One writer - Aaron Sorkin. Loooong history of overt disrespect for women, so his women are brilliant, beautiful, awesome on the job .. and stupid in love. This was his fourth TV series - *nothing* about his women has changed since Sports Night.
@@Hard-R-Energyand an arrogant unapologetic misogynist. Ask Any of his female characters with brilliant command of language on the job, who are inarticulate buffoons when they like a boy.
When they're about subjects, yes. Sorkin cant write a woman who turns into an idiot when she likes a man. (Zoey doesnt, but Zoey is a college student, not a brilliant woman in a male-dominant arena. When he writes brilliant women *doing their jobs* they sound like his men - like Michelangelo's Sybils in the Sistine Chapel and especially his marble female slaves - male bodies with small round breasts. He's been doing this since Sports Night. I watch Every show he's done. This was his last TV series - i'm currently rewatching it and not only are the women egregiously stupid in relationships, but the show is relationship heavy. Sorkin can get away with adamantine misogyny for the same reason he can rewrite the real history of the Chicago Seven to fit the only kind conflict he can handle: because he is a brilliant, cares about so many of the right things, and his language makes us glad to care as well. His arrogance and "cute" misogyny are just part of the wildly successful package.
Mac: I think that a lot of what's going on in the world has to do with economy. Sloan: You maybe onto something. Mac: It's not like I need to know everything! Sloan: You'll be in no danger of that. Mac: Joke well crafted! Sloan: Thank you. Hahaha I LOVE exchanges like this. It's just so incredibly smart.
Sloan was in my Opinion the BEST character in The Newsroom. There were many great ones but i just loved her as a Character, Her humor and her quirks where spot on =>.
@@Gabryal77 And aww gee, I guess audiences can't handle controversy on TV anymore. It's not like Sorkin hasn't been behind at least one of the 100 greatest TV shows of all time if not 2.
@@Gabryal77which is hilarious because he's barely a progressive... He's basically just a really left leaning liberal.. the stuff he talks about SHOULDNT be controversial
He's done TV several times, and every time he does it some exec upstairs wants him to do things quicker and CHEAPER and he refuses to ruin a show's reputation by doing that. So his shows get canceled, not because they're bad and not because of politics. It boils down to greed. Were the networks he worked with making money off his shows? YOU BET. They were making lots of money, execs were getting rich. But they wanted to get richer, quicker, so they wanted him to do things on the cheap. And he refused to compromise the quality of the shows just to make a quick buck "now." Making a quick buck now is the way of modern, MBA economics where some exec wants a new mansion in Cancun overnight rather than waiting a year for it. It's why a lot of good shows are canceled, and why everything you buy these days doesn't last worth a shit, and why labor went overseas, and so on. Execs making a quick buck NOW and to hell with the future because they don't give a single damn.
Best lesson on economics, though the interpersonal stuff will feel out of place for anyone who hasn't watched the show to know the other characters they're talking about here ...
Part of Mackenzie's charm is that she can't stray too far from herself in most of her conversations. That's what makes Emily Mortimer a brilliant actress: her ability to convert a character flaw into juicy comedic moments...
If you watch a lot of sorkin shit he reuses a lot of stuff. One other example is with his use of the title “what kind of day it has been” he used that title in sports night, west wing, studio60, and yes this show.
When I first saw this, I thought it was an inside joke because THIS SHOW'S CAST AND CREW have appeared at the Paley Center, including Aaron Sorkin who appeared for "The West Wing" as well...
+SFSylvester I doubt it, since the same writers would have been responsible for both sides of the conversation.... The connection between Thomas Friedman and Paul Krugman is they're both columnists for the New York Times. EDIT: C-c-c-c-coment necromancy!
+hotsauce3888 I haven't read anything on Clinton's reasoning for signing its reapeal either. Knowing the climate between Congress and the White House of the time, I believe it was Clinton's way of getting stuff done and since it was after the whole Lewinski thing, it was a way to burnish legacy (Jobs were up, the economy was good) I think he thought it would be the cherry on top. It has always fascinated me however, since Clinton was a very smart guy (who did make some boneheaded decisions) how he thought the Gramm, Leech, Bliley Act would be good for the economy in the long run. Surely he could just look at history and see that Wall Street just can't help itself in screwing up the economy. Heck, I was helping run one of the biggest Mutual Fund websites at the time and I knew GLBA was trouble.
+Darrell Frazier Because it was passed by the House, 362-57; Senate 90-8. Overriding it would have been a cakewalk. Clinton could have vetoed it on principle, but it would have been a waste of time.
I tried looking up why Clinton repealed Glass-Steagall but I'm finding nothing definitive. Are there any informed individual out there who care to elaborate?
Name not Found I'm not doubting anything you said, I guess I should've directed my question more toward why Clinton himself repealed it. It can't be coincidence because he had to have known the ramifications of repealing it so there is definitely a large amount of accountability on his part. If you look back through his career he's been embroiled in financial scandal since he was governor of Arkansas, even embezzling federal funding (Not to mention his wife's history of scandal) so to say it was just a matter of coincidental timing doesn't add up to me. I'm not a Republican (I guess I'm a RINO, technically) looking for dirt on the family of a current candidate, I'm investigating a trail of corruption that's been hideously ignored and covered up for decades. Off topic, don't you find it interesting in democracy we've had 3 and 2 people who're directly related to each other run for president and only 1 hasn't succeeded (Hillary is going to beat Trump, it's unfortunately obvious)? After she wins, in the last we'll have had 2 families reigning as presidents for 23 out of the last 31 years (I added this next term). Also, consider Hillary could've won in the last election against Obama which would've been 27 out of 31. That wreaks of aristocracy, nepotism, racketeering, malfeasance, etc., basically the entire bag of corruption because there is no way we should have these candidates running so frequently. It's becoming an undeclared oligarchy, only it's controlled financially through an impossibly interpretable paper so no one cares or notices.
Im curious how you feel about these inevitabilities in elections and supposed family monarchs now that Hillary actually lost the election despite you finding it "obvious" that she would win.
It's interesting that I've found an argument from a few economists suggesting that market crash of 2007 would've still happened if it was still in place, only the damage would've been less severe. Now they've only notice of certain trend patterns, such as a few investment banks that started to merge with commercial banks a year before Glass-Steagall was repealed. And these investment banks were among the banks that got hit from the market crash. Now they did point out that this was only speculation as to whether or not the repeal of Glass-Steagall played a part in the market crash since there was so many variables that could've played a part in the crash.
+GoldenDarkGames (Rarity) I don't think he'd run, he's getting older and I'm sure he's tired. hopefully some of the fundamental ideas he proposed can get traction next election.
Joe Jr. I don't know why people keep saying that. He said while running against Hillary that if he didn't receive the democratic nomination that he'd support whoever did to help make sure that the Republican nomination, whom became Trump, didn't win the presidency.
There are a few shows that had way too short of a run. This was by far one of them more recently on that Sneaky Pete. For such garbage shows that remain on like the bachelor and Kardashians; It sucks that this one stopped after three seasons.
No it didnt cause the crisis but because the division between the commercial banking side of firms and the investment side the private savings of people (and companies ) were exposed to the risks and losses of the crisis
@ClaytonwFirth fair question . First it is always liberal slanted , but I could take that if there wasn't so much moral certainty in the characters. He write' s in an elitist manner with very patronizing tone to the characters with an opposing view point . Never cared for it
I watched one episode of this show, and that was enough for me. The characters are incredibly compelling, but they spend a minimum of 1/6 of the runtime up on a soapbox regurgitating MSNBC talking points like they're uncomfortable truths, and then the show pats itself on the back for how brave it is for putting forward trite leftist points. And that's really irritating to everyone except people they already agree with.
Aaron Sorkin knows exactly what to write and how to write it. Mince, where you sitting in front of a mirror when you stated he is an arrogant, ostentatious, judgmental, biased ass? You exemplify all of those. The only "counter-arguments" to Sorkin's subject matter, would be from a mindless idiot such as yourself and all the other nitwit repukes like yourself. Sorkin's Newsroom does an excellent job at history such as Glass-Steagall, Climate Change, Tea-Party, etc. Mince, you and yours are what has fu
Ignorant republicans use the term 'liberal bias', when reality doesn't agree with their ideology. Sorkin depicts fact based history in his series, The Newsroom. Of course republicans don't know any fact based history. With the likes of Fawx Smews, Limbaugh, and all the right wing disinformation (propaganda) being disseminated, republicans have a hard time with facts.
that English girl really was a bad choice for this series, completely over the top. although its close with that character Maggie,her wide eyed enthusiasm/naïveté are so wrong for Sorkin's style. the English girl is a bogus actress,the blond girl is a bogus character!
![จังหวะนี้ - เม้ก อภิสิทธิ์ [ Official MV ] จอนนี่มิวสิค](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/4gQRZCkRyiU/mqdefault.jpg)
I can't believe the writers weaved a complicated economic lesson and a relationship drama into one seamless conversation.
You mean Writer...Aaron Sorkin.
Admittedly, the financial crisis seems like a bad breakup with the 80’s/90’s in hindsight.
@@mstephens44 Sorkin is the king of witty/useful banter.
One writer - Aaron Sorkin. Loooong history of overt disrespect for women, so his women are brilliant, beautiful, awesome on the job .. and stupid in love.
This was his fourth TV series - *nothing* about his women has changed since Sports Night.
@@Hard-R-Energyand an arrogant unapologetic misogynist. Ask Any of his female characters with brilliant command of language on the job, who are inarticulate buffoons when they like a boy.
I absolutely, positively, unequivocally, irrevocably LOVE the exchanges on this show.
When they're about subjects, yes. Sorkin cant write a woman who turns into an idiot when she likes a man. (Zoey doesnt, but Zoey is a college student, not a brilliant woman in a male-dominant arena.
When he writes brilliant women *doing their jobs* they sound like his men - like Michelangelo's Sybils in the Sistine Chapel and especially his marble female slaves - male bodies with small round breasts.
He's been doing this since Sports Night. I watch Every show he's done. This was his last TV series - i'm currently rewatching it and not only are the women egregiously stupid in relationships, but the show is relationship heavy.
Sorkin can get away with adamantine misogyny for the same reason he can rewrite the real history of the Chicago Seven to fit the only kind conflict he can handle:
because he is a brilliant, cares about so many of the right things, and his language makes us glad to care as well. His arrogance and "cute" misogyny are just part of the wildly successful package.
Mac: I think that a lot of what's going on in the world has to do with economy.
Sloan: You maybe onto something.
Mac: It's not like I need to know everything!
Sloan: You'll be in no danger of that.
Mac: Joke well crafted!
Sloan: Thank you.
Hahaha I LOVE exchanges like this. It's just so incredibly smart.
Sloan was in my Opinion the BEST character in The Newsroom.
There were many great ones but i just loved her as a Character,
Her humor and her quirks where spot on =>.
Mattebubben Sloan, Leona, and Mackenzie
I loved the entire cast, but she was my favorite. She seemed to effortlessly steal every scene she was in.
As she once said, she made nerds look good.
Mac: Do you have any human knowledge?
Sloan: I have been told I do not.
SO much love for this!!!
"Joke well crafted..." That line gets me every time!
I love the character of Sloan. She's awesomely funny. This is one of my favorite scenes on The Newsroom.
I find her insufferable.
"Kensie!" I think this was when Sloan and Mac became good friends. Sucks that Sorkin won't do TV. He's really good at it...
Essentially no one wants to give him creative control, because he only writes controversial topics
@@Gabryal77 And aww gee, I guess audiences can't handle controversy on TV anymore. It's not like Sorkin hasn't been behind at least one of the 100 greatest TV shows of all time if not 2.
@@Gabryal77which is hilarious because he's barely a progressive... He's basically just a really left leaning liberal.. the stuff he talks about SHOULDNT be controversial
He's done TV several times, and every time he does it some exec upstairs wants him to do things quicker and CHEAPER and he refuses to ruin a show's reputation by doing that. So his shows get canceled, not because they're bad and not because of politics. It boils down to greed. Were the networks he worked with making money off his shows? YOU BET. They were making lots of money, execs were getting rich. But they wanted to get richer, quicker, so they wanted him to do things on the cheap. And he refused to compromise the quality of the shows just to make a quick buck "now." Making a quick buck now is the way of modern, MBA economics where some exec wants a new mansion in Cancun overnight rather than waiting a year for it. It's why a lot of good shows are canceled, and why everything you buy these days doesn't last worth a shit, and why labor went overseas, and so on. Execs making a quick buck NOW and to hell with the future because they don't give a single damn.
She was absolutely wasted in X Men Apocalypse.
fuck you she looked hot and spoke little. perfect woman
fuck you, you comment about shit you don't know, then insult someone else. Perfect troll
You were absolutely wasted when you made that comment.
They used her to advertise a hot superhero chick and then. ...... yah that's Hollywood for you.
I wish they would put her in x-force
It's the "...morning..." that sets this scene off 😂
“You may be on to something” the sarcasm
"You may be on to something."
"You'll be in no danger of that".........
I love this series... sloan is an excellent actor.
"Wait, are you saying I don't have female friends or that you're not entirely female?"
"Which do you think?"
"The first one..." *drinks wine*
they crafted sloans character after data from star trek except with a sarcastic side+emotions
I LOVE THE EXCHANGE
I can't comprehend why Sloan went with "Krugman" instead of "Milton Friedman" which is far more obvious choice!!
Because Aaron Sorkin isn't an economist, and the Google algorithm was different back then.
My thoughts exactly
@@cdubbau135 Also Sorkin is somewhat liberal, plus Krugman was more relevant when the show came out.
I had kinda forgotten how good the writing on this show is. Might need a rewatch
the scolding thomas friedman....roflmao
And here we are 9 years later and the dangers of investment and commercial banking still relevant…
Looking at you SVB!
Kudos to writers for such lines
Best lesson on economics, though the interpersonal stuff will feel out of place for anyone who hasn't watched the show to know the other characters they're talking about here ...
Part of Mackenzie's charm is that she can't stray too far from herself in most of her conversations. That's what makes Emily Mortimer a brilliant actress: her ability to convert a character flaw into juicy comedic moments...
Joke well crafted
0:37 This is almost an exact copy of a conversation between Sam and CJ on the Census S01E06 The West Wing (same writer)
Yeah several conversations in the newsroom were also lifted from Studio 60
If you watch a lot of sorkin shit he reuses a lot of stuff. One other example is with his use of the title “what kind of day it has been” he used that title in sports night, west wing, studio60, and yes this show.
I laugh so hard when I hear Mac says Paley center... They ask actors and producers sophisticate academic questions all the time.
When I first saw this, I thought it was an inside joke because THIS SHOW'S CAST AND CREW have appeared at the Paley Center, including Aaron Sorkin who appeared for "The West Wing" as well...
If you listen very carefully, you can hear Alison Bechdel pulling her hair out and screaming.
ZachValkyrie Joke well crafted...but in fairness the Newsroom is generally good with female portrayals.
I fucking love Emily Mortimer
It's super weird to remember Olivia Munn got her start on G4 as a reporter.
She's a nerd through and through!
(And a freak 😏)
Love her
"Kenzie....?"
"No..."
Lol, I just adore Mac !
"Kenzieee!"
"Tuesday--"
"OK-"
"-- Morning."
All hail the Sork! The best TV writer of the modern age, ranked with Serling, Roddenberry, and Matheson.
Why did the writers have her say Thomas Friedman, but correct her to Pail Krugman. Milton Freidman, maybe?
Because Sorkin understands the economy about as well as the actors in the scene (not their characters) do...
Ok Sloan's purse is the cutest purse I have ever seen! What kind of a side purse is it?
Or where can I find a purse that is very close to that design?
GEORGE BAILEY
You may be onto something. classic sarcasm
Pretty sure she meant Milton Sloan... Jeez...
+SFSylvester I doubt it, since the same writers would have been responsible for both sides of the conversation.... The connection between Thomas Friedman and Paul Krugman is they're both columnists for the New York Times.
EDIT: C-c-c-c-coment necromancy!
They always blame Sloan... even for Charlie's death ;)
Mac already told Sloan to skip Paul Krugman so she's not that economically incompetent.
Olivia Munn totally killed it on this show :D
"Investment Banks are gamblers."
I KNEW IT!!!!
'Invest' means 'gamble'.
자녀. 경제학. 15년.
It's a big club and you' ain't in it.
I wonder how much Olivia Munn actually understood what her character was saying?
It isn't that complicated, very simple actually. Were you challenged by the script?
For some reason nobody has that little thoughtlet when a male actor is holding forth on complicated topics - only women.
I would totally get along with Sloan with what and her no human knowledge and all.
agree...human too often be stupid
+hotsauce3888 I haven't read anything on Clinton's reasoning for signing its reapeal either. Knowing the climate between Congress and the White House of the time, I believe it was Clinton's way of getting stuff done and since it was after the whole Lewinski thing, it was a way to burnish legacy (Jobs were up, the economy was good) I think he thought it would be the cherry on top. It has always fascinated me however, since Clinton was a very smart guy (who did make some boneheaded decisions) how he thought the Gramm, Leech, Bliley Act would be good for the economy in the long run. Surely he could just look at history and see that Wall Street just can't help itself in screwing up the economy. Heck, I was helping run one of the biggest Mutual Fund websites at the time and I knew GLBA was trouble.
+Darrell Frazier Because it was passed by the House, 362-57; Senate 90-8. Overriding it would have been a cakewalk. Clinton could have vetoed it on principle, but it would have been a waste of time.
I tried looking up why Clinton repealed Glass-Steagall but I'm finding nothing definitive. Are there any informed individual out there who care to elaborate?
Name not Found I'm not doubting anything you said, I guess I should've directed my question more toward why Clinton himself repealed it. It can't be coincidence because he had to have known the ramifications of repealing it so there is definitely a large amount of accountability on his part. If you look back through his career he's been embroiled in financial scandal since he was governor of Arkansas, even embezzling federal funding (Not to mention his wife's history of scandal) so to say it was just a matter of coincidental timing doesn't add up to me. I'm not a Republican (I guess I'm a RINO, technically) looking for dirt on the family of a current candidate, I'm investigating a trail of corruption that's been hideously ignored and covered up for decades.
Off topic, don't you find it interesting in democracy we've had 3 and 2 people who're directly related to each other run for president and only 1 hasn't succeeded (Hillary is going to beat Trump, it's unfortunately obvious)? After she wins, in the last we'll have had 2 families reigning as presidents for 23 out of the last 31 years (I added this next term). Also, consider Hillary could've won in the last election against Obama which would've been 27 out of 31. That wreaks of aristocracy, nepotism, racketeering, malfeasance, etc., basically the entire bag of corruption because there is no way we should have these candidates running so frequently. It's becoming an undeclared oligarchy, only it's controlled financially through an impossibly interpretable paper so no one cares or notices.
Im curious how you feel about these inevitabilities in elections and supposed family monarchs now that Hillary actually lost the election despite you finding it "obvious" that she would win.
It's interesting that I've found an argument from a few economists suggesting that market crash of 2007 would've still happened if it was still in place, only the damage would've been less severe. Now they've only notice of certain trend patterns, such as a few investment banks that started to merge with commercial banks a year before Glass-Steagall was repealed. And these investment banks were among the banks that got hit from the market crash. Now they did point out that this was only speculation as to whether or not the repeal of Glass-Steagall played a part in the market crash since there was so many variables that could've played a part in the crash.
Olivia MUMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM
Why can't it be fixed? It can now!
Bernie Sanders comes to the rescue!! FEEL THE BERN!!!!!!!!! FEEL THE BERN!!!!!!!
*one year later* god dammit America, you had one chance
+GoldenDarkGames (Rarity) I don't think he'd run, he's getting older and I'm sure he's tired. hopefully some of the fundamental ideas he proposed can get traction next election.
I dunno -- he buckled under pressure and supported Hillary. He wasn't THAT great...I still wanted him as president.
Joe Jr. I don't know why people keep saying that. He said while running against Hillary that if he didn't receive the democratic nomination that he'd support whoever did to help make sure that the Republican nomination, whom became Trump, didn't win the presidency.
Paper Block Well that's ok, but it as still pretty lame.
There are a few shows that had way too short of a run. This was by far one of them more recently on that Sneaky Pete. For such garbage shows that remain on like the bachelor and Kardashians; It sucks that this one stopped after three seasons.
People will watch and think it was brilliant writing. They will also think that Olivia Munn is somehow intelligent.
Well I can tell you one thing, I think she's a lot smarter than you will ever be.
J
IB and retail banking mergers had nothing to do with the crisis
No it didnt cause the crisis but because the division between the commercial banking side of firms and the investment side the private savings of people (and companies ) were exposed to the risks and losses of the crisis
you didn't won WW2 ,Soviets did..u went along for the ride
Greed
Aaron Sorkin some of the most obnoxious, pretentious writing on tv
No idea what you’re talking about.. this had some of the best dialogue ever!
@ClaytonwFirth fair question . First it is always liberal slanted , but I could take that if there wasn't so much moral certainty in the characters. He write' s in an elitist manner with very patronizing tone to the characters with an opposing view point .
Never cared for it
I watched one episode of this show, and that was enough for me.
The characters are incredibly compelling, but they spend a minimum of 1/6 of the runtime up on a soapbox regurgitating MSNBC talking points like they're uncomfortable truths, and then the show pats itself on the back for how brave it is for putting forward trite leftist points. And that's really irritating to everyone except people they already agree with.
Yeah, sucks to be wrong and have it pointed out to you doesn't it?
Goddamn I actually liked this show until the second season when all that liberal bias just started pouring out
Aaron Sorkin knows exactly what to write and how to write it. Mince, where you sitting in front of a mirror when you stated he is an arrogant, ostentatious, judgmental, biased ass? You exemplify all of those. The only "counter-arguments" to Sorkin's subject matter, would be from a mindless idiot such as yourself and all the other nitwit repukes like yourself. Sorkin's Newsroom does an excellent job at history such as Glass-Steagall, Climate Change, Tea-Party, etc. Mince, you and yours are what has fu
Good one Mince.....lol
Ignorant republicans use the term 'liberal bias', when reality doesn't agree with their ideology. Sorkin depicts fact based history in his series, The Newsroom. Of course republicans don't know any fact based history. With the likes of Fawx Smews, Limbaugh, and all the right wing disinformation (propaganda) being disseminated, republicans have a hard time with facts.
No you just got burned by Physicsnerd1. It'll pass...
Lmao it's written by Aaron Sorkin; if the "liBrUL biAs" caught you off-guard that's entirely on you, tbh.
The dialogue is too fast. It feels forced. People don't talk like this.
that English girl really was a bad choice for this series, completely over the top.
although its close with that character Maggie,her wide eyed enthusiasm/naïveté are so wrong for Sorkin's style.
the English girl is a bogus actress,the blond girl is a bogus character!