The Newsroom's epic scene - "America is not the greatest country anymore"

[Waz]

4MYjyLg8bbo

I know this scene came out years ago but what do u leftists think of this scene? I see many people on the centre/left agreeing with the message and its very popular, so what do you guys think??? I actually like it even tho I dont watch the show.. You don't get many TV shows being this open and honest about America, right??

[ola.]

I can personally see liberals being impressed by this and accepting an admission as basic as "America is not number 1 anymore" as some Grand, Inspirational Moment, but actual leftists? This is some of the corniest scenes I think I've seen yet. "We fought for moral reasons", come on. I heard of the show, but never watched it, except for this scene.

[Atsumari]

A show made by a liberal for liberals with a Republican as the protagonist who sides with liberals on every single issue. This was obviously made for a country obsessed with being "balanced."

And who the fuck would ask that question "Why 'murrica is the greatest country in the world?" and the audience is somehow shocked that the answer is no. Even the TEA Party is not that dumb.

This scene is just WONDERFUL!
10uIpFWdFwY
A debate between liberal saying liberal talking points and a conservative saying talking points a liberal thinks they would say and the guy gets rekted.
Does anyone remember this?
GTQnarzmTOc

[Creative Destruction]

It's an awful monologue. I genuinely liked The West Wing, but Aaron Sorkin hasn't made any good shows with The Newsroom. It's been whiny, liberal Gen-X crap.

[Bala Perdida]

It was pretty funny when he flipped out, then he started talking all slow, and said "we sure used to be" and I got disgusted and stopped watching when he said "we acted like men" also the implication that the country is not the best, but not the worst ultimately kept me from agreeing with his points during the flip out. This rhetoric is throbbing with nationalism, no communist, or anyone beyond, would find it impressive.

[synthesis]

I watched the pilot and that scene really dissuaded me from watching the rest of the show. Aaron Sorkin is one of those guys whose "writer's voice" can be so overwhelming as to just override any ability I have to suspend my disbelief.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Wow, that was one of the worst monologues I've ever seen. Just absolutely packed to the gills with maudlin nostalgia and a mythic national past, *barf*

[Rafiq]

Nostalgia for what exactly, however? Segregation, lack of women's rights, higher illiteracy as well as harder access to education?

Honestly, what time period is he talking about? Even by liberal standards - to pick and choose aspects which necessarily relied on less favorable ones is nonsense. Hes right about one thing: the US is definitely not number one anymore. And we're not talking about not being the best place to live: The US is slowly losing global hegemony as other pretenders to world hegemony rise. The US has become just another candidate for world power, and it's odds fare less than others.

I highly doubt such talk would persist ten years ago, even though the statistics were more or less the same. It's not that this guy speaks with humility, it's that after years you can't even say otherwise. So how generous of him to come forward and finally characterize something that we've all known was true since the South Ossetia crises and the financial collapse.

But before you all get excited, the other candidates for world power are even worse. Yes the US has lost out: but to global reaction.

[The Disillusionist]

Yeah, yeah, false nostalgia, sexism, etc.. It's bad, it's incorrect, that's not really the point. Sure, we can do the trendy thing and disown the video, the show, and everyone who has ever seen the show, just because it has flaws. Or... we could recognize that it's a drama and it's designed to create an emotional response as much as an intellectual one.

Who among us doesn't find the idea of completely shutting down one of those overly formalized, overly saccharine public Q+A debates by dropping a huge bomb like that just awesome? It's a great scene, and delivered really well by the actors.

[Creative Destruction]

Yeah, yeah, false nostalgia, sexism, etc.. It's bad, it's incorrect, that's not really the point. Sure, we can do the trendy thing and disown the video, the show, and everyone who has ever seen the show, just because it has flaws. Or... we could recognize that it's a drama and it's designed to create an emotional response as much as an intellectual one.

Who among us doesn't find the idea of completely shutting down one of those overly formalized, overly saccharine public Q+A debates by dropping a huge bomb like that just awesome? It's a great scene, and delivered really well by the actors.

I've seen Q+As where this actually happens. It's not all that uncommon. And they usually turn into complete chaos, but even then, they're a whole lot better than the dumb shit that Sorkin wrote and had Jeff Daniels spit out. It was embarrassing and I cringed through most of the dialogue. (I've also never been at a Q+A, even where there are just plain conservatives and liberals on the stage, who have seriously been asked "TELL US WHY AMERICA IS THE GREATEST COUNTRY IN THE WORLD!" This just doesn't happen outside maybe small Tea Party forums.)

It was overacted, too, which is unusual for Jeff Daniels. I've watched the first two seasons of the Newsroom and it doesn't get any better. Plus, all the women in the show are fumbling idiots or fawning over one of the male leads. It's offensive how Sorkin has written everything. It goes to show how big assholes liberals can be if you give them half a chance.

eta. What especially grates me about the answer is the pure disdain that Gen X writers on this show apparently have for Millenials. "Worst. Generation. Ever." Man, fuck you. Your generation are a bunch of useless sellouts and the Boomers are the ones who got us into the mess you're complaining about in the first place. Millenials are just trying to stay an inch above shit; meanwhile, we're getting lectured about how it's all our faults and we have no initiative. And then he goes on dreaming about the great days of the 40s and 50s, when people of color were being actively murdered just fighting for equal rights. (Which is still happening and is being pushed forward more and more, and not by Millenials.) I mean, come the fuck on.

[The Disillusionist]

I've seen Q+As where this actually happens. It's not all that uncommon. And they usually turn into complete chaos, but even then, they're a whole lot better than the dumb shit that Sorkin wrote and had Jeff Daniels spit out. It was embarrassing and I cringed through most of the dialogue. (I've also never been at a Q+A, even where there are just plain conservatives and liberals on the stage, who have seriously been asked "TELL US WHY AMERICA IS THE GREATEST COUNTRY IN THE WORLD!" This just doesn't happen outside maybe small Tea Party forums.)

It was overacted, too, which is unusual for Jeff Daniels. I've watched the first two seasons of the Newsroom and it doesn't get any better. Plus, all the women in the show are fumbling idiots or fawning over one of the male leads. It's offensive how Sorkin has written everything. It goes to show how big assholes liberals can be if you give them half a chance.

eta. What especially grates me about the answer is the pure disdain that Gen X writers on this show apparently have for Millenials. "Worst. Generation. Ever." Man, fuck you. Your generation are a bunch of useless sellouts and the Boomers are the ones who got us into the mess you're complaining about in the first place. Millenials are just trying to stay an inch above shit; meanwhile, we're getting lectured about how it's all our faults and we have no initiative. And then he goes on dreaming about the great days of the 40s and 50s, when people of color were being actively murdered just fighting for equal rights. (Which is still happening and is being pushed forward more and more, and not by Millenials.) I mean, come the fuck on.

This is all correct. I'm not arguing against it. (I don't watch the show, by the way, this scene is the first I've heard of it). I'm just saying, this scene, individually, is just a lot of fun to watch. I don't think this guy is being portrayed in any way as a prophet of truth... I think the scene makes it pretty clear that he's an arrogant, dismissive blowhard. But he's also a guy with opinions reacting in an unusual way to a typical situation, causing an unsual reaction.

As I said, it's drama. It's actors pretending to be humans in various situations, and it's fun to watch.

[Creative Destruction]

I don't think this guy is being portrayed in any way as a prophet of truth... I think the scene makes it pretty clear that he's an arrogant, dismissive blowhard.

This may be your personal impression, and that's the right one to walk away with, I think, but it's not the impression of people who have eaten this shit up and who follow the show. And in the show, Daniels' character is portrayed as a sort of "prophet of truth." It's Aaron Sorkin using Daniels as his puppet.

[synthesis]

In my mind the idea that it's "fun to watch" or that it creates an "emotional response" or that it's something of a fantasy scenario is really predicated on whether or not you can at least partially suspend your disbelief - i.e., on whether or not you can see it as a "real thing" or if it just seems like an actor you recognize, reciting, in a very non-human way, lines that you can tell were written by a guy who really thinks his own shit is brilliant. To me it's just transparent and artificial and that precludes any enjoyment or emotional response I would've gotten out of it otherwise.

And, oh yeah, that fucking "Worst, period, generation, period, ever, period." What a bunch of smug bullshit. Fuck you, Sorkin.

[The Disillusionist]

This may be your personal impression, and that's the right one to walk away with, I think, but it's not the impression of people who have eaten this shit up and who follow the show. And in the show, Daniels' character is portrayed as a sort of "prophet of truth." It's Aaron Sorkin using Daniels as his puppet.

You're probably right, you obviously know more about the show than I do, and that's definitely a problem with media entertainment, I can't argue with that at all. The clip definitely does have a "propaganda" type feel to it.

Overall, it sounds to me like this show probably shouldn't be taken too seriously as a source of political ideas, but I still say that it can be appreciated as entertainment. Personally, I think that truth can be found in every message, as long as you have a good method for distinguishing that truth from the "un-truth" in the rest of that message. I just think that the knee-jerk reaction that leftists are so known for isn't helpful a lot of the time.

[The Disillusionist]

In my mind the idea that it's "fun to watch" or that it creates an "emotional response" or that it's something of a fantasy scenario is really predicated on whether or not you can at least partially suspend your disbelief - i.e., on whether or not you can see it as a "real thing" or if it just seems like an actor you recognize, reciting, in a very non-human way, lines that you can tell were written by a guy who really thinks his own shit is brilliant. To me it's just transparent and artificial and that precludes any enjoyment or emotional response I would've gotten out of it otherwise.

And, oh yeah, that fucking "Worst, period, generation, period, ever, period." What a bunch of smug bullshit. Fuck you, Sorkin.

I'll admit, I'm totally the kind of person who has no trouble suspending disbelief. I will watch actors/movies that others think are absolutely terrible, and as long as the story is interesting, I get sucked in really easily.

[Creative Destruction]

You're probably right, you obviously know more about the show than I do, and that's definitely a problem with media entertainment, I can't argue with that at all. The clip definitely does have a "propaganda" type feel to it.

Overall, it sounds to me like this show probably shouldn't be taken too seriously as a source of political ideas, but I still say that it can be appreciated as entertainment. Personally, I think that truth can be found in every message, as long as you have a good method for distinguishing that truth from the "un-truth" in the rest of that message. I just think that the knee-jerk reaction that leftists are so known for isn't helpful a lot of the time.

I can enjoy shows that don't share my political opinion. Like I said, I genuinely enjoyed The West Wing. It was tough, as a leftist, watching some liberal-centrist president go on rampages about how we should show the world twice as much force as they would show us initially, but there was usually a character that tempered that sentiment, though, which I suspect was someone in the writer room who was battling with Sorkin over the script. There was also interesting drama away from the politics of it all.

There's nothing tempering all that bullshit with Sorkin in the Newsroom. And people do take it seriously as, sometimes, polemic. Whereas there is some truth in Jeff Daniel's monologue in the video, it's all limited to the statistics he spits out. That's fine, but it's not the overarching theme, which is what becomes apparently later on in the monologue. And to say that kind of truth -- the statistics -- isn't in Q+As at all is just completely false. Those things form the basis of whole forums on the subjects.

Mussolini may have been right, in print, about the deleterious effect of the bourgeoisie on Italian workers and Italian society, but that doesn't mean his overall theme and conclusions are anywhere near being right.

[Rafiq]

But he's also a guy with opinions reacting in an unusual way to a typical situation, causing an unsual reaction.

As I said, it's drama. It's actors pretending to be humans in various situations, and it's fun to watch.

Certainly. But in context, the narrative isn't what is being discussed. It's the political quality of the scene - not the spectacle. This is what the OP was referring to, and we responded accordingly.

[Bala Perdida]

I just think that the knee-jerk reaction that leftists are so known for isn't helpful a lot of the time.
They ask for 'leftist' opinions they get 'leftist' opinions. If it sounds bad, then I guess that's to bad. Our ideas are definitely unpopular and it's not unusual to react as such when people like 'leftists' voice their opinions. Just because we understand and explain the undesirable truth about a, for example, bourgeois news jester like Stephen Colbert doesn't mean we don't like watching him. I'd say many people in this forum probably find him hilarious. When society is so immovable as it is, anything we say is gonna sound like a declaration of war.

[The Disillusionist]

Certainly. But in context, the narrative isn't what is being discussed. It's the political quality of the scene - not the spectacle. This is what the OP was referring to, and we responded accordingly.

Yeah, I shouldn't have responded, I saw like one sentence that I had to comment on, and got sucked into the rest of the discussion.

Also, [email protected], that's not so much the type of reaction I was thinking of. I wasn't thinking of opinions, I was thinking more of those "liberals" that do completely crazy things for completely meaningless causes.

[Ravn]

Honestly, what time period is he talking about?

When the illusion of invincibility was impenetrable. The height of American power was about 60 years. It's been declining ever since.




But before you all get excited, the other candidates for world power are even worse. Yes the US has lost out: but to global reaction.

That's just the envy talking. The thing to get excited about is the weaker they get the more possible it is to seize power in the US.

[Creative Destruction]

When the illusion of invincibility was impenetrable. The height of American power was about 60 years. It's been declining ever since.

The "illusion of invincibility" was something in place in America until 9/11, so not that long ago.

[Ravn]

The "illusion of invincibility" was something in place in America until 9/11, so not that long ago.


The illusion of invincibility had been breaking down since the Vietnam era. But the US was at its most powerful after WW2, & its decline began around 1956. The American population is encouraged to live in a dreamworld, but millions of Americans are quite aware one way or another how rotten the system is regardless of the illusions the mass media spins. Given all the destruction the US has meted out in the last 60 years on other people, 9/11 was nothing but an excuse for the US to play victim & then proceed to screw with more people as if it was just given a license to. So, fuck 9/11.

[Creative Destruction]

You missed the point, but ok.

[synthesis]

I'll admit, I'm totally the kind of person who has no trouble suspending disbelief. I will watch actors/movies that others think are absolutely terrible, and as long as the story is interesting, I get sucked in really easily.

Well, I think that's different. Just because other people don't like it doesn't mean you're supposed to dislike it as well. I'm talking about your own subjective experience of watching something - you've never thought, "People don't really talk like that," or whatever, about something and found it harder to get into it after that?

[Brandon's Impotent Rage]

I'll admit, I'm totally the kind of person who has no trouble suspending disbelief. I will watch actors/movies that others think are absolutely terrible, and as long as the story is interesting, I get sucked in really easily.

Hey, there's nothing wrong with that. You can like something and still acknowledge some of the problems it may have. Acknowledgement does not necessarily mean condemnation.

Good example: I'm a huge fan of the Bayonetta video games. I love them. I love the action, the graphics, but most of all I love the character of Bayonetta herself. She's cute, has an awesome british accent, and she's long since run out of fucks to give.

Now, I can also openly acknowledge that she's a little oversexualized in ways that make me a tad uncomfortable. The camera does focus on her....'ahem'.....bits and pieces a little too long to the point that it becomes a bit too obvious.

However, I can acknowledge that and still enjoy the character and her games for all the things I DO like about them.

Acknowledgement does not equal condemnation.

[Rafiq]

That's just the envy talking. The thing to get excited about is the weaker they get the more possible it is to seize power in the US.

There's a difference between geopolitical weakness and internal weakness. The US is definitely not getting more ripe or predisposed to revolution.

[The Disillusionist]

Well, I think that's different. Just because other people don't like it doesn't mean you're supposed to dislike it as well. I'm talking about your own subjective experience of watching something - you've never thought, "People don't really talk like that," or whatever, about something and found it harder to get into it after that?

Honestly, this is where I start making myself sound like an angsty 13 year old, because I study people as a potential career, and I've found that people are often really fake. The average conversation you have with someone at a party isn't acted any better than the average B-movie.. People go up to strangers with a script in their heads, they act out that script, and then they deal with the response, which they have also often planned for ahead of time. Often, the acting is rather wooden, and people tend to forget their "lines," resulting in awkward moments. It's all pretend, and it doesn't really ever tend to get real until you really get to know someone. So, no, I don't really see acting in movies as being much different from "real" life, because a lot of real life isn't real.

In fact, a lot of westerners base a huge portion of their daily interactions on what they've seen in movies, so the argument could really be made that movies are more real than the people pretending to be in movies are. A lot of times, people shouldn't talk the way they do, because it's totally unnatural and poorly "acted", but they do it anyway, because they saw it on tv. The line between ficton and reality has been blurred significantly since tv became such a huge part of western culture. In a way, we've actually become fictional characters in our own lives, though of course, "civilized" society has always been that way to some degree.


Hey, there's nothing wrong with that. You can like something and still acknowledge some of the problems it may have. Acknowledgement does not necessarily mean condemnation.

Good example: I'm a huge fan of the Bayonetta video games. I love them. I love the action, the graphics, but most of all I love the character of Bayonetta herself. She's cute, has an awesome british accent, and she's long since run out of fucks to give.

Now, I can also openly acknowledge that she's a little oversexualized in ways that make me a tad uncomfortable. The camera does focus on her....'ahem'.....bits and pieces a little too long to the point that it becomes a bit too obvious.

However, I can acknowledge that and still enjoy the character and her games for all the things I DO like about them.

Acknowledgement does not equal condemnation.

Yeah, I can totally understand this. Good points.

[The Disillusionist]

There's a difference between geopolitical weakness and internal weakness. The US is definitely not getting more ripe or predisposed to revolution.

I believe that the spirit of revolution is almost completely dead in America, and won't likely be revived until things get significantly worse for the middle class. But, that's a rant best saved for another thread.

[synthesis]

Honestly, this is where I start making myself sound like an angsty 13 year old, because I study people as a potential career, and I've found that people are often really fake. The average conversation you have with someone at a party isn't acted any better than the average B-movie.. People go up to strangers with a script in their heads, they act out that script, and then they deal with the response, which they have also often planned for ahead of time. Often, the acting is rather wooden, and people tend to forget their "lines," resulting in awkward moments. It's all pretend, and it doesn't really ever tend to get real until you really get to know someone. So, no, I don't really see acting in movies as being much different from "real" life, because a lot of real life isn't real.

That's kind of what I meant, though - people either improvise or they don't, and either way, in my experience, it rarely, if ever, looks like Jeff Daniels in the clip in the OP. Like, whether or not you're thinking about what you're going to say next, there's still an element of unpredictability that the best fiction, in my opinion, is able to replicate.

[The Disillusionist]

That's kind of what I meant, though - people either improvise or they don't, and either way, in my experience, it rarely, if ever, looks like Jeff Daniels in the clip in the OP. Like, whether or not you're thinking about what you're going to say next, there's still an element of unpredictability that the best fiction, in my opinion, is able to replicate.

Yeah, this is a fair point, and I agree.

[Ravn]

You missed the point, but ok.


Maybe you missed the difference between invulnerability & invincibility.

[Creative Destruction]

nah

[Ravn]

I believe that the spirit of revolution is almost completely dead in America, and won't likely be revived until things get significantly worse for the middle class. But, that's a rant best saved for another thread.


Fuck the "middle class". Things are significantly worst for the working class. People getting downsized just adds to the ranks of the working class. (That's a good thing!) &, all this protest against killer cops doesn't indicate complete apathy out there.