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. Klouri
    Feb 5, 2016
    7
    I'd like to say this show is fresh & riveting with a very witty & intelligent dialogue, but they're using REAL news events from the past, and hindsight is 20/20. It's VERY easy to look BACK at what's already happened and concoct the PERFECT foil, answer or comeback that one DIDN'T have the presence of mind to come up with at the time. THAT'S exactly what's happening here... Sorkin hasI'd like to say this show is fresh & riveting with a very witty & intelligent dialogue, but they're using REAL news events from the past, and hindsight is 20/20. It's VERY easy to look BACK at what's already happened and concoct the PERFECT foil, answer or comeback that one DIDN'T have the presence of mind to come up with at the time. THAT'S exactly what's happening here... Sorkin has taken OLD (albeit important) news and, for entertainment's sake, re-written history to reflect the perfect response to, from & by an intelligent, arrogant-but-compassionate, well-read character that didn't exist at the time same REAL news was happening. So, to that end, I would be MORE impressed if he DID NOT use FACTUAL past news stories, but made up just as important FICTIONAL news stories to make the overall premise more believable and credible.

    It's the classic 'I wish I would have thought of THAT then...." statement that we ALL make AFTER the fact, and we all know how EASY that is.    … Expand
  2. 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
  3. 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
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. 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.
  7. 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.
  8. 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
  9. 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
  10. 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
  11. 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!
  12. 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
  13. 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
  14. 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.
  15. 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
  16. 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
  17. 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
  18. 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.
  19. 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.
  20. Sundancer
    Jul 3, 2012
    3
    First episode: 7/10. Second episode: 1/10. What started in episode 1 as a cutting and crackling critique of modern America through the prism of televised news devolved in episode 2 into a preachy mess of irritating people screaming and gesticulating wildly, neither half as funny or half as smart -- or half as believable -- as they're supposed to be. Abysmal. Avoid.
  21. KobraKai
    Jul 9, 2012
    3
    The show has no characters. Through the first three episodes Sam Waterson is the only actor who has been able to illustrate any depth in the role he is playing. The dialogue is witty and fast paced, typical of Sorkin. But ultimately the show's plot device is that the writers set up arguments on terms favorable to whatever point they're trying to make and then proceed to pat themselves onThe show has no characters. Through the first three episodes Sam Waterson is the only actor who has been able to illustrate any depth in the role he is playing. The dialogue is witty and fast paced, typical of Sorkin. But ultimately the show's plot device is that the writers set up arguments on terms favorable to whatever point they're trying to make and then proceed to pat themselves on the back for arguing so successfully. Having this silly argumentative style as the central plot device is a problem when the show has no compelling characters. To put a less kind spin on it, the show could be retitled "Strawmen."… Expand
  22. dmey
    Jul 12, 2013
    3
    It should be titled "Why Republicans are always wrong". I like Jeff Daniels, and the writing is often smart when it isn't pandering/sanctimonious/ridiculous, so I'm willing to give the 2nd season a shot, but only because they claim to have hired political consultants to present the GOP as more than knuckle-dragging trolls this time around.

    I'll give one or two season 2 episodes a try    It should be titled "Why Republicans are always wrong". I like Jeff Daniels, and the writing is often smart when it isn't pandering/sanctimonious/ridiculous, so I'm willing to give the 2nd season a shot, but only because they claim to have hired political consultants to present the GOP as more than knuckle-dragging trolls this time around.

    I'll give one or two season 2 episodes a try before signing off on this show as good for nothing but an infomercial for the DNC.    … Expand
  23. eric76
    May 29, 2014
    3
    This TV show was really entairtening and a bit sharp until....episode 5/1 season 1...! What happened ?? seriously? The glorifying of ben laden death as the greatest news in the century..?! and was the pedantic patriotic way to annonce the news necessary? This really made the serie loose all of its credibility for me..it s started well though...No America is not the greatest nation in the world..
  24. rmjbones
    Oct 26, 2012
    1
    This show reminds me of the arguments people have in their heads. They never lose those arguments because they create lopsided points and make their opponents like idiots. This show is one straw man argument after another. The lead character is a republican/moderat/democrat that simply does not exist. It's the same thing that use to happen on West Wing. The writer (Sorkin) has no ideaThis show reminds me of the arguments people have in their heads. They never lose those arguments because they create lopsided points and make their opponents like idiots. This show is one straw man argument after another. The lead character is a republican/moderat/democrat that simply does not exist. It's the same thing that use to happen on West Wing. The writer (Sorkin) has no idea how to really create a republican candidate because he doesn't understand the republican mindset. Every character is the exact same style just representing a caricature of a real issue and then they go from one dramatic speech to another. Unrealistic dialogue. Unrealistic events. Trying to make news reporting way more dramatic and important than it really is. Just silly.… Expand
  25. SeriesStomper9
    Nov 17, 2013
    1
    Everything that Aaron Sorkin writes comes from a place of dishonesty. He wishes to brainwash his viewers much like MSNBC/NBC news stick up for Obama brainwashing. The country is becoming more ignorant because people watch shows like this and in fact it's the same thing as the mainstream media. It's fantasy and made up. Watch Fox News and read drudgereport.com and the WallstreetEverything that Aaron Sorkin writes comes from a place of dishonesty. He wishes to brainwash his viewers much like MSNBC/NBC news stick up for Obama brainwashing. The country is becoming more ignorant because people watch shows like this and in fact it's the same thing as the mainstream media. It's fantasy and made up. Watch Fox News and read drudgereport.com and the Wallstreet Journal. If you are enjoying this show, it has to mean you are a liberal schmuck who supports the tyrant we have in office and watch MSNBC and Martin Bashir. Or you are resigned to the fact that Candy Crowley will lie for the president during a live debate in order to cover up Benghazi, something that CBS and 60 Minutes did already. This show is based on Chris Matthews and Lawrence O'Donnell, and Ed Schultz, all of whom are clinically insane. They've all had real life meltdowns and are admitted socialists. If you like this show, you probably have low character and are morally reprehensible as human beings. But enjoy, because it's just like mainstream media, fabrication and contrived fantasy.… Expand
  26. NoblesseOblige
    Dec 29, 2014
    1
    A simply awful blowhard of a series. A thinly disguised propaganda vehicle for falsehoods and distortions that sound like they came from lists of Democratic talking points. I couldn't keep track of all the things in the script I knew to be false. Governor Walker out to "break the unions." The evil Koch Brothers head "the second largest company in the US" who "can buy and sell GeorgeA simply awful blowhard of a series. A thinly disguised propaganda vehicle for falsehoods and distortions that sound like they came from lists of Democratic talking points. I couldn't keep track of all the things in the script I knew to be false. Governor Walker out to "break the unions." The evil Koch Brothers head "the second largest company in the US" who "can buy and sell George Soros." On and on.

    This series could have been a charming throwback to the gruff Spencer Tracey characters of the 30s with crackling fast dialogue, wit, and charm. Instead it clunks with heavy handed witless scripts, dull characters expounding pompous garbage, and loud shouting over nothingness. Not worth watching.    … Expand
  27. mistorica
    Oct 25, 2015
    1
    This is a show for people who can't get enough of MSNBC( or any other liberal media outlet for that matter) and need more of it, in fictional form too.
    But mostly this is intended for people who don't trust MSNBC- if they don't believe what they see on MSNBC they will believe what they see in a well crafted movie: that Republicans are the bad rich guys and Liberals are the smart and cool    This is a show for people who can't get enough of MSNBC( or any other liberal media outlet for that matter) and need more of it, in fictional form too.
    But mostly this is intended for people who don't trust MSNBC- if they don't believe what they see on MSNBC they will believe what they see in a well crafted movie: that Republicans are the bad rich guys and Liberals are the smart and cool guys and oh, so modest.
    It's simply disguised propaganda.
    Could've been a fun show had it not been so politically biased.    … Expand
  28. theasset
    Nov 20, 2012
    0
    As the most over-hyped TV show of the year everyone has heard about it and after watching the pilot episode, making it through to the next is a massive feat. It consistently fails to meet the high expectations that it demanded. It chokes on its own sarcasm. The characters have no emotional levels - they are essentially the same person played by different actors and each actor tries playingAs the most over-hyped TV show of the year everyone has heard about it and after watching the pilot episode, making it through to the next is a massive feat. It consistently fails to meet the high expectations that it demanded. It chokes on its own sarcasm. The characters have no emotional levels - they are essentially the same person played by different actors and each actor tries playing the characters different but it ends up looking like they are talking to themselves in the mirror. Sorkin may be the golden boy of writing but not this time. The world that Sorkin portrays is unrealistic and deeply flawed. He tries to display a newsroom as it should be where everyone has the same knowledge and education making the audience think they are half-witted in comparison. It is an infuriating disaster and one that can only be tolerated by the die-hard Sorkin fanboys only.… Expand
  29. 2shoes
    Jul 3, 2012
    0
    I could only take one and a half episodes. The snappy dialogue from the team and the pure arrogance of the main character were appalling. The issues are a little dated and should be more current. Who cares what happened a year ago? I will not watch another episode.
  30. jwilsoncollege
    Jul 1, 2012
    0
    After indulging myself with the first two episodes on "The Newsroom", one moral theme seems all too abundant. Do not, under any circumstances, pander to ratings and the palate of the masses. And to be completely honest? That is the fear I have for Sorkin's newest endeavor. So long as newsroom does not begin to water down it's concepts and content, it has the makings of a cult (If notAfter indulging myself with the first two episodes on "The Newsroom", one moral theme seems all too abundant. Do not, under any circumstances, pander to ratings and the palate of the masses. And to be completely honest? That is the fear I have for Sorkin's newest endeavor. So long as newsroom does not begin to water down it's concepts and content, it has the makings of a cult (If not widely accepted) following.… Expand
  31. Betterist
    Jul 9, 2012
    0
    Like the West Wing, this show is fast paced, smart, and idealistic. They are both shows that hold up an image of the way the world should and could be. That's not everybody's thing but I love it. In comparison to the West Wing, its basically our universe 2 years ago. The difference is its our world re-envisioned with the news coverage we should have had. Smartly written and stillLike the West Wing, this show is fast paced, smart, and idealistic. They are both shows that hold up an image of the way the world should and could be. That's not everybody's thing but I love it. In comparison to the West Wing, its basically our universe 2 years ago. The difference is its our world re-envisioned with the news coverage we should have had. Smartly written and still developing, this show has a lot of promise. Its not a soap opera with big cliff hangers that will leave you clamoring for the next episode but I love that its thoughtful… Expand
  32. aguardia
    Dec 18, 2012
    0
    I have watch the entire 1st season of newsroom, just because i love the opening monologue on the first episode, but this show is so incredibly bad i had to write something about it, the worst character and acting in actress who in the show is called mac or mackenzie. gosh, her character is clumsy, dumb, exaggerated, naive, weak, fake and badly written, her character seems to be like aI have watch the entire 1st season of newsroom, just because i love the opening monologue on the first episode, but this show is so incredibly bad i had to write something about it, the worst character and acting in actress who in the show is called mac or mackenzie. gosh, her character is clumsy, dumb, exaggerated, naive, weak, fake and badly written, her character seems to be like a spoiled little girl with an office job. I was hoping for a interesting and informative show about news, and what you get is drama, drama and drama but just centred around the "news" subject. Its just another drama, the difference is that the horrible acting, lack of plot, shallowness of the characters makes this show the worst i have seen in a while, its so bad that i actually created an account on this web site just so i could write about it. i am passionately disappointed with this show.… Expand
  33. kanzei
    Jul 5, 2013
    0
    What an interesting show. While his characters sanctimoniously rail against reductio ad absurdum in media, the show Sorkin wrote does nothing but just that: create strawmen and burn them down. Every episode has the same plot with different minor events and names. Every character has the same personality, with different minor details. If you've managed to watch one full episode of thisWhat an interesting show. While his characters sanctimoniously rail against reductio ad absurdum in media, the show Sorkin wrote does nothing but just that: create strawmen and burn them down. Every episode has the same plot with different minor events and names. Every character has the same personality, with different minor details. If you've managed to watch one full episode of this train wreck you've seen all the episodes. Nothing. Ever. Changes. Nothing. New. Ever. Happens.

    When finished with the 10 episodes, you will only feel sadness for Sorkin, the show's writer who attempts to indict journalists and tea party politicians but actually succeeds only in psychological projection. Indicting himself and letting us live in the twisted, tortured, cognitive dissonance and willful self delusion that is his mind.

    Great drama immerses the viewer in the story. Good drama attracts the viewer to characters. OK drama entertains. This drama can't get out of its own way. It's so shockingly bad that the viewer essentially cannot stop thinking about the psychological issues of its creator and the torture it must be, being Aaron Sorkin.

    The show is sanctimonious, it panders, it insults your intelligence, it is openly hypocritical. But worse, perhaps, is its predictability. It is superficial, transparently propagandist, insulting to its viewers and indicts its fans along with its creator as hopelessly one dimensional, myopic, and ignorant. And its cynicism while doing it betrays a deep psychological malfunction in a nation where this type of entertainment is so popular and fools so many people.

    Shockingly bad television.    … Expand
  34. johnbillis
    Jul 9, 2013
    0
    I noticed that you have Jane Fonda in your series of Newsroom. I am a Vietnam Veteran. I and thousands like me would never watch any show or series with Jane Fonda in it. At the VFW post I belong her picture is at the base of the urinals. This woman should have been charged with treason. She is a shame to Americans. It is a shame that your series felt she was needed. Big mistake.
  35. Justagy
    Jul 29, 2015
    0
    Fast paced and fascinating for two episodes. Then you discover the entire cast is all Liberal, by Liberals and for Liberals. In episode three they introduce Jane Fonda. Any questions?

    Their news team wants to bring back honor and integrity to media figures. In order to establish that, they have to "tell the truth." The truth is, all of America's ills are sponsored and controlled by the    Fast paced and fascinating for two episodes. Then you discover the entire cast is all Liberal, by Liberals and for Liberals. In episode three they introduce Jane Fonda. Any questions?

    Their news team wants to bring back honor and integrity to media figures. In order to establish that, they have to "tell the truth." The truth is, all of America's ills are sponsored and controlled by the evil Right Wing. Yawn.

    The fact that anyone could write a positive review on this claptrap is just so sad. WAIT: This just in: Republicans are trying to heat the earth in order to blow it up. Their plan is to escape first in space tubes. They are going to congregate in a nearby galaxy where they will sell pieces of our planet as inter-galactic skateboards. Lets cut to [pick your name] in [pick your place.] Whats going on over there: Well Republican Party Leaders are denying the allegations vehemently. But right now the President along with his Democrat Former Presidents are all holding hands outside the White House. They have issued this statement: We believe it is imperative that the planet should remain intact and and stay INSIDE the Milky Way. And that all Americans should vote Democrat from here on in!

    That sort of thing. Liberal utopia. The newscast team decides that Americans are not dumb. Except of course for the people that vote Republican. We will try to educate them.

    Horrible. Ridiculous. Terribly embarrassing and EXTEMELY popular. Liberal Dolts love it!

    All others... if you have a brain... don't waste your precious time.

    Oh and yes everyone is having sex. No one is married and no one is happy with the person that their sleeping with...    … Expand
next
Page:

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 »