Revisiting "The Newsroom" After 10 Years

Back in my undergraduate days, I aspired to be a journalist, and in 2015, I was deeply moved by the American TV series “The Newsroom”. A decade later, I rewatched Season 1 on Coupang Play and felt compelled to jot down some reflections.

The idea of a legacy media outlet resisting advertisers, ratings, parent company politics, sensationalism, and clickbait to uphold the principle of “If we can’t provide voters with accurate information, we won’t do the news” now feels like high fantasy—almost Game of Thrones level, minus the dragons.

Even then, I thought it was somewhat unrealistic, but as a left-leaning individual, I hoped, “Wouldn’t it be great if this were possible?” Over the past ten years, both legacy and new media have showcased opportunistic, manipulative, and sensationalist tendencies, making such hopes feel distant.

Minor spoilers ahead. That said, I believe the journey matters more than the outcome in this series, and knowing the plot doesn’t diminish the experience or satisfaction it offers.

S1 EP2

Bias towards fairness means that if the entire congressional Republican caucus were to walk into the House and propose a resolution stating that the Earth was flat, the Times would lead with “Democrats and Republicans Can’t Agree on Shape of Earth.”

Will McAvoy critiques the notion of “bias towards fairness,” illustrating that if Republicans declared the Earth flat, The Times might report, “Democrats and Republicans Can’t Agree on Shape of Earth.” Chasing the most contentious aspects can create the illusion of multiple valid perspectives, but sometimes, a single, straightforward fact or viewpoint is paramount.

Nietzsche’s perspectivism suggests that all truths and perceptions vary based on specific perspectives, i.e., the subject’s position and conditions. However, journalism isn’t about unveiling absolute truths but about highlighting perspectives and stories that deserve attention. When I was an editor at an independent media outlet, some readers argued that equal space should be given to both sides to ensure fairness. That’s a misguided notion; reporting inherently involves choosing a perspective deemed most significant, inevitably taking a side. This is why media outlets are labeled as “progressive” or “conservative.”

S1 EP6

There are people who look just like me, thousands and thousands, who died for the freedom to define their own lives, for themselves. How dare you presume to decide what I should think is important?

Will McAvoy interviews Sutton Wall, a Black aide to former Senator Rick Santorum, a Republican presidential candidate known for his extreme conservatism and controversial remarks on race and homosexuality. Despite being Black and gay, Wall supports Santorum, stating it’s due to the senator’s strong anti-abortion stance. McAvoy challenges him, questioning how he can work for someone who views him as inferior.

Wall’s position isn’t entirely rational, which gives McAvoy grounds for his pointed questions. However, Wall retorts, urging McAvoy not to judge him solely based on race and sexual orientation, emphasizing that many who look like him died for the right to define their own lives.

During my involvement in student activism, I encountered individuals whose political stances seemed contradictory to their backgrounds or other beliefs. Back then, I couldn’t fathom how someone like Alice Weidel, an openly gay woman married to a person of color, could lead Germany’s far-right AfD party.

This might be a typical leftist student perspective, but I often struggled to understand such individuals, leading to conflicts or distancing. Over the years, I’ve come to realize that humans are complex and often live with contradictions. I’ve advocated for workers’ rights and participated in protests for industrial accident laws, yet I’ve also emphasized the importance of hard work in startups, leading to criticism on social media. These experiences taught me that humans don’t always resolve contradictions but learn to live with them. In organizations filled with such individuals, decision-making and progress require compromise and understanding.

Regardless of one’s view on human nature, as previously mentioned, journalism operates from the perspective deemed most important by the outlet. From that standpoint, certain contradictions in human positions become vulnerable and susceptible to criticism.

S1 EP7

Captain, my name is Don Keefer. That’s Elliot Hirsch and that’s Sloan Sabbith. We work for Atlantis Cable News. And we wanted you and your first officer and Flight Attendant Crazy Lady to be the first ones on this plane to know that our armed forces killed Osama bin Laden for you tonight.

For the past decade, this episode epitomized The Newsroom for me. It portrays McAvoy and his team breaking the news of Osama bin Laden’s death. Before the official broadcast, they inform a plane’s captain, police officers, and a former soldier, witnessing their elation.

In the past, this episode amplified the idealism of aspiring journalists. I probably thought, “If I could deliver news that brings joy to people and contributes to society, I’d be fulfilled.”

Rewatching it now, I realize that “delivering good news” constitutes a minuscule part of journalism. The sentiment “I want the news I deliver to make people happy” aligns more with a chef’s aspiration: “I want my food to make people happy.”

From my experiences and understanding, journalists inevitably face criticism, regardless of intent. They often confront and discomfort audiences. The significance lies in the impact achieved, making it a role that requires resilience. In fact, the series frequently depicts such challenges.

S1 EP8, EP9

Any candidate who can handle a cross is going to find himself at the top of the polls in the morning.

Will McAvoy and his team aim to host a Republican primary debate in their preferred format. To achieve this, they need to boost ratings, which had declined due to their commitment to high-quality, non-sensational reporting. Reluctantly, they resort to sensational stories to appease the parent company’s demands.

However, after a mock debate showcasing their rigorous format—fact-checking every statement and allowing no nonsense—Republican officials are horrified and opt for another network. A Republican associate of McAvoy remarks that any candidate who survives such a debate would top the polls the next day.

In contrast, during the actual debate on another network, the moderator asks Representative Michele Bachmann whether she prefers Elvis Presley or Johnny Cash. As such trivial questions increase, there’s less opportunity to scrutinize statements like her claim that “God told her to run for president,” preventing voters from assessing her qualifications and beliefs.

This narrative logic resonates with me. Failing to scrutinize candidates’ past statements imposes societal costs on voters. When the time for accountability arrives, politicians often deflect, labeling criticisms as low-blow attacks, striving to maintain an unblemished image. However, when they confront sharp, pertinent questions head-on, voters can better discern competent public servants.

Yet, even in this idealistic—and arguably fantastical—drama, such aspirations are thwarted, making them even less attainable in reality.