Talk:The Newsroom (American TV series)

'Reception' section issue
A bit odd that the "reception" area says that response to the show is "mixed" but pretty much all the quotes are negative. A simple Google search generates plenty of quotes that could be used to balance this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.51.92.208 (talk) 21:20, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

At the end of 2020, it sits on an IMDB rating of 8.6, with a distribution that hardly would be described as "mixed". The journalists hated it, apparently.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.202.252.94 (talk) 13:39, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Show's dipiction of Citizens United v FEC
I added some responses by the Cato Institute in response to the shows dipiction of Citizens United v FEC in the reception section. I think it is important to fairness to show debate and controversy this program has aroused. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BrettKnoss (talk • contribs) 01:01, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

merge proposal
Any issue with a highly selective merge of the article on the first episode. The references supplied there demonstrate the notability of the series, but do little to demonstrate the notability of this particular episode. While they are about the pilot episode, those references are essentially reacting to the series.--RadioFan (talk) 02:28, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Sloan Sabbith
How can that she has an in-Universe Wikipedia page not be relevant to Wikipedia? It's a lot more plot-relevant than the Cato Institute mentions. -- Davidkevin (talk) 21:42, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think either of those things are relevant, but the idea that she, who is in the show a newsreader, would have a wikipedia page is not even remotely notable or interesting. Of course she would, as would many of the staff.  Honestly, who the hell cares? Dbrodbeck (talk) 21:47, 3 September 2012 (UTC)


 * "...who the hell cares?" I think you're missing the point of having an encyclopedia if you're asking that particular question.  To answer you, though, I care.  -- Davidkevin (talk) 22:17, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, to put it in wikipedia speak, how is it notable? Is this an important thing about her character?  Oh and I am quite sure I understand the point of having the encyclopedia thank you.  Dbrodbeck (talk) 22:28, 3 September 2012 (UTC)


 * And if you this were a fan site, that you care might be nice. As it is, it's trivial.  --Drmargi (talk) 22:58, 3 September 2012 (UTC)


 * This is why so many decent, knowledgeable people give up on this project. They tire of being made sick by this obnoxious attitude of ownership of ignorance and exclusionism.


 * Personally, every time I come back after a gap to try again, I run into it on the very first day. Every single time.  Jackass edit-warring and "I won't let you add to my article."  -- Davidkevin (talk) 02:06, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I have edited this article once I think. If you think that is a case of WP:OWN then report me to a noticeboard, I welcome it. You might want to read WP:AGF.  If trying to keep trivia out of an article is ownership, ignorance or whatever, then yes I guess I am guilty.  Dbrodbeck (talk) 02:09, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Sabbith's online presence is an important part of the story, so I think it's relevant, but more so in the episodes' summaries than as a character description. Further, I'm not sure Sampat is messing with her Wikipedia page as was suggested ; all I remember is him talking about making mischief in forums. I agree with Dbrodbeck that the mere fact that Sabbith has a Wikipedia page is trivial and non-notable. The forum business ought to be mentioned in List of The Newsroom episodes. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:50, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh the stuff about the forums surely belongs in the episode article.  It was a major plot point.  Dbrodbeck (talk) 03:53, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Coming back to the ownership issue, it's easy to fling that term around, especially when you're an editor trying to force an edit with which other editors don't agree. When you get reverted repeatedly, that ought to be a hint about the appropriateness of the content you're trying to add, not a campaign to own the article.  --Drmargi (talk) 07:25, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

NPOV dispute - Critical reception
It's been noted on this page already that this section correctly notes "mixed" reviews, but in content is skewed heavily towards referencing and quoting negative ones. This is the case with the first two paragraphs. The third paragraph has been written solely for use as a soapbox by user BrettKnoss, for the purpose of echoing the concerns of the Cato Institute, and amusingly fails to even explain the "controversial" views that are being responded to. Not only is this addition unbalanced in favor of the institute's own rhetoric, the views of the Cato Institute just aren't particularly notable here. The Cato Institute is not noted for its entertainment criticism. Plastering an article like this with quotes and rhetoric from a political think tank is just unnecessary and frankly inappropriate. It is the farthest thing from neutrality. As a point of reference, there is nothing on the Cato Institute wiki page about The Newsroom. This "controversy" is not a major event, it is the kind of thing that happens in all entertainment and very often in this show. The Cato Institute is not so much more important than every other group or individual that may disagree with something done or said in this show. This is not something that was added for fairness, it was added out of spite in order to tout a specific viewpoint in favor of another. Such things have no place here, or at the very least they should not. AceRoccola (talk) 06:35, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I moved that paragraph to the appropriate episode at List of The Newsroom episodes. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:07, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Good good. Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:33, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Linking United States
Newsroom is a political drama. It deals with american politics. Linking the Newsroom page to the United States page that defines american government and politics is valid per the WP:OVERLINK. --(JDD4J4J (talk) 12:40, 26 April 2013 (UTC))
 * I disagree, if this were the norm then we would do that in all TV show articles, and we do not. Linking to the US does not increase the reader's understanding of the subject matter.  Dbrodbeck (talk) 13:03, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Dbrodbeck took the words out of my mouth. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:13, 26 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry but that is incorrect. There is no reason to link most television to the United States page. For example there would be no relevance to link Family Guy to the United States Page.  However, in contrast Newsroom is a political drama, it deals with american politics constantly.   American politics are defined on the United States page. Thus, in this case, unlike most television shows, the United States page should be linked.  This is clearly defined in the WP:OVERLINK. (JDD4J4J (talk) 14:41, 26 April 2013 (UTC))


 * Actually, it's not incorrect. Commonly known locations are not linked in articles, and a broad article on the U.S. is not going to help the reader understand American government and politics.  Frankly, I have to question the judgment of any editor who doesn't know that American is a proper noun, and thereby capitalized.  --Drmargi (talk) 14:09, 26 April 2013 (UTC)


 * There is no need to be combative and attack over typos. It is fully possible to have civil conversations.  I am not sure if you have ever been to the United States page, but included in the listed context is "5 Government and politics". This shows that there is specific related political information.  (JDD4J4J (talk) 14:41, 26 April 2013 (UTC))


 * I made a reasonable, and perfectly civil observation, nothing more (what is it with the new generation of editors that they can't take even the the mildest criticism without crying, harassment, bullying or attack?) Yes, there is some general political and governmental information, but you require the editor to go look for it, and it doesn't rise to the level of specificity of a sixth grade government textbook.  The Newsroom is a sophisticated political comedy-drama, as is House of Cards, and the reader will gain little, if any, understanding of their political perspectives from a general article on the U.S. --Drmargi (talk) 16:57, 26 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what older generation you claim you are a member of but I can remember where I was when JFK was shot. Furthermore an observation is generally something observed however, your comment was an assumption implying an inferior grade.  In your second comment, you not only made assumptions about me, but are now making assumptions about what people will read what articles.  I apologize,  I guess I am guilty of being under the assumption that Wikipedia was for all walks of people, not just an intellectual few.  The fact of the matter is that the United States site in question does have defined related information, as covered in the WP:OVERLINK.  If you feel that the article can be improved,  you definitely can take the time to improve it if you like. (JDD4J4J (talk) 21:03, 26 April 2013 (UTC))


 * Given you've totally misinterpreted my comment, not to mention blowing it out of proportion, I give up. I'm not interested in an endless circular argument that will get us nowhere. --Drmargi (talk) 00:21, 27 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I assume JDD4J4J's which removed my comment was an honest mistake; if so, I like it to be acknowledged as such. I restored it and adjusted the indentation of all subsequent contributions.
 * JDD4J4J asserts that WP:OVERLINK endorses a link to the US for this series whitout quoting or other supporting evidence. Just saying so doesn't make it so. I can see no aspect of this program that would benefit from the article on the United States. On the other hand, the links provided in the list of The Newsroom episodes do exactly that. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:31, 27 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Any removal of another users statements on talk page by myself was unintentional and I apologize.  I have no interest or intent to hinder your 1st amendment rights and appreciate you participating in this conversation. As for my interpretation of WP:OVERLINK, the page that defines and addresses overlinking.  I definitely invite you to review the whole document. But, I feel confident that I can atleast show the thought process of where I was coming by showing an exert of a semi related example shown on WP:OVERLINK This example is using the supply and demand page as it's subject. In the example it says "do not link to the "United States", because that is an article on a very broad topic with no direct connection to supply and demand."  In the case of Newsroom I felt there was a direct connection between an American political drama and a United States page that addresses government and politics.   If this interpretation is incorrect,  I apologize.   I truly was editing in a fashion that I interpreted to be correct. (JDD4J4J (talk) 15:13, 27 April 2013 (UTC))
 * (As I wrote, I assumed the removal was a mistake; thanks for acknowleding it.) That last point is exactly the bone of contention here; Drmargi and I think that none of the items raised in this show are mentioned in the article on the United States. These items are reasonably well linked from the show's episodes descriptions. If you want to rephrase the introductory sentence of this article so that a link to Politics of the United States can be worked into it, I have no objection. But linking to United States just because the series takes place there is against WP:OVERLINK. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:39, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

When does the show air?
I came to this article specifically to find out what the show's timeslot is, but found that this information is not anywhere in the article. Thecommexokid (talk) 03:31, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Single v. Multiple Camera
There is a small, slow edit war brewing over the show being single v. multiple camera. An IP editor has made the change from single to multiple, citing the commentaries on two episodes. Another editor restored it to single claiming that was the show's style (paraphasing), but with no source to back it up. They've exchanged another round of reverts since. What concerns me is the commentaries do discuss filming and other production techniques at some length (there are commentaries on six of the ten episodes, if memory serves) at appear to support the multiple-camera approach. I do recall from listening to them that they have a static camera set-up for Will's on-air set, then camera(s) plus a steadicam they use in the bigger newsroom set, but not whether they use more than one camera at a time. On the other hand, there is nothing to support the single-camera set-up except one editor's beliefs about what is used. I'm currently neutral on the subject pending a review of the commentaries; I just want to get the discussion started, and the edit war stopped. For the moment, I've removed the single/multiple entry and added a hidden note inviting editors to discuss, and source. This, along with the HD standard in which shows film, seem to be facts editors think they know, but rarely bother to source. --Drmargi (talk) 19:36, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * All one-hour dramas shoot in a single-camera style. The confusion is the name, multiple camera are used for a single-camera setup, it's the shooting style and method which defines the set-up. Multi-cam is for sitcoms, like say, anything on CBS (Two and Half Men, The Big Bang Theory). There's a distinct difference in visual style—multi-cam shows look more "fake" and staged, camera angles are very static and usually shot in very specific directions, and don't cover 360 degrees of the set. Single-cams usually have at least two cameras running, for example, an "A" cam for close-ups, and a "B" cam for wide shots. More than likely the other editor is just confusing the idea of multiple camera being used, though it's possible a multi-cam setup is used for the news segments as it's meant to mimic exactly how a news program is shot. Regardless, the show itself is single-camera. I'd like to get timestamps on where this is discussed in the commentaries so I could check it out. Anyway, here's two articles that discuss the series, mentioning it's single-camera: and . Also, it was nominated for Art Directors Guild awards in the single-camera category. Drovethrughosts (talk) 20:57, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I was certainly under the impression it was single-camera; that's what most TV drama is (I'd be hard-pressed to say all, since I know the soaps are multi-camera), and what Sorkin has favored in the past, with a lot of use of the steadicam. And it's not hard to understand how an editor can confuse multiple cameras on set with multiple cameras in operation while shooting.  My only concern is Daniels discussion of the multiple cameras filming Newsnight; I can't recall whether he said they were actually working or whether one was and the others were dummies. But that's a minor matter.  The Toronto piece, plus the ADG award nomination provide the sourcing that was previously lacking.  Let's give the IP a chance to weigh in, and to check the commentaries.  --Drmargi (talk) 21:17, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

I will revisit the commentaries and provide the exact time and what is said about this. Perhaps I'm mistaken, however I doubt it as I recall them talking about how well the lighting techs are as they are able to light for multiple cameras at once I assume 9( not sure if that at once was explicitly stated) Yes they do state that the news cameras are real and this the vision is being shown on the monitors at the same times it happening, but this is not what I am referring to.— — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.174.209.166 (talk) 00:42, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

MacKenzie McHale wikipedia page
After last night's episode (8 Sep 2013), we really should create a MacKenzie article, and have a faux editing war over Cambridge vs. Oxford, as occurred in the episode. Is there a protocol for this? Would it get our editing privileges revoked?? Paulmlieberman (talk) 14:04, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * (I assume you are kidding, but if not.....) First off, we are trying to build an encyclopedia here, not trying to do 'life imitates art'.  Secondly, if the character gets significant coverage in secondary sources then we could have an article.  Dbrodbeck (talk) 15:20, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * We are trying to build an encyclopedia and the subplot about the fictitious Cambridge issue is interesting in that it comments directly on Wikipedia in an inaccurate manner. Stating that a "page administrator" who created the article, said in an email that Wikipedia policy doesn't allow information directly from the subject is just false. It will be interesting to see where they go with this and how much of the subplot they continue with but a MacKenzie McHale article isn't a bad idea.--Mark Miller (talk) 06:25, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * It is a safe bet that Sorkin got this story idea from the famous incident last year where Philip Roth tried to have the Wikipedia page for his novel, The Human Stain, changed. Roth's failed attempt resulted in him writing an open letter about it that The New Yorker published. In the letter he wrote,
 * Yet when, through an official interlocutor, I recently petitioned Wikipedia to delete this misstatement, along with two others, my interlocutor was told by the "English Wikipedia Administrator" — in a letter dated August 25th and addressed to my interlocutor — that I, Roth, was not a credible source: "I understand your point that the author is the greatest authority on their own work," writes the Wikipedia Administrator — "but we require secondary sources."
 * You can read the whole letter here:. So the show's representation of a similar situation with one of their characters is not really them getting anything about Wikipedia wrong. Although the idea that the guy who "lives on the Internet" and knows about twitter access in North Waziristan would not already be familiar with Wikipedia editing practices seems a bit of a stretch. 99.192.68.69 (talk) 07:02, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * An article about the character would, at this point, be over the top. This is not Captain Kirk or Tony Soprano.  Dbrodbeck (talk) 11:41, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I was half-serious. I thought it would be amusing, but yes, it would be a bit over the top. Paulmlieberman (talk) 02:30, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * That said, if the show goes say three more years I figure the characters will be notable enough to have their own pages. Dbrodbeck (talk) 02:45, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * While we've been discussing this, an article was created for MacKenzie, and, for a short time yesterday, it said that she was president of the Oxford Union. If you google "mackenzie mchale oxford union", it will come up, along with a site called http://fuckyeahmackenziemchale.tumblr.com/. Paulmlieberman (talk) 18:55, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I just prodded it. Dbrodbeck (talk) 19:44, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * ...which was rejected by the page creator. I put it up for AFD, no matter what your feelings about the article are, drop by the AFD and let them be known.  Dbrodbeck (talk) 11:35, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

It would be nice if there was a link either there or here to the discussion so an editor included to either improve the article or comment on AFD could. --Drmargi (talk) 15:12, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I realize now that, even if the character deserves an article, its existence may result in the editing war that I, in a brief moment of lightness, thought would be fun. I've experienced editing wars, and even tried to end one (the year of birth of Frederick Douglass, which he himself stated was indeterminate). I think it would be best if the article is deleted. Paulmlieberman (talk) 17:03, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

here is the AFD discussion Dbrodbeck (talk) 17:11, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Commas
What do you mean when you say "unsourced"? Are you really suggesting that changes to bring the article in compliance with the MOS require an outside source (where the article does not currently have one)? 207.161.217.209 (talk) 00:19, 25 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Quite simply, you made the initial "edit" without any comment or reason in the appropriate box. If you are going to quote WP:MOS, then adhere to Wikipedia convention regarding reason(s) for edits. Perhaps you should create an account for yourself, rather than hiding behind an IP? Discussion over. David J Johnson (talk) 21:36, 26 September 2016 (UTC)


 * If anything, an IP address is more transparent than "hiding" behind a username is, but I digress. With respect to "reason(s) for edits", I'm simply asking you to explain what yours meant. On its face, one might believe it to be disingenuous to suggest that my edit being "unsourced" is appropriate reason for its reversion, but I'm assuming that you may well have an understandable rationale. So, again, what did you mean by "unsourced"? 207.161.217.209 (talk) 21:59, 26 September 2016 (UTC)