the friendship her and Sloan are building.
3 out of 5 – Once again, Sorkin writes one of his cast to have a close relationship with someone on the inside track of the story. As they were asking the room if anyone knew of a guest that could speak on Casey Anthony’s case or character, I was shouting, “No! No! Please no.” I like the twist that they applied to Lisa’s interview, but it felt a little bit like she was speaking for the writing staff than feeling passionate about the injustice. Good episode, but I am feeling let down from the buildup to get to the debate. I am looking forward to seeing how this will all wrap up in the finale next week.
What I read…
http://www.avclub.com/articles/the-blackout-part-ii-the-mock-debate,83608/
http://www.tv.com/news/the-newsroom-the-blackout-part-ii-review-two-legs-at-a-time-29390/
The Ratings Shuffle
Newsroom – “The Blackout Part 1: Tragedy Porn” S1E8
“If it bleeds it leads, if it thinks it stinks.” Despite Will’s strong support for the News Night 2.0 commitment to deliver unbiased, important news content, the time has come for a ratings grab. Casey Anthony took the United States by storm when she was implicated in the murder of her two-year old daughter. I am not sure how this story was covered in other areas of the country, but in central Florida the news was all “Tot mom” all the time. I was aware of her story from the original reporting of Caylee’s apparent “kidnapping”. As the search continued and the holes in Casey’s story were revealed, local news outlets couldn’t get enough. When her trial began, my neighbors and coworkers were following every detail of the case closely and literally calling for her head. It goes without saying that whatever series of events that lead to the taking of an innocent life is heartbreaking, but I couldn’t understand why this was a daily news story. In the U.S. there are children kidnapped and innocent people murdered on a daily basis – so what was keeping this case a leading story in the nightly news? I think part of the fascination was that the perpetrator was a young, attractive female, and her quickly unraveling alibis played out like a made for TV movie.
News Night has decided not to cover this story as it does not pass their “relevance in the voting booth” or “best possible form of the argument” test. When Will learns that this decision has cost them half of their predominantly female audience, he decides to play the game. Despite Mackenzie’s desperate plea to stick to the plan, Will reveals that if the show continues this trend the RNC may not allow him to host an upcoming debate. This debate is of paramount of importance for the team as they optimistically believe it will change the format of all debates in the future. There was no reveal of what this new approach entails, but it grows the suspense for what a “civilized Will McAvoy” debate will look like.
Much to Mackenzie’s chagrin, Will decides that they will need to cover Anthony Weiner’s twitter scandal as well. By being in front of this breaking story, Will was hoping to receive a ratings boost. The team is committed to excellence in reporting, so when deciding who would have to pursue this lead, Maggie draws the short straw. Maggie’s pre-interview was strong, and portrayed a girl who was claiming the victim for the money and fame. With an obviously shallow case, Will would have had a difficult time getting through this interview. That’s when the lights went out.
Stand out character: Don Keefer – Although I know that this had a lot to do with the writing team, Don’s break down of Nancy Grace’s segment was brilliant. It is amazing how news programs manipulate images and on-screen text to create an emotional response from their audience. And finally, we have a stated reason as to why the ex-EP would be in a board meeting with the News Night team.
3.5 out of 5 – A good strong episode that deals with the dichotomy of running a show that wants to main its integrity, and the business side of running a station that will not make money if people are not tuning in. Once committed, I would have liked to see to our team craft a thoughtful broadcast about the Casey Anthony trial, rather than rush past it off-screen. I am impressed, however with the use of the deus ex machina of power failure that prevented the interview of the Weiner scandal’s victim. Although not out of character, I was surprised at how strongly Maggie felt about the blame of the girl who was sharing her story. This segment really showcased Sorkin’s opinion of the women that came forward in the Weiner case. The girl here was looking for the biggest pay-day and her fifteen minutes of fame. This episode felt as complete as any installment of The Newsroom does, so I am looking forward to seeing how the next one will tie in as a part 2.
What I read…
http://www.avclub.com/articles/the-blackout-part-1-tragedy-porn,83331/
http://www.ign.com/articles/2012/08/13/the-newsroom-the-blackout-part-i-tragedy-porn-review
amylynnmedia 