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 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

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 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

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 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

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.

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 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

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 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

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 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

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

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.

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.

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 not widely accepted) following.… Collapse