Talk:The Newsroom (American TV series)

'Reception' section issue

A bit odd that the "reception" area says that response to the show is "mixed" but pretty much all the quotes are negative. A simple Google search generates plenty of quotes that could be used to balance this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.51.92.208 (talk) 21:20, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

At the end of 2020, it sits on an IMDB rating of 8.6, with a distribution that hardly would be described as "mixed". The journalists hated it, apparently.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.202.252.94 (talk) 13:39, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Single v. Multiple Camera

There is a small, slow edit war brewing over the show being single v. multiple camera. An IP editor has made the change from single to multiple, citing the commentaries on two episodes. Another editor restored it to single claiming that was the show's style (paraphasing), but with no source to back it up. They've exchanged another round of reverts since. What concerns me is the commentaries do discuss filming and other production techniques at some length (there are commentaries on six of the ten episodes, if memory serves) at appear to support the multiple-camera approach. I do recall from listening to them that they have a static camera set-up for Will's on-air set, then camera(s) plus a steadicam they use in the bigger newsroom set, but not whether they use more than one camera at a time. On the other hand, there is nothing to support the single-camera set-up except one editor's beliefs about what is used. I'm currently neutral on the subject pending a review of the commentaries; I just want to get the discussion started, and the edit war stopped. For the moment, I've removed the single/multiple entry and added a hidden note inviting editors to discuss, and source. This, along with the HD standard in which shows film, seem to be facts editors think they know, but rarely bother to source. --Drmargi (talk) 19:36, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

All one-hour dramas shoot in a single-camera style. The confusion is the name, multiple camera are used for a single-camera setup, it's the shooting style and method which defines the set-up. Multi-cam is for sitcoms, like say, anything on CBS (Two and Half Men, The Big Bang Theory). There's a distinct difference in visual style—multi-cam shows look more "fake" and staged, camera angles are very static and usually shot in very specific directions, and don't cover 360 degrees of the set. Single-cams usually have at least two cameras running, for example, an "A" cam for close-ups, and a "B" cam for wide shots. More than likely the other editor is just confusing the idea of multiple camera being used, though it's possible a multi-cam setup is used for the news segments as it's meant to mimic exactly how a news program is shot. Regardless, the show itself is single-camera. I'd like to get timestamps on where this is discussed in the commentaries so I could check it out. Anyway, here's two articles that discuss the series, mentioning it's single-camera: [1] and [2]. Also, it was nominated for Art Directors Guild awards in the single-camera category.[3] Drovethrughosts (talk) 20:57, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

I was certainly under the impression it was single-camera; that's what most TV drama is (I'd be hard-pressed to say all, since I know the soaps are multi-camera), and what Sorkin has favored in the past, with a lot of use of the steadicam. And it's not hard to understand how an editor can confuse multiple cameras on set with multiple cameras in operation while shooting. My only concern is Daniels discussion of the multiple cameras filming Newsnight; I can't recall whether he said they were actually working or whether one was and the others were dummies. But that's a minor matter. The Toronto piece, plus the ADG award nomination provide the sourcing that was previously lacking. Let's give the IP a chance to weigh in, and to check the commentaries. --Drmargi (talk) 21:17, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

I will revisit the commentaries and provide the exact time and what is said about this. Perhaps I'm mistaken, however I doubt it as I recall them talking about how well the lighting techs are as they are able to light for multiple cameras at once I assume 9( not sure if that at once was explicitly stated) Yes they do state that the news cameras are real and this the vision is being shown on the monitors at the same times it happening, but this is not what I am referring to.— — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.174.209.166 (talk) 00:42, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

MacKenzie McHale wikipedia page

After last night's episode (8 Sep 2013), we really should create a MacKenzie article, and have a faux editing war over Cambridge vs. Oxford, as occurred in the episode. Is there a protocol for this? Would it get our editing privileges revoked?? Paulmlieberman (talk) 14:04, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

(I assume you are kidding, but if not.....) First off, we are trying to build an encyclopedia here, not trying to do 'life imitates art'. Secondly, if the character gets significant coverage in secondary sources then we could have an article. Dbrodbeck (talk) 15:20, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

We are trying to build an encyclopedia and the subplot about the fictitious Cambridge issue is interesting in that it comments directly on Wikipedia in an inaccurate manner. Stating that a "page administrator" who created the article, said in an email that Wikipedia policy doesn't allow information directly from the subject is just false. It will be interesting to see where they go with this and how much of the subplot they continue with but a MacKenzie McHale article isn't a bad idea.--Mark Miller (talk) 06:25, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

It is a safe bet that Sorkin got this story idea from the famous incident last year where Philip Roth tried to have the Wikipedia page for his novel, The Human Stain, changed. Roth's failed attempt resulted in him writing an open letter about it that The New Yorker published. In the letter he wrote,

Yet when, through an official interlocutor, I recently petitioned Wikipedia to delete this misstatement, along with two others, my interlocutor was told by the "English Wikipedia Administrator" — in a letter dated August 25th and addressed to my interlocutor — that I, Roth, was not a credible source: "I understand your point that the author is the greatest authority on their own work," writes the Wikipedia Administrator — "but we require secondary sources."

You can read the whole letter here:[4]. So the show's representation of a similar situation with one of their characters is not really them getting anything about Wikipedia wrong. Although the idea that the guy who "lives on the Internet" and knows about twitter access in North Waziristan would not already be familiar with Wikipedia editing practices seems a bit of a stretch. 99.192.68.69 (talk) 07:02, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

An article about the character would, at this point, be over the top. This is not Captain Kirk or Tony Soprano. Dbrodbeck (talk) 11:41, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

I was half-serious. I thought it would be amusing, but yes, it would be a bit over the top. Paulmlieberman (talk) 02:30, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

That said, if the show goes say three more years I figure the characters will be notable enough to have their own pages. Dbrodbeck (talk) 02:45, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

While we've been discussing this, an article was created for MacKenzie, and, for a short time yesterday, it said that she was president of the Oxford Union. If you google "mackenzie mchale oxford union", it will come up, along with a site called http://fuckyeahmackenziemchale.tumblr.com/. Paulmlieberman (talk) 18:55, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

I just prodded it. Dbrodbeck (talk) 19:44, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

...which was rejected by the page creator. I put it up for AFD, no matter what your feelings about the article are, drop by the AFD and let them be known. Dbrodbeck (talk) 11:35, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

It would be nice if there was a link either there or here to the discussion so an editor included to either improve the article or comment on AFD could. --Drmargi (talk) 15:12, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

I realize now that, even if the character deserves an article, its existence may result in the editing war that I, in a brief moment of lightness, thought would be fun. I've experienced editing wars, and even tried to end one (the year of birth of Frederick Douglass, which he himself stated was indeterminate). I think it would be best if the article is deleted. Paulmlieberman (talk) 17:03, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

here is the AFD discussion [5] Dbrodbeck (talk) 17:11, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Commas

Moved from User talk:David J Johnson

 – Per David J Johnson's "request" (though I use the word liberally, as "requests" don't tend to come with exclamation points). 207.161.217.209 (talk) 21:28, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

What do you mean when you say "unsourced"? Are you really suggesting that changes to bring the article in compliance with the MOS require an outside source (where the article does not currently have one)? 207.161.217.209 (talk) 00:19, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Quite simply, you made the initial "edit" without any comment or reason in the appropriate box. If you are going to quote WP:MOS, then adhere to Wikipedia convention regarding reason(s) for edits. Perhaps you should create an account for yourself, rather than hiding behind an IP? Discussion over. David J Johnson (talk) 21:36, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

@David J Johnson: If anything, an IP address is more transparent than "hiding" behind a username is, but I digress. With respect to "reason(s) for edits", I'm simply asking you to explain what yours meant. On its face, one might believe it to be disingenuous to suggest that my edit being "unsourced" is appropriate reason for its reversion, but I'm assuming that you may well have an understandable rationale. So, again, what did you mean by "unsourced"? 207.161.217.209 (talk) 21:59, 26 September 2016 (UTC)