The Newsroom

:

Season 1
  • Network: HBO
  • Series Premiere Date: Jun 24, 2012
Season #: 3, 2, 1
User Score
8.2

Universal acclaim- based on 541 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 446 out of 541
  2. Mixed: 54 out of 541
  3. Negative: 41 out of 541
Watch Now

Where To Watch

Buy on
Stream On
Stream On

Review this tv show

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling

User Reviews

view
per page
  1. ib4est
    Apr 11, 2013
    5
    Like most reviewers, I was drawn to this series because of the opening scene in the first episode which I would rate a 9/10. I was really excited to dive into this show. As the season went on, I just kept getting more disappointed with the ongoing fake wittiness of the new crew and the lack of depth in the acting. It is incredibly forced and uncomfortable to watch. The charactersLike most reviewers, I was drawn to this series because of the opening scene in the first episode which I would rate a 9/10. I was really excited to dive into this show. As the season went on, I just kept getting more disappointed with the ongoing fake wittiness of the new crew and the lack of depth in the acting. It is incredibly forced and uncomfortable to watch. The characters "Mac", "Maggie", "Jim" and "Jon" are annoying to watch and so one dimensional. There acting is pretentious. "Will" and "Sloan" are a joy to watch due to incredible acting. Probably the reason while I'll tune in again for season 2. I love the premise of the show but I hope they don't repeat season 1's short falls and just throw more recently experienced real life new stories at us wrapped with more pointless, grating banter.… Expand
  2. realmc26
    Sep 17, 2012
    4
    Having watched 9 episodes I have to downgrade my previous score of 7 to a 4. Episode 9 contained so many sanctimonious, cringeworthy moments I feel a little bit dirty watching this show.

    The fact that Geoff Daniels rises above the mediocrity of the rest of the cast and the continually inconsistent standard of the dialogue he is given to deliver such a stellar performance is incredible.
  3. nms1215
    Nov 28, 2012
    6
    After making a point in the first episode of being a game changer, this show devolves into a show that exists to boost the egos of its creators and squeezes in cheesy romanticism at every corner. I watched this show with high hopes, expecting it to be about what was promised-- a news station that actually covers news objectively, without worrying about ratings, popularity, and money.After making a point in the first episode of being a game changer, this show devolves into a show that exists to boost the egos of its creators and squeezes in cheesy romanticism at every corner. I watched this show with high hopes, expecting it to be about what was promised-- a news station that actually covers news objectively, without worrying about ratings, popularity, and money. Instead, this show hit every episode continually with a "news suck, but we are better than everyone else" and as many annoying romantic (unromantically attempting to be romantic) relationships as possible. This show represents exactly what it dooms.… Expand
  4. rocketpackpanda
    Sep 3, 2012
    4
    When I heard about this show I was excited now that i've finished season one I see that this show epitomizes wasted potential. Great actors, great writer, great producers on arguably the best network on television. Instead of a crafting a show that would David Simon and Ed Burns green with envy we get a show that at best is a mediocre show about inter office social conundrums like JimWhen I heard about this show I was excited now that i've finished season one I see that this show epitomizes wasted potential. Great actors, great writer, great producers on arguably the best network on television. Instead of a crafting a show that would David Simon and Ed Burns green with envy we get a show that at best is a mediocre show about inter office social conundrums like Jim likes Maggie but shes into the douchy bf Don (who isnt at all that douchy but thats not the point). At worst the show is egotistical, smug, elitist, condescending, preachy and just poorly written. Much like the essay of a college freshman who just wrote an essay about all the evils of capitalism. Sorkin doesn't ask for complexity from his writers or staff, he doesn't ask for quality either by the look of it. The show has no grey area for its topic so instead of explaining it clearly it loudly yells and screams at the veiwer "look at my show! We cover topics of importance, real importance! Stuff that real journalists should have covered!" Guess Sorkin and Co didn't realize the news already did this, infinitely better than the show. The actors are wasted on the **** teleplay. Jeff Daniels and Emily Mortimer are wonderful and make great use of what they have, but they much to work with. Olivia Munn can act (although I find her character hard to believe as being 'socially inept' considering her previous career, even if she was once a reporter). Frankly, Sorkin and Co should ease up on the politics for next season (it would make the show infinitely more watchable) in favour of focusing on what actually works in the show; the inter office politics. That part is well written and feels authentic rather than preachy and smug. Who knows, maybe Sorkin will realize that he needs to write teleplays about news stories that are insightful and well written that don't treat the viewer as a 6 year old. That would be a treat to see, but until this happens the show can only be described as a preach selfindulgent mess which is the work of smug and egotistical writer's and producers trying to tell professionals how to do their jobs. Aaron Sorkin your show is horrible and you can do much better, you have done better, so fix it.… Expand
  5. seancriswell
    Sep 12, 2012
    5
    The very definition of a mixed bag for me. So excited for another Sorkin show, I love his rat-a-tat writing style and his last two movies have been phenomenal. That said from week to week this show left a lot to be desired. There are a couple of characters here that are very hard to get on board with, whether it is from lack of development or whether they are just ill conceived could beThe very definition of a mixed bag for me. So excited for another Sorkin show, I love his rat-a-tat writing style and his last two movies have been phenomenal. That said from week to week this show left a lot to be desired. There are a couple of characters here that are very hard to get on board with, whether it is from lack of development or whether they are just ill conceived could be up for debate. The main probelm with the show for me is the convenience of the sources that help these reporters out along the way. Every time there is a big story one of the characters comes up with a source that they know or are related to that give them an edge on the scoop. This gives the show an unbelievability factor that in most episodes is difficult to overcome. There is a lot to unravel in a short review, not everything here is bad but overall I have more problems than praise. I will be watching next year hoping things get better.… Expand
  6. NoahCoward
    Jul 3, 2012
    4
    Sorry but I have to agree with the critics on this one, the show just isn't very good.

    I started watching, predisposed to liking this series, based on the coming attractions and the fact that most HBO original series are generally pretty good. But try as I might, I couldn't get over all the self-righteous speeches, overly obvious plot devices, and manipulative audience-pleasing    Sorry but I have to agree with the critics on this one, the show just isn't very good.

    I started watching, predisposed to liking this series, based on the coming attractions and the fact that most HBO original series are generally pretty good. But try as I might, I couldn't get over all the self-righteous speeches, overly obvious plot devices, and manipulative audience-pleasing elements.

    I like all the actors, particularly Sam Waterson, but this show is just too cheesy for me. No subtlety, just a lot of over-dramatic speechifying. I started watching the second episode and not sure I'll even bother finish watching.

    Sorry HBO, you can't hit a home run every time.    … Expand
  7. funkypitt
    Jul 12, 2012
    5
    After watching the first 2 episodes, I was delighted: great writing and acting, witty lines and complex characters. Maybe it would help me pass the time until The Good Wife, Homeland and Boss all return next fall. The 3rd episode completely disgusted me. The plot is now mostly about politics, and the show has become disturbingly manipulative, in a not-so-subtle way: a show written by aAfter watching the first 2 episodes, I was delighted: great writing and acting, witty lines and complex characters. Maybe it would help me pass the time until The Good Wife, Homeland and Boss all return next fall. The 3rd episode completely disgusted me. The plot is now mostly about politics, and the show has become disturbingly manipulative, in a not-so-subtle way: a show written by a liberal about a fictional conservative anchor which, because of his high integrity and intelligence, happens to share the average liberal's ideas about the republican party and the tea party. I am not American, nor a fan of the tea party, but I don't like feeling manipulated, especially when it is done is such an obvious way.… Expand
  8. kinger12
    Jul 13, 2012
    5
    I am finding the show very disappointing. I loved Sportsnight which this is far more akin to than West Wing. I was hoping for something more West Wing style that dealt with news items and be more center than so left liberal that is all hyped into a tizzy. Which is the best way to describe a lot of the characters. Now first off I am a strongly left leaning politico but I like my news to beI am finding the show very disappointing. I loved Sportsnight which this is far more akin to than West Wing. I was hoping for something more West Wing style that dealt with news items and be more center than so left liberal that is all hyped into a tizzy. Which is the best way to describe a lot of the characters. Now first off I am a strongly left leaning politico but I like my news to be factual - I don't want an opinions. I don't want my news skewed to whoever is paying for it corporate or nationalistic. I want my news with warts and all - in other words just the facts - like back in the day when the BBC did but even they are more opinionated that in the past. So back to the show - the characters are obvious, the plot pre-determined and story line completely lacking. Its like Faux news its all about the characters trysts and hype. All round disappointing could have been so much better.… Expand
  9. Cilliandrew
    Jun 30, 2012
    4
    As someone else in another review mentioned, this is a show written for dumb people to feel smart. There is one great flaw in this show, and that's that I just do not find it believable that this squad of goofballs could have possibly broken the BP story, yet the way this episode is written they crack the story in one news show in it's entirety! It's incredibly ridiculous. Within 10As someone else in another review mentioned, this is a show written for dumb people to feel smart. There is one great flaw in this show, and that's that I just do not find it believable that this squad of goofballs could have possibly broken the BP story, yet the way this episode is written they crack the story in one news show in it's entirety! It's incredibly ridiculous. Within 10 minutes I knew i wouldn't be tuning in again, but i stuck it out to the end of the episode. And that will be all that i watch. Sorry Mr. Sorkin, this is your second strike with me after "Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip"... Sorkin is obviously a bright guy, but he's not AS bright as he thinks....… Expand
  10. gatopedia
    Jul 11, 2012
    5
    I was looking forward to watching this show, on account of being a big fan of Jeff Daniels and of Aaron Sorkin, but did not enjoy it. There is too much sudden shouting for no great reason, many of the secondary characters are stereotypical and treated contemptuously and there are too many patronising speeches. - CAN DO BETTER!
  11. couchpotato
    Sep 8, 2012
    6
    The only good thing about this show is the parts where they report something good like the Gabby Giffords part. The senior cast (Jeff Daniels, Emily Mortimer, Sam Waterston, and Jane Fonda) are the only reason i keep watching. the younger cast makes me feel that their sub plots are just there to fill in the extra space to fill
  12. maesterpycell
    Aug 10, 2013
    4
    The heavily forced dialogue is unforgivably cheesy and the characters are outright annoying, especially in the way they finish each other's sentences. This show had great potential from an experienced writer but unfortunately, the quality does not match the ambition.
  13. kingzardoz
    Nov 23, 2014
    4
    The delusion and arrogance are unmatched. Is it a show that makes dumb people feel smart? I'm couldn't say since I've never met a person that likes this show. Time to retire Sorkin, you will not be missed.
  14. SJvandelay
    Aug 19, 2013
    5
    Season 1 had very few redeeming qualities. In fact, I don't even remember what they were. The show was incredibly smarmy and pat (from me, a professed liberal). Mackenzie is supposed to be this great and powerful producer, yet, she doesn't know how to not send an email to the entire staff? She bumbles her way through every scene, which just outs Aaron Sorkin (again) for his lack ofSeason 1 had very few redeeming qualities. In fact, I don't even remember what they were. The show was incredibly smarmy and pat (from me, a professed liberal). Mackenzie is supposed to be this great and powerful producer, yet, she doesn't know how to not send an email to the entire staff? She bumbles her way through every scene, which just outs Aaron Sorkin (again) for his lack of knowing anything of how to write female characters. Bah.… Expand
  15. MorbidPig
    Aug 19, 2014
    6
    It's heavily one-sided, but Aaron Sorkin's The Newsroom easily swipes away at any flaws it may contain with incredible writing and a fully committed performance from Jeff Daniels.
  16. fbtimes
    Mar 30, 2015
    6
    It's heavily one-sided, but Aaron Sorkin's The Newsroom easily swipes away at any flaws it may contain with incredible writing and a fully committed performance from Jeff Daniels.
  17. fbtimesofficial
    Jul 25, 2015
    6
    It's heavily one-sided, but Aaron Sorkin's The Newsroom easily swipes away at any flaws it may contain with incredible writing and a fully committed performance from Jeff Daniels.
  18. troglodyte_
    Jun 3, 2018
    6
    It could be a marvelous show except it isn't due to some amature performance from important characters lead by Emily Mortimer then her associate Alisson Pill though Jeff Daniels delivered a brilliant display. Screenplay and cinematography was great but execution wasn't proper and non pertinent sometimes. Still a good show to watch for a good story line.

Awards & Rankings

96
#96 Best TV Season of 2012
5
#5 Most Discussed TV Season of 2012
15
#15 Most Shared TV Season of 2012

Critic Reviews

All reviews »
Metascore
56

Mixed or average reviews - based on 31 Critic Reviews

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 13 out of 31
  2. Mixed: 12 out of 31
  3. Negative: 6 out of 31
  1. Boston Herald
    Reviewed by: Mark A. Perigard
    Jun 25, 2012
    83
    Aaron Sorkin can write crackling dialogue. Believable characters, not so much.
    Read full review
  2. PopMatters
    Reviewed by: Gareth James
    Jun 25, 2012
    60
    The Newsroom is timely, well acted, and big-hearted, but offers few surprises.
    Read full review
  3. New York Daily News
    Reviewed by: David Hinckley
    Jun 25, 2012
    80
    In between the romantic dramas, a lot of sharply written comedy and some long passages of news-wonk stuff, it aims to make viewers do a little thinking.
    Read full review
See all critic reviews »