I was watching Studio 60 tonight, and I couldn't help noticing that according to Aaron Sorkin and company, there's no difference between a soldier uttering an expletive during a newscast because of an attack and a "singer" intentionally ripping a woman's clothing off during a televised sporting event.
If he really wanted to make a point about how courageous his crusading liberal characters are, he could have had Jack Rudolph defending Simon Styles for ripping off Harriet Hayes' bra during the news segment. I guess he felt that wasn't a compelling storyline.
But what can you really expect from a guy who made up a show about how wonderful a Bill Clinton presidency might have been if Bill Clinton hadn't been been, well, Bill Clinton.
Aaron Sorkin: Reality is Great, Especially When you Can Fake It
I didn't come to that conclusion at all. The very reason (well, the non-monetary reason) they're resisting the FCC is because they think it's ridiculous to fault an entire network because a soldier - in battle - uttered a profanity during a live broadcast. Jack was willing to risk the network paying millions of dollars. I don't recall anyone at Fox standing up for the integrity of Janet Jackson's breast, lovely as it may be. What's the conflict here?
The question I have is a) why it appears to Jack to be such a danger to institute a 5-second delay on the news, and why that would be the equivilant to "censorship" by the government? and b) why the FCC would spend time, money and potential embarrassment pursuing even this flimsy of an anti-obscenity charge? Even in a world where the FCC fines Fox for something it had no control over, this is even harder to believe...
The question I have is a) why it appears to Jack to be such a danger to institute a 5-second delay on the news, and why that would be the equivilant to "censorship" by the government? and b) why the FCC would spend time, money and potential embarrassment pursuing even this flimsy of an anti-obscenity charge? Even in a world where the FCC fines Fox for something it had no control over, this is even harder to believe...
Posted by Barry on 01/24 at 10:56 AM
That's exactly my point, Barry. There's no way the FCC would consider the two events equivalent, so the situation portrayed by Sorkin is nothing but an adolescent revenge fantasy without a real world counterpart.
As for question a) I completely agree with Jack; the only reason to delay the news is to censor it.
And that's a power I don't want the government to have.
As for question a) I completely agree with Jack; the only reason to delay the news is to censor it.
And that's a power I don't want the government to have.
Posted by rich on 01/24 at 07:34 PM
First, I want to remind you that it is a TV show and that it isn't necessary for it to always be realistic. Just because he chose a safer thing for his fictional characters to battle than Hariet's bra being removed during the show, doesn't mean that Sorkin deserves to be torn apart. For crying out loud, tonight's episode had a ferret chasing a poisonous viper. Are you going to go into how unrealistic that is?
Aaron Sorkin does use Studio 60 to make statements about issues he feels strongly toward. Whether or not they are all about whacked out liberal ideas, can be debated. Frankly, many of the issues he brings up strike a cord in us all no matter which way we lean. The sad part is that the ones people tend to complain about are the ones that don't go along with their party line. Do you know what is even sadder? It is sadder to complain that he made such a statement even when you agree with the principle of what he had to say.
Aaron Sorkin does use Studio 60 to make statements about issues he feels strongly toward. Whether or not they are all about whacked out liberal ideas, can be debated. Frankly, many of the issues he brings up strike a cord in us all no matter which way we lean. The sad part is that the ones people tend to complain about are the ones that don't go along with their party line. Do you know what is even sadder? It is sadder to complain that he made such a statement even when you agree with the principle of what he had to say.
Posted by Isaac on 01/30 at 12:35 AM
Yes, of course, Isaac ... it is just a TV show. Would you be a dear and call up CAIR and remind those silly Muslims that "24" is just a TV show too? I'm finding their whining and seething to be a bit tiresome anymore ...
Posted by LissaKay on 01/30 at 08:53 PM
Read a little bit closer Isaac, and you won't feel quite so sad. First, while I agree that the news should not be open to censorship, I strongly disagree with the point Sorkin is trying to make, that maintaining certain broadcast standards during an entertainment show is the same as censoring the news.
Do you see the distinction? Because it's a very important one. Sorkin is presenting a fictional scenario that most of us can agree with, and using it to imply something about a totally unrelated event that actually occurred. It is this sort of sloppy, manipulative thinking that is endemic in liberal polemicists like Sorkin.
I enjoy a show that brings up contentious issues and deals with them in a responsible manner, but that does not describe what Sorkin does.
Another example: During the two part episode where Tom Jeter is arrested in Pahrump, Jack Rudolph suggests that Jordan is about to lose her job because despite the impression that the media is dominated by liberals, it's really conservative corporate bigwigs who call all the shots. Then he turns around and has the biggest corporate bigshot, the CEO of the network, say that he's been waiting for years for a chance to fight the FCC.
Seems like Mr. Sorkin is once again talking out of both sides of his mouth.
Now, let's take a step back, and look at your contention that it's "just a TV show." Is it your contention that this whole storyline has nothing to do with the Jackson-Timberlake situation? If not, and I certainly hope you aren't trying to say that, then why is it, in your words, "safer" to frame the issue of broadcast standards around censorship of the news than the event that sparked the debate in the first place? Is it really "safer" or is it a deliberate attempt to change the discussion from the very real issues involved to totally unrelated fictional issues?
Like you said, Sorkin uses his shows to make statements about issues he feels strongly about. Once again, he presents a very distorted view of the real event, a view that fits in with his preconceived notions, and uses the distortion to preach to his audience. It is this fundamental dishonesty that makes Sorkin worthy of "tearing apart," as you called it.
Do you see the distinction? Because it's a very important one. Sorkin is presenting a fictional scenario that most of us can agree with, and using it to imply something about a totally unrelated event that actually occurred. It is this sort of sloppy, manipulative thinking that is endemic in liberal polemicists like Sorkin.
I enjoy a show that brings up contentious issues and deals with them in a responsible manner, but that does not describe what Sorkin does.
Another example: During the two part episode where Tom Jeter is arrested in Pahrump, Jack Rudolph suggests that Jordan is about to lose her job because despite the impression that the media is dominated by liberals, it's really conservative corporate bigwigs who call all the shots. Then he turns around and has the biggest corporate bigshot, the CEO of the network, say that he's been waiting for years for a chance to fight the FCC.
Seems like Mr. Sorkin is once again talking out of both sides of his mouth.
Now, let's take a step back, and look at your contention that it's "just a TV show." Is it your contention that this whole storyline has nothing to do with the Jackson-Timberlake situation? If not, and I certainly hope you aren't trying to say that, then why is it, in your words, "safer" to frame the issue of broadcast standards around censorship of the news than the event that sparked the debate in the first place? Is it really "safer" or is it a deliberate attempt to change the discussion from the very real issues involved to totally unrelated fictional issues?
Like you said, Sorkin uses his shows to make statements about issues he feels strongly about. Once again, he presents a very distorted view of the real event, a view that fits in with his preconceived notions, and uses the distortion to preach to his audience. It is this fundamental dishonesty that makes Sorkin worthy of "tearing apart," as you called it.
Posted by rich on 01/31 at 02:11 AM
Page 1 of 1 pages
Commenting is not available in this site entry.
