First, apologies for being a bit late (and perhaps a bit brief) with this week's review of The Newsroom's latest episode "5/1" while I'm in the wilds of the Pacific Northwest and Internet connectivity is a bit sketchy. On Sunday May 1, 2011, President Barack Obama came on the air late in the evening to announce that our military had shot and killed Osama bin Laden, putting at least a bit of closure upon the horrific September 11, 2001 World Trade Center bombings nearly a decade earlier.
This week's The Newsroom is set in the hours preceding the announcement as small hints and leaks begin to emerge into the ears and Blackberries of Will's (Jeff Daniels) earnest young staff. But the hour begins with a phone call to ACN News Division President Charlie Skinner (Sam Waterston) by a man who identifies himself only as "Deep Throat." Deep Throat's inklings about the evening about to unfold are simply his calling card (and proof of street cred) to hint at a much different and, likely, more personal story for Will and his team.
The question raised during "5/1" is "When is it both acceptable and responsible to release a breaking news story?" Is it responsible journalism to break an historic news story immediately? After one credible confirmation? After two? With a story like the killing of bin Laden, Will and Mac (Emily Mortimer) are reminded of All the President's Men and breaking the story about the Watergate break-in. When you are dealing with a story that can change the world with a single sentence broadcast to millions, it's not good enough to simply "know." You need more than one independent confirmation, no matter how highly placed your source.
But to Charlie, even a double confirmation isn't enough. He knows from personal experience the old wartime adage "loose lips sink ships." He insists that ACN wait until they know the U.S. military is out of harm's way before Will goes live on the air. It doesn't matter that Geraldo is blabbing on Fox News what it thinks is the real story. Or what the New York Times is confirming. It is not until Vice President Joe Biden confirms to Will that not only has the U.S. killed bin Laden, but it's okay to let the world know, that he is willing to broadcast the story.
.jpg?t=20130517094513)
Article comments
1 - Erika
Wow! Finally a critic that doesn't hate this show. I really like it. I think it's smart and entertaining. There's definitely room for improvement. I think some of the physical gaffes, like Don falling in the aisle of the plane this episode and Jim continuously hitting his head in a previous episode, are hokey. Also, it sometimes feels like Will missed his calling to become a preacher instead of a journalist. Overall though, I think it's a really promising series. I suspect many journalists don't like it because it hits a little too close to home. I kind of understand. I'd probably be very critical of a show that's critical of my profession too.
2 - Leslie
I absolutely love this show. The intelligent banter, the wit, and the humor are all excellent. I will agree in saying that I do wish it was slower; as stated in the review though we know a year has passed it doesn't totally "feel" like it has. Perhaps Sorkin will address this next season?
3 - Jim
Good show, but I find the whooping at Osama bin laden being murdered offensive. I'm from the uk find it upsetting that people would celebrate the death of anyone :(
4 - Ladybelle Fiske
I like the show a lot and have always loved Sorkin and (almost) all his works. Can't understand why people are critical of this one. When Studio 60, which I really loved, was on, I remember thinking it had a better chance of survival if it were set in a newsroom, not on Sat. Nite Live.
Aaron Sorkin ALWAYS moves fast (he's a Gemini). At first I had trouble understanding some of the relationships (for instance, I couldn't tell Jim and Don apart) because of this. But I am really settled into it now and am hoping we see it on the air for a long, long time.
I was bothered about the Osama Bin Laden story too, as was the commentator Jim, above. I understand why people wanted to get rid of him, I was here for 9/11; I had young friends who just barely escaped dying that day-- and yet, and yet... even though he was a monster, I agree we should not "whoop" over the death of anyone, even him. (However, if it were Hitler, and the date during WWII, the British might have whooped a bit too). We're better off in a world without him, yet what Donne says-- "send not to find for whom the bell tolls, it tolls for thee," is still true.
Let's hope this show is around for a long time! I can just barely put up with the demise of HOUSE, MD with it on!
5 - Flo
Hello. I loved the episode but as @Jim and Barbara said I don't think people should gloat over an assassination even if it's Bin Laden's.
Fortunately, Neal's girlfriend (what's her name again?) put some sense in that regards, saying that it doesn't change anything. It won't bring back the dead. The towers are still missing so are the people who died. The people still somewhat traumatized.
Otherwise, great episode. I like the insouciance (English?) of the beginning of the episode abruptly put down by a major event like this.
ps: how annoying is Don? With a few exceptions (like in the second part of the epi "Amen", for example), he's been an insufferable, one dimensional character. Sorkin should pay attention to this IMO.
Concerning the show, yes there's a problem of pace and timeline. It really doesn't feel like a year has past.