新闻编辑室第三季

Newsroom season 3 episode 1Day 1 Boston马拉松爆炸案。

大家都亮相后，Mac不接纳jim老婆从twitter上找来的一堆玩意，她说: “we are not going based on tweets from witnesses we cant talk to. What credible news agency would do that?”Keefer归队。

sloan拿到了彭博资讯终端价值24，000刀Jim老婆找到neal告诉他一个人想要他的加密密匙。

瑞斯看到acn还没有报道爆炸案很着急。

Jim提出是否经过热那亚事件之后acn变得畏首畏尾，大家达成一致：“it’s more than getting our facts straight or having facts.”elliot和maggie跑boston外场， charlie推测出犯人仍身在boston。

接下来大家推进了事情的进展，包括截肢抢救受伤者，确定死亡人数，总统已经阅读简报等等……另一边neal和jim引出议题“social media is going to solve this crime.” Jim说，crowdsourcing law enforcement. That went off without a hitch in Salem.然后neal收到匿名人发来的信息，要求neal “set up a higher level of encryption. Assume your adversary is capable of three-trillion guesses per second.” Day 2 sloan和高盛的人吃饭，高盛和美林有竞争，高盛的人就透露出美林的负责人跟助理乱搞。

Sloan回到办公室，瑞斯透露了未成年双胞胎，以及gonna miss our earnings projections by a little.（因为sloan负责的是金融播报，对于awn的股价预期会作出评论，瑞斯希望sloan to look at the big picture.) sloan说到周末股价会下跌3到5个百分点。

reese说作为一个job creator而自豪，sloan说其实收看acn的人才是job creator。

Keefer进来，reese抱怨了一下新闻播出的速度就走了。

Charlie和will提出议题新闻从业者不该以自己的人身安全出发而畏首畏尾。

Rundown。

一个证人不愿站出来因为一个人在爆炸时站在重点录像，官方正在确认此人身份。

Mac不允许采访小孩（这也是mac的一个原则，新闻媒体不应该介入或干涉未成年人、社会弱势群体的生活，不管以何种理由，在何种情况下）Neal发言，说有人试图塞给他政府机密文件。

除了will所有人都不信neal的线人。

Sloan试图找出之前提过的那个竞争交易到底是什么项目，Keefer让老黑按照机翼编号去查投行坐着私人飞机来纽约的人。

Day 3 cnn john king 报道说嫌疑人已被逮捕。

Mac问maggie可靠否，maggie说不可靠。

Keefer要求大家找出消息源。

Sloan找出了前来参与收购的投行——savannah capital。

Sloan说：I get information all the time. Keefer 说：you get information people want you to have.（＝ ＝！

恶寒。

其实我们得到的消息都是经过二次处理或者经过多层过滤的，跟事实有多少偏差鬼才知道，而我们乐此不疲的跟着各种资讯新闻，希望从中拓宽我们对世界的理解，甚至从中获利，其实不知不觉间大多数是被轻易洗脑了。

）Keefer建议sloan找一个低下层的员工了解情况，因为高层的人不需要跟sloan讲，下层的人为了表现自己很重要才有可能跟sloan吐露情况。

Sloan找了这个雅各布，雅各布说交易很大，而且all are relatives。

Sloan和keefer以为雅各布想跟sloan上床，特别问了一句you mean the size of the deal is relative?（你给我信息我就要跟你上床么？

）雅各布说sure。

Cnn撤回了之前john king说嫌疑犯已被逮捕的新闻。

众人欢呼，但charlie和will要求大家反省并警醒。

Will说大家正在从热那亚的失败中慢慢恢复。

Mac提起euripides，故事第一幕英雄们被追上树，第二幕大家冲他们扔石子，第三幕他们自己又下来了。

Maggie打来电话，说实际上官方正在向大批警探散播虚假消息，希望看看是谁在泄露情报。

（事实上案件侦破过程是需要保密的，然而cnn等传统媒体迫不及待的通过各种方式获知事情进展，是被自媒体胁迫，跟自媒体拼速度。

记得当时孟买恐怖袭击案时，恐怖分子通过收看媒体的现场直播，把警方营救人质的部署全都破了，对警方造成很大伤害。

那么，媒体在侦破案件过程中不断向外界透露事情进展，难道在逃嫌犯就不看电视么？

媒体到底是在保障民众的知情权，还是在帮涉案人员逃脱？

）然后那个值班警官的丈夫就暴露了，给john king透露了虚假情况，john king的报道失实，这名警探也被停职。

Day 4 will说了一个自媒体的胁迫竞争下，传统媒体开始丢失信息准确性，甚至误报了背包客即为嫌疑人这样的消息。

Elliot报道说一名嫌犯交火中被击毙，另一名继续逃窜。

Boston整体戒严。

Neal拿到了机密文件，看了看。

Day 5 为了避免之前错误的嫌疑人照片造成恶劣影响，官方公布了真正嫌疑犯的照片，但紧接着社交新闻站点reddit就跑去把嫌疑犯的照片和失踪学生sunil tripathi做对比，到了晚上十点reddit的主流观点已经成为sunil tripathi就是嫌疑犯＝ ＝。

紧接着几个人开始转发这件事，搞得满城风雨。

网络上为reddit高唱凯歌，批评官方办事不力，传统媒体失职迟缓。

最后联邦调查局、波士顿警局、司法部和总检察长办公室出来联合辟谣，坚决否认sunil tripathi是犯罪嫌疑人。

然而大错已然铸成，凌晨开始，tripathi的姐姐接到58个电话，一半是记者打来询问姐姐对弟弟成为嫌疑犯的态度，另外一半则是死亡威胁，三分之二提到强奸。

死亡威胁开始充斥在tripathi家里为他设立的fb主页上，于是tripathi家关闭了此主页，却被reddit看作是犯罪证据……而不是成百的将其家人斩首、处死等威胁，和反穆斯林言论的证据。

但Tripathi家甚至都不是穆斯林。

http://www.ndtv.com/article/world/sunil-tripathi-missing-student-wrongly-identified-as-boston-marathon-bombing-suspect-356334而will在随后的新闻播报上郑重明确了犯罪嫌疑人的身份。

Maggie临阵上场播报新闻，特别强调了对于嫌疑犯的描述，包括那段言论，皆是来源于这个Joe，而不是疑犯的原话。

这份媒体人的自律和原则顿时让播报间内的人大为感慨。

（试想会有多少头脑不清的喷子把那段话直接理解为嫌犯的意思然后开始去攻击嫌犯的家人生活等等后果，maggie的强调十分重要。

）Sloan发现awm的股价不降反升，大为诧异。

她意识到那个“all are relative”的意思其实是“与你们有关”（跟awm有关）而不是暗示要跟sloan上床。

Reese坦白说只有收视率才能带来收益，只有赚钱reese和leonia才能在董事会面前保will。

Will很沮丧，说要辞职。

Neal赶来爆出一件美国的作战指挥部承包商用假消息干涉约旦内政引发暴露流血冲突的内幕，在will的追问下，neal承认在看过这些文件后，继续向匿名黑客索要重量级文件，并指导匿名黑客从国防部的网络上存储拷贝机密文件。

neal的所作所为已经构成了间谍罪。

Sloan赶来询问reese双胞胎何时会成为股东，并说这会成为一场恶意收购。

（具体怎么操作这集没说，估计下集会讲，有明白的朋友也可以教教我们＝ ＝）此时传来消息，另一名嫌疑犯已经被发现。

Will爆发，认为一直以来所坚持的原则，使得acn的效率落后于社交媒体站点，造成收视率下滑。

Will向裹着“平民”身份实则给案件进展造成麻烦，对他人人身安全造成威胁，有技术没原则的人宣战，并号召大家做一个又快又好看的新闻节目。

最后他说，we are not in the middle of the third act. We just got to the end of the first. acn 不会被赶上了树，还坐等别人丢石子，最后灰溜溜的自己下来。

现在经历了热那亚，will就要带领团队从树上冲下来啦。

当微博、facebook、twitter出现的时候，大家欢喜雀跃，每天大量的信息出现在社交网站上。

短短几年下来，社交网站的定义已经远远超越了单纯的社交这个定义了，它们变成了一个大量信息和信息源的pool，so magic！

但是，或许这份喜悦来得太急，急得我们忘记了人性里的不安分。

当我们分享美景、美食和美人时，这些可以很容易被translate为地理位置、收入和交际圈。

我们的生活会在某些biosphere里成为可以被窥视和衡量的数据。

当POI（person of interest）的主线浮现时，信息如是说！

于是，逐渐发现大量半真半假，甚至百分百虚假的信息出现时，谁来告诉我们到底什么是真实的？

谁在说谎？

我们怎么坚持人性的底线？

更理性的说法是：信息的可分享性到底有没有边界？

（任何在此刻跳出来说辩证法／辩证思维的人，请移步，世界的辩证是个trick，早晚都要做个choice，不要用这么多的正正反反来自我安慰。

）电视新闻业在信息爆炸中似乎变身为泰坦尼克，而那片冰山只是不可见而已，而也正因为这不可见，使得这慢慢的沉没出现了转机。

在那么多的twitter和public message里我们如何知道正确的做法？

如何选择正确的意识？

从S1开始，新闻编辑室就以打鸡血的方式和极快的语速，试图给大家设置一个alarm，给新闻业提出一个可行的方法，只是这个proposal太过高冷，或者说不是普罗大众眼里的news。

太多人眼中的news更多是生活信息，消费和娱乐，这绝对不可指摘，因为这就是人生，任何人的人生。

但是总要有人来讨论些严肃话题，讨论些搞脑子的东西，和人性和伦理来一场点到即止的剑术比赛。

我们期待真实，只是，这个想法的落实极其不现实，或者说太过乌托邦，那么就是考验我们智商和人生阅历的时候了。

智商是本身带来的，或许不可改变，人生阅历多半是后天积累的，所以，在这3季的newsroom以来，mac始终在对team说，second source！

单一源的信息确实有很大的risk，那么为了理性的可衡量，second source就显得可行和必要！

可是second source有个问题：如何获取？

data dig的工作似乎更适合于那些拥有大量信息的人、组织、机构或者God。

而这其中，和普罗大众息息相关的是新闻业，每天的电视新闻和高知名度的报业是个必然的选择。

那么剩下的就看这些从业者的能力、素质和良心了！

当然，还有我们自己的智商、阅历和选择。

Good luck, and good night.

看完第一季许久因事耽搁终于连贯补完三季。

TNR像是一处乌托邦，理想主义新闻梦想自由平等在索金编剧笔下转着弯地反反复复诠释了无数遍。

相信看这部剧的大多数人心里都明白这部剧理想主义夸大点说有点不切实际。

可为什么仍然成为经典。

因为这几位性格各异，但有血有肉，棱角分明的堂吉柯德们。

Mac应该是编剧笔下最代表新闻理想的一位，画外os一下艾米莉闪闪发光的大眼睛我真的被萌晕，难怪Will时过这么多年还会描述她为最attractive的女人，完全看不出年龄感的脸，咬唇眨眼撒娇都如此自然sweet，hell no 我是个男的我也爱她。

说回来，Mac从第一季登场就代表了原始新闻工作者的初衷，一切都为“good news”服务，收视率广告什么的我才不管，我要做的是正确的新闻 不是取悦观众的小品。

而她也这么做了，身体力行也感染了明里暗里在乎她关注她的金牌主播，把晚间新闻带到了新高点。

即使面对Genoa的失误，面对国安局的质问，面对Will的入狱，面对被收购后寄人篱下的压力，她仍然坚持要以时事新闻，以实实在在的news抓人眼球。

或许也因为她与Charlie的新闻从业画像相似度极高，她也最终坐上了原本Charlie的位子。

Will是本剧系列男主，Jeff以其相当契合主播形象的外形和一口相当主播味的声音，佐以纯熟流畅的演技，不知道其他人怎么想，在我的世界里认为大洋彼岸似乎的确存在这么一位金牌主播。

Will在第一季或者第二季像是妥协后的堂吉柯德。

Will的内心其实存在许多创伤，正如剧中桥段，他坦白自己并不是自大，而是内心极度自卑。

Will讨厌欺骗，讨厌背叛。

也因此自己把自己困在其中，不愿意承认自己早就原谅了似乎是背叛了自己的Mac，看不见自己澎湃的爱意和保护欲，带着幼稚去惩罚自己的ex girlfriend。

话说回来Will其实是个相当矛盾的角色，一方面他对新闻工作有着绝对不输Mac的热忱，一方面他又要像Charlie一样和上面的人周旋，关注收视、自我形象和长尾效应，因为他得保护他下面的同事，另外他又因为内心的敏感自卑创伤讨厌将这些真实的自己展露在外。

在尤其第三季，Will看起来像“伟光正”担当，对比Mac是新闻精神的代表形象，他就是新闻理想的发言人。

最后在Charlie葬礼上对其堂吉柯德的剖白感人至深，感恩Jeff的表演，很精彩。

Charlie是全系列最感动我的角色，当我认为Mac和Will是编剧笔下真正代表新闻工作者初衷的堂吉柯德时，第三季我才明白真正走在所有人身前的骑士其实是Charlie。

Charlie有着不输Mac的新闻热情，也因为这份共同热情他飞到华盛顿招募Mac进入晚间新闻。

战地记者到新闻部主席，Charlie只是换了个角色，从在电视屏幕出现，转变到幕后，为其他人新闻理想遮风挡雨。

如果把Will和Mac为代表的新闻工作者比做天平的左侧，右侧则是投资方，如Pruit，如里斯一家。

Charlie是什么，是维持平衡的人。

这位年老但充满激情的骑士奋战在双边，他需要对右侧的资方让步承诺收视和广告等三方收入，他需要保护他热爱的新闻工作者们，他必须为他们遮风挡雨，必要的时候自己也得搭进去。

ACN被迫出售，寄人篱下在不懂新闻的混蛋下面，他也得承接下来无理的要求，只能在内心祈祷他们找不到离谱新闻的消息源。

他东奔西走维持这点可怜的平衡，最终不堪重负倒下。

这位骑士的英勇壮烈牺牲是全剧的精华高潮，或许那一刻你才意识到，没有Charlie，引以为傲的night news ACN 其实都不存在。

他是最让人敬佩的堂吉柯德形象。

Jim和Maggie是全剧感情线最繁杂的存在了，这里再夸一次TNR，节奏短平快感情没太多渲染，干净纯粹，类型片就应该这样拍。

Jim一直在团队中担当对新闻嗅觉敏锐且正确率高的存在，无论是第一季率先注意到标黄的信息，还是一直坚持Genoa事件错误的直觉。

同样作为senior producer，Jim在团队被无条件信任，因为他敏锐的嗅觉和精准的直觉，而杰利上任的第一天迎接的是对他的质疑。

Maggie我承认因为感情线对她颇有微词，但到了第三季我只觉得她是个坦率可爱的事业小女生，内心或许敏感多疑，但她一定是一位极其强大的女性。

她似乎是全能的，而且一直在进步。

从一开始的Will助理，到助理制片人，到危险地带记者，到现场制片人。

永远不灭新闻理想，不因为自己的个人感情打扰。

当制片人对控制室里的各个按钮束手无策，是她出来点亮了演播室的灯并开始录制，说是拯救了当时被搜查的newsroom也不为过。

Don和Solan，这对是我最喜欢的一对，Don毫无疑问是一位优秀的制片人，在我这里他的才能绝对不逊于Mac，只是编剧笔墨的问题。

在Don说出“她是个人 医生才能断定她的生死 新闻不能”这句话的时候 don在我心里已经走上神坛，我的第一反应和剧里Will的台词是一模一样的，（谁他妈再质疑他的水平？

）Solan是我最喜欢的女性角色，对比Mac和Maggie略带外放俏皮的特色，Solan显得更内敛平稳。

她充满自信，充满智慧，一样对新闻事业充满热忱和希望，数字和谈论经济在她的诠释里好像我们追剧一样轻松愉快。

对Don的感情的处理让我对她多了许多敬佩和喜欢，这才是我们要学习的女性。

我喜欢她流畅在书上签下自己名字径直走向Don按住后脑勺接吻的决绝果断，喜欢她对朋友挺身而出，即使自己也喜欢面前的男人，她永远坦诚，永远真诚。

TNR是一处乌托邦没错，newsroom里有一群堂吉柯德，他们像是一群疯狂捍卫自己理想和权益的骑士，挥舞手持的剑，破开阻挡面前的一切阻碍，即使被人嘲笑被人当作不合群的疯子，被迫委屈 被迫屈服，也永远相信自己是骑士，当然，他们也永远是骑士。

Newsroom这部剧在美媒下还是有很大争议的，这种争议甚至不是对这部剧的for being liberal，更多来源于liberals for not doing enough。

编剧Aaron Sorkin（如同你能从他的写作中看到的那样）常被描述成一个prick，一个smug，或一个chauvinist（比如一个记者曾写一篇文章来叙述Sorkin对她本人采访时候的condescension和不尊重，她说“In Sorkinville, the gods are men." 详见“How to get under Aaron Sorkin’s skin (and also, how to high-five properly)” https://www.theglobeandmail.com/arts/television/how-to-get-under-aaron-sorkins-skin-and-also-how-to-high-five-properly/article4363455/），并且因为他的写作局限而被批评（说教性太强、自我陶醉...）我感觉这些critic比豆瓣上目前看到的影评要成熟更多，并且也更加有效率、progressive。

这篇影评来源于New Yorker的Emily Nussbaum （她本人在本剧第一季开始就发表过影评"Broken News"。

见https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2012/06/25/broken-news，或我的转载https://movie.douban.com/review/12970899/）。

Nussbaum在2016年因为她在纽约客写的影评获得普利策奖。

她个人肯定了第三季的一些进步（比如她比较喜欢的Maggie & morality debate on the train），同时也特别分析批评了Sorkin对于Princeton女大学生 & rape的处理。

newyorker.com/culture/cultural-comment/the-newsroom-crazy-making-campus-rape-episodeBy Emily Nussbaum As this review indicates, I wasn’t a fan of the first four episodes of Aaron Sorkin’s “The Newsroom.” In the two years since that blazing pan, however, I’ve calmed down enough to enjoy the show’s small pleasures, such as Olivia Munn and Chris Messina. When characters talk in that screwball Sorkin rhythm, it’s fun to listen to them. As manipulative as “The Newsroom” ’s politics can be, I mostly share them. There are days when an echo chamber suits me fine.For the first two seasons, the show stayed loyal to its self-righteous formula, which many viewers found inspirational. Sorkin’s imaginary cable network, Atlantis Cable News, would report news stories from two years before, doing them better than CNN and Fox News and MSNBC did at the time. Characters who were right about things (Will McAvoy, Sloan Sabbith, the unbearable Jim Harper, the ridiculously named MacKenzie McHale) strove for truth and greatness, even when tempted to compromise. They bantered and flirted. And each week, they debated idiots who were wrong. These fools included Tea Partiers, gossip columnists, Occupy Wall Street protesters, and assorted nobodies enabled by digital culture—narcissists, bigots, and dumbasses. Sometimes, the debates included sharp exchanges, but mostly, because the deck was stacked, they left you with nothing much to think about.Often, the designated idiot wouldn’t even get to explain her side of an argument: she’d get to make only fifteen per cent of a potential case, although occasionally, as with an Occupy Wall Street activist, the proportion climbed closer to fifty per cent. There were other maddening aspects of the show—a plot in which a woman who worked in fashion believed that she wasn’t good enough to date a cable news producer, the McAvoy/McHale romance, the Season 2 Africa-flashback episode. So, you know, I had complaints. But I tried to stay Zen and enjoy Munn and Messina. And, in all sincerity, I was happy when the third and final season débuted, because it was such an obvious step up. The early episodes were brisk and self-mocking. There was a nifty, endearingly ridiculous grandeur to the story arc about McAvoy going to jail to protect a source. Even more satisfying, the show's debates with idiots had undergone a sea change. In Season 3, the people who were wrong were allowed to be actively smart (like Kat Dennings’s role as a cynical heiress) and funny (as with B. J. Novak’s portrayal of a demonic tech tycoon who ended up taking over ACN). In certain scenes, they got to make seventy-five per cent of an argument, leading to fleet and comparatively complex debates.In the single best scene of the whole series, the number jumped to a hundred per cent. Maggie (Allison Pill)—now rehabilitated from last season’s horrible post-Africa, bad-haircut plot—took an Amtrak train from Boston. In a plot cut-and-pasted from the headlines, she overheard an E.P.A. official's candid cell-phone conversation, sneakily took notes, and then confronted him with follow-up questions. Both sides made a solid case: she pointed out that he was in public and her obligation was to be a reporter, not a P.R. conduit. Also, had Maggie gone through “official” routes, he would have lied to her. He argued that by quoting an unguarded, personal discussion, she was making the world a less humane, more paranoid place. So when Maggie threw her notes away, it wasn’t as simple as, “He was right and she was wrong”—she’d made a real moral choice. Given the kind of show that “The Newsroom” is, there was plenty of wish-fulfillment—Maggie got the interview anyway, plus a date with an admiring ethicist—but those elements felt fairy-tale satisfying.After the Amtrak scene, I turned downright mellow, even fond of the series, the way you might cherish an elderly uncle who is weird about women and technology, but still, you know, a fun guy. My guard went down. So when I watched Sunday’s infuriating episode, on screeners, I wasn’t prepared. What an emotional roller coaster! I will leave it to others to discuss the mystical jail-cell plot, the creepy reunion of Jim and Maggie, the fantasy that even the worst cable network would re-launch Gawker Stalker, and, more admirably, the way that B. J. Novak’s evil technologist character seems to have broken the fourth wall and stepped into reality to disrupt The New Republic. Someone should certainly write about Sorkin’s most clever pivot: he’s taken the accusations of sexism that are regularly levelled at his show and pointed the finger at Silicon Valley, in a brilliant “Think I’m bad? Well, look at this guy” technique.Yet when it comes to disconcerting timeliness, no scene from this episode stands out like the one in which the executive producer Don Keefer pre-interviews a rape victim. When Sorkin wrote it, he could not have known that CBC radio host Jian Ghomeshi and, later, Bill Cosby would be accused of sexual assault by so many women, some anonymous, some named. He couldn’t have known that an article would be published in Rolling Stone about a gang rape at the University of Virginia or that this story would turn out, enragingly, to have been insufficiently vetted and fact-checked. The fallout from the magazine’s errors is ongoing: it’s not clear yet whether Jackie, the woman who told Rolling Stone that she was gang-raped, made the story up, told the truth but exaggerated, was so traumatized that her story shifted due to P.T.S.D., or what. The one thing that’s clear is that the reporting was horribly flawed, and that this mistake will cause lasting harm, both for people who care about the rights of victims and people who care about the rights of the accused. Key point: these aren’t two separate groups.Anyway, there we are, with Don Keefer—one of the few truly appealing characters on the show and half of the show’s only romance worth rooting for, with Munn’s Sloan Sabbith—in a Princeton dorm room, interviewing a girl, Mary, who said she’d been raped. In a classic “Newsroom” setup, she wasn’t simply a victim denied justice. Instead, the woman was another of Sorkin’s endless stream of slippery digital femme fatales; she created a Web site where men could be accused, anonymously, of rape. The scene began with an odd, fraught moment: when Don turned up at her dorm room, notebook in hand, he hesitates to close the door, clearly worried that she might make a false accusation. But since this is Season 3, not 1 or 2, the Web site creator isn’t portrayed as a venal idiot, like the Queens-dwelling YouTube blackmailer on a previous episode, who wrote “Sex And The City” fan fiction and used Foursquare at the laundry. The Princeton woman got to make seventy-five per cent of her case, which, in a sense, only made the scene worse.Before describing the scene between Keefer and the Princeton student, it’s important to note that the scene’s theme of sexual gossip about powerful men has been an obsession since this show began. For a while, Will McAvoy was tormented by a Page Six reporter who first got snubbedby him, then placed gossip items in revenge, thenslept with him, then blackmailed him. There was a similar plot about Anthony Weiner; just last week, Jim’s girlfriend Hallie sold him out in a post for the fictional Web site Carnivore. You’d have to consult Philip Roth’s “The Human Stain” to find a fictional narrative more consistently worried about scurrilous sexual gossip directed at prominent men. It’s a subject that replicates Sorkin’s own experiences, from “The Newsroom” on back to “The West Wing.”The scene between Don and the student takes place in four segments, as Don reveals to her why he was there: not to talk her into going public, but to talk her out of it. His boss, under pressure to appeal to Millennials and go viral, insisted that the segment be done in the most explosive way possible—as a live debate between the student and Jeff, the guy she claims raped her. As Don and she talk, the woman tells him her story. She’d gone to a party, took drugs, threw up, passed out—and then two men had sex with her while she was unconscious. The next morning, she called “city police, campus police, and the D.A.’soffice.” She can name the guys; she knows where they live. She had a rape kit done. “That should be the easiest arrest they ever made,” she says. At every juncture, Don is sorrowful, rational, gentlemanly, concerned about not hurting her feelings, and reflexively condescending, in a tiptoeing, please-don’t-hurt-me way. Eventually, he tells her that Jeff, the accused rapist, has also been pre-interviewed: Jeff told Don that she wasn’t raped—in fact, she’d begged to have sex with two men.Back and forth they go, discussing a wide range of issues—legal, moral, journalistic, etc. The dialogue conflates and freely combines these issues. First, there is the question of anonymous accusations, online or off. There is also the question of direct accusations, like the one this student made against a specific guy, in person, using her own name—in a police station and the D.A.’soffice, and then online. There is the question of how acquaintance rape is or isn’t prosecuted in the courts; there is the question of how it's dealt with, or covered up, within the university system; and there is a separate question about how journalists, online and on television, should cover these debates. But a larger question hovers in the background, the one hinted at when Don came in the door: Does he believe her?When I first watched the scene, I was most unnerved by the way their talk mashed everything together, suggesting that there were only two sides to the question—a bizarrely distorted premise. It’s possible, for instance, to believe (as I do) that a Web site posting anonymous accusations is a dangerous idea and to also think it’s fine for a woman to describe her own rape in public, to protest an administration that buries her accusation, and to go on cable television to discuss these issues. It’s possible to oppose a “live debate” between a rape victim and her alleged rapist and to believe that rape survivors can be public advocates. There was also something perverse about the way the student was portrayed, simultaneously, as a sneaky anonymous online force and also an attention-seeker eager to go on live TV. (And, given the way that Rolling Stone’s Jackie is now being “doxxed” online, it’s grotesque that the episode has the Princeton woman praise Don for tracking her down, “old-school.”) The actress was solid, but the character behaved, as do pretty much all digital women on the show, with the logic of a dream figure, concocted of Sorkin’s fears and anxieties, not like an actual person.“The kind of rape you’re talking about is difficult or impossible to prove,” Don tells her. It’s not a “kind of rape,” the woman responds sharply. She argues that her site isn’t about getting revenge, that it’s “a public service”: “Do not go on a date with these guys, do not go to a party with these guys.” Don cuts her off: "Do not give these guys a job, ever." He argues that she’s making it easier for men to be falsely accused, but the woman says that she's weighed that cost and decided that it’s more important that women be warned. “What am I wrong about?” she asks. “What am I wrong about?”I’d love to see a show wrestle with these issues in a meaningful way, informed by fact and emotion. But eventually, the “Newsroom” episode gets to the core of what’s really going on, that shadow question, and this is when it implodes. The law is failing rape victims, says the student. “That may be true, but in fairness, the law wasn’t built to serve victims,” argues Don. “In fairness?” she says. “I know,” he says, sorrowful again, eyes all puppy-dog. “Do you believe me?” she asks him suddenly. “Of course I do," Don tells her. “Seriously,” she presses. He dodges the question: “I’m not here on a fact-finding mission.” She pushes him for a third time: “I’m just curious. Be really honest.”Finally, he reveals his real agenda. He’s heard two stories: one from "a very credible woman” and the other from a sketchy guy with every reason to lie. And he’s obligated, Don tells her, to believe the sketchy guy’s story. She's stunned. “This isn’t a courtroom,” she points out, echoing the thoughts of any sane person. “You’re not legally obligated to presume innocence.” “I believe I’m morally obligated," Don says, in his sad-Don voice. WTF LOL OMFG, as they say on the Internet. Yes, that's correct: Don, the show’s voice of reason (and Sorkin, one presumes), argues that a person has a moral obligation to believe a man accused of rape over the woman who said he’d raped her, as long as he hasn't been found guilty of rape. This isn’t about testimony, or even an abstract stance meant to strengthen journalism. (“Personally, I believe you, but as a reporter, I need to regard your story with suspicion, just as I do Jeff’s.”) As an individual, talking to a rape survivor, Don says that on principle, he doesn’t believe her.At this point, Don gets to make his win-the-argument speech about the dangers of trial by media, lack of due process, etc. “The law can acquit; the Internet never will. The Internet is used for vigilantism every day, but this is a whole new level, and if we go there, we’re truly fucked,” he says. He warns her that appearing on TV will hurt her: she’ll get “slut-shamed.” She begins to cry and tells him that, while he may fear false accusations, she’s scared of rape. “So you know what my site does? It scares you.” Her case will be covered like sports, he remarks with disgust. “I’m gonna win this time,” she replies with bravado. And so Don goes back to ACN and he lies, telling his producer Charlie that he couldn’t find the woman at all—and then Charlie throws a tantrum and dies of a heart attack, but that’s a matter for a different post.Look, “The Newsroom” was never going to be my favorite series, but I didn’t expect it to make my head blow off, all over again, after all these years of peaceful hate-watching. Don’s right, of course: a public debate about an alleged rape would be a nightmare. Anonymous accusations are risky and sometimes women lie about rape (Hell, people lie about everything). But on a show dedicated to fantasy journalism, Sorkin’s stand-in doesn’t lobby for more incisive coverage of sexual violence or for a responsible way to tell graphic stories without getting off on the horrible details or for innovative investigations that could pressure a corrupt, ass-covering system to do better. Instead, he argues that the idealistic thing to do is not to believe her story. Don’s fighting for no coverage: he's so identified with falsely accused men and so focussed on his sorrowful, courtly discomfort that, mainly, he just wants the issue to go away. And Don is our hero! Sloan Sabbith, you in trouble, girl.Clearly, I’ve succumbed to the Sorkin Curse once again: critique his TV shows and you’ll find you’ve turned into a Sorkin character yourself—fist-pounding, convinced that you know best, talking way too fast, and craving a stiff drink. But after such an awful week, this online recap might be reduced to: Trigger warning. The season finale runs next week and thank God for that. Like poor old Charlie Skinner, my heart can’t take it anymore.Emily Nussbaum 本人在本剧第一季开始就已经发了一篇比较critical的影评"Broken News"。

见https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2012/06/25/broken-news（我的转载https://movie.douban.com/review/12970899/）。

在当时，对此，她同编辑室的New Yorker colleague David Denby也写了一篇简短的回应as counterargument.In Defense of Aaron Sorkin’s “The Newsroom” https://www.newyorker.com/culture/culture-desk/in-defense-of-aaron-sorkins-the-newsroomI loved Emily Nussbaum’s negative review of Aaron Sorkin’s new HBO series, “The Newsroom,” which had its première last Sunday night, but I also enjoyed the show—certainly more than she did—and, afterwards, I felt a kind of moviegoer’s chagrin. Movie audiences get very little dialogue this snappy; they get very little dialogue at all. In movies we are starved for wit, for articulate anger, for extravagant hyperbole—all of which pours in lava flows during the turbulent course of “The Newsroom.” The ruling gods of movie screenwriting, at least in American movies, are terseness, elision, functional macho, and heartfelt, fumbled semi-articulateness. Some of the very young micro-budget filmmakers, trying for that old Cassavetes magic (which was never magical for me, but never mind) achieve a sludgy moodiness with minimal dialogue, or with improvisation—scenes that can be evocative and touching. But the young filmmakers wouldn’t dream of wit or rhetoric. It would seem fake to them. Thank heavens the swelling, angry, sarcastic, one-upping talk in “The Newsroom” is unafraid of embarrassing anyone.

首先介绍一下背景：四线城市的卑微主流媒体新闻人，很惭愧，2024年才骂骂咧咧的跟随《新闻女王》的弹幕走进了《新闻编辑室》并在每一集哭得泪流满面。

该片上映的10年，是我在新闻世界里摸爬滚打的10年，入行时间不算长，但正好经历过整个行业的衰败过程，我和我的战友曾经抛头颅洒热血上刀山下火海地做着一档当地收视最好的民生新闻节目。

这10年，我们也从从抬头挺胸的舆论监督者，变成了畏首畏尾的“喉舌”。

我们没有条件报道片中那些历史性的事件，没有资格去新闻去教育民众，但我们监督着四线城市里的不合理发展，帮助着每一个需要帮助的平民百姓。

在新闻还有价值的那些年，我们节目的热线始终响个不停，民众的诉求都被我们一一解决，是我们用新闻促进着四线城市的发展，是我们用新闻帮助贫困的病人筹集到了救命的钱，是我们用新闻纪录了灾区村民的微笑….在我入行的前几年，我实实在在地感受到了新闻的意义，感受到了新闻的力量。

我们没有片中的人物那么伟大，但片中每一个人在我的新闻编辑室里都有具象的化身。

我们对抗过资本，我们对抗过权利，我们吹响过号角，我们曾经都是那个堂吉柯德。

而如今呢？

4.1号，中国记协微信公众号发表了一条短视频，一位资深媒体人在上海某高校演讲时，一位学生问：“记者的职业前途在哪里？

”，资深媒体人答：“没有哪个职业如此艰辛、又能如此打动人心。

”。

在这条被转发了上千次的视频背后，我想有成千上万的堂吉柯德在哀伤。

如今没有人会在谈“新闻理想”这种让人耻笑的词语，很多人都走了，只剩下乖巧的我们在赞颂一片大好河山。

不是我们不想努力，是如今已食不果腹，不能再“用爱发电”，不是我们没有声响，是哨子被收走，堵住你的嘴，看你还能拿什么发声。

很惭愧24年才泪流满面的看完这部片，这是新闻人的迪士尼，是我们理想的芭比乐园，但我没有资格撬动世界。

还好我见过新闻的模样，我爱过新闻。

别捏果园里最软的柿子，杠就是你对。

二刷第一季第一集碎碎念：我爱新闻，我想做新闻，大新闻。

2014年末“The Newsroom”出了第三季，只有6集。

奇怪的是我一直没能找到免费资源， 从昨天开始，我迫不及待却有依依不舍的看完这终结季。

看前几集我都有点小失落， 或许是我的期望值太高，但到第四集我开始要流泪，第五集到第六集我就不停的想流泪， 其实我真的在流泪。

不仅仅是因为Charlie的突然去世，有时候你会不会就 想流泪，却分辨不出自己是什么感觉或是出于什么原因。

但你会认同如若另一个看同一个片子，会有完全不同的心境。

我想说What Kind of Day Has It Been ， 第六集算是回顾了第一季第一集一个Team的开始，但怀旧不是为了煽情。

不是所有人会喜欢这个剧， 我有时搞不清Will的政治立场；我常常听Sloan机关枪一样说完一段，我字幕都没看完。

Mackenzie的口音让我着迷，Maggie在公交车的表白让我记忆犹新， 我渐渐忘记了这两年多在剧里的感动， 却记住了这些琐碎，真正喜欢里面的每一个角色。

Charlie 葬礼后大家一起唱的That's How I Get to Memphis，之前看过片段，应该很多人就是不喜欢但一定不会讨厌乡村音乐， 就好比你一定不会讨厌“Take Me Home, Country Road”在我的内心里，乡村音乐里总会让人得到慰藉。

我承认我的这个观后感写得很糟糕，因为写出来的不及我想表达的五分之一。

但真得我说不出更写不出。

我记住了那些温暖，却忘了温暖来自哪里。

结局看到你们很幸福我也很幸福一下午看完最终季一直很喜欢看美剧里男女主的感情线，Mac和Will的感情真是特别精彩，让我深受触动是旗鼓相当的搭档 在彼此的感情里却是拧巴的笨蛋成年人丢失的电话录音里那句“I never stop loving you these years Mac.btw you look gorgeous tonight” 两个人在办公室大声脱口而出“别碰我男／女朋友” 后尴尬的小表情Mac没钱打车时Will无奈给出的钞票和最后任她取用的一整个钱包 Will听到别人对Mac不尊重时愤怒的脸 为了保护Mac在酒吧给八卦记者签出的支票 急匆匆买来的她喜欢的Tiffany的戒指，吵架时假装自己退回去了却在Charlie的话语中醒悟 手忙脚乱地从上锁的桌子里掏出来跑去求婚 在舞台角落金牌主持人结结巴巴词不达意 翻来覆去地说着“I love you”和“marry me”以及让我印象深刻的“我会一直继续爱你因为这是宇宙的规律”Mac刚开始瞪的圆圆的大眼睛和那句坚定的yes 和最后甜蜜的抱怨“你怎么花了这么久时间”在工作大厅宣布的第二件事 "meet the future Mrs Mackenzie Morgan McHale Mcv…"平板前面我和员工们一起欢呼congratulations！！

Mac接到电话后发出的欣喜的呜咽 得知Mac怀孕之后Will傻笑的脸 乱七八糟全部丢进垃圾桶的烟 看着儿童房发呆说要卖掉公寓买独栋别墅让孩子自由骑单车的新晋父亲 他终于在这一瞬间摆脱了自己的家暴父亲的阴影 他肯定可以be a good dad 就像Charlie说的那样 对助理笨拙地询问医院和全世界最好的妇产科医生 做好一切准备去成为一位父亲引用一句别人在第二季下的影评“有些人你根本不必说出山盟海誓承诺一辈子，彼此间停下折磨就是幸福。

因为他们是一对，就像宇宙定律。

”嗯 就像宇宙定律

“藐兮斯人, 勇毅绝伦, 不畏强暴, 不恤丧身, 谁谓痴愚, 震世立勋, 慷慨豪侠, 超凡绝尘, 一生惑幻, 临殁见真。

”——堂吉诃德的墓志铭，也是当年《峥嵘》的创刊词无论这部剧收视有多差编剧同学有多任性，我依旧是这部剧的铁粉，以下是第一集的功课/观后/摘录。

S3EP11、Neal发现的发生暴乱的虚拟国家叫做Equatorial Kundu, 曾出现于West Wing第二季第四集，记得是这个国家的总统来美国谈判希望获得更低价的治疗艾滋病的药物，几乎谈了整整一集，最后达成协议要回国的时候，国内趁他离开发生了军事政变，他拒绝了Bartlet提供政治庇护的邀约执意回国，随后直接在机场被叛军处决。

后来第四季该国发生了大屠杀。

有群众兴奋的表示这证明Newsroom和West Wing是处于一个世界设定中的，不幸的是在Newsroom第一季第三集提到了布什政府，这与Bartlet政府时间是冲突的。

可是，我宁愿相信他们CJ，Sam, Josh与Mac，Maggie等人都使用着快速英语and/or手语相亲相爱地生活在一起。

2、CNN John King犯那个错误的时候，现实中只有NBC没有跟着犯错。

3、可怜的被错认为波士顿爆炸案第二嫌疑人的Sunil Tripathi已于2013年4月22日死亡，死亡原因似乎与这件事无关。

最先辟谣其不是嫌疑人的也是NBC的Twitter.4、Mac提到的第九个伴娘Diane Sawyer 是ABC的当家女主播，她的World News with Diane Sawyer一直在我的podcast订阅项中。

5、Will说我不干了收视率这么差还不如回家做体育节目大概是索金大人自嘲回去做Sports Night吧（他98年起开拍的喜剧，哟据说里面第四季开始还有Will，是不是可以追一下。

）6、本集中我最爱的两句对白分别是来自Will与Sloan，且都是对自己的partner说滴：Will McAvoy: [to Mac] I worked very hard at cultivating no friendships outside of work. And to be honest, I was doing fine cultivating no friendships inside of work until you came along.Sloan Sabbith: You know how there are tall women who don't mind dating shorter guys? I don't mind that you're dumb. And, Don, I mean that.

背负教化大众的使命的精英们，应该是无法容忍“业余”的新闻工作者，在这部剧里，以经济，关注度为导向的新闻，网站和app，都被无情的嘲弄。

即使作为曾经在ACN工作过，后来靠流量来获利的某精英的EX也被喷：靠着业余的兜售个人经历和廉价。

一刷很喜欢这部剧，看着这帮精英们，脑补自己肯定也是一个精英啊。

会不顾个人收入，坚持自己的理想。

会冒着风险，坚持做对的事情。

甚至都从中看出职场菜鸟如何成长成一个自信充满魅力的精英。

也看出，年轻人一开始都会面临生存压力很大，付不起房租（中外一样。。

）。

也看出他们经历很多争吵，危机之后，勇于承担错误，最终都获得了职场上的跳跃。

但是，这些精英们，他们要不就是真的很聪明，那个年纪轻轻做检察官的主播，有白宫工作的经历，还很幸运的在911担任主播。

那个有外交官父亲，出生在美国的MAC。

有经济学家父亲和朋友，并且和智商爆表的s。

那些看上去不起眼的角色，有着名校的经历（哥大毕业，剑桥毕业等等），他们有着各种各样的资源。

（虽然）也有不那么牛逼的菜鸟，网站管理员。

那么我们呢？

我们这些并没有很好背景，很好教育条件，很好人脉的普通人，我们这些似乎没有可能奋斗到精英阶层的人，就是乌合之众么？

“佩林从一开始就输了，输在智商上”。

我们是不是也因为早期教育，智商并不那么高超，条件也不允许我们有很好的教育条件的人，是不是也输在智商上了？

我们是不是只能做需要被教化的“乌合之众”？

这部片子宣扬的“精英主义”没有错，我们每个人都要拼了命，让自己在自己的领域中达到“精英”。

但是可悲的是，很多时候，我们还在找自己愿意拼了命都想做好的领域。

可能剧里提供了解决方案吧，像是will最后对MAC说，这是个有破洞的船，这是你的船，你无法换，无法修好，你能做的就是以比漏进水更快的速度把水舀出去。

我们不是精英，我们还没找到自己愿意拼命的方向，但是我们只能拼了命的找。

但是这个过程中，我们即使趋利，也不是乌合之众。

美剧Newsroom被翻译成《新闻编辑室》，乍看像是一个情景喜剧的名字。

事实上它确实是一部带有黑色喜剧风格的系列剧集。

从“唐吉诃德”这个名字在剧中出现的次数，就可见端倪。

《新闻编辑室》的主角是一个晚间新闻节目，隶属于一个叫做ACN的电视台。

他们所做的事情说出来有点像广告语：作为一个黄金时段的新闻节目，他们只做有含金量的新闻。

不在乎收视率，不在乎投资方，誓死也要保卫自己的新闻纯洁。

ACN的收入只占母集团的3%，但是他们可以做到在3秒钟之内得罪母集团的300%个金主。

2010年美国墨西哥湾水下油井石油泄漏，造成美国历史上最严重的生态灾难。

《新闻编辑室》的第一集就是以这个故事开头。

其他的媒体觉得这是一个遇难人员搜救事件，而ACN不知天高地厚地把它说成了一个重大国家灾难。

结果在现实中，墨西哥湾的漏油事件确实持续了几个月，在2010年的全球新闻里高居榜首。

《新闻编辑室》里最有概括性的一句话是：We don’t do good television. We do the news. 也就是：我们不做好看的电视节目，我们做新闻。

我有一个记者朋友，她和我一样是这部剧的铁粉，也是我所见过的地方纸媒的记者中，最有“新闻骨气”的一个人。

她以这部剧里的人们为榜样，曾经给自己的领导发文说不愿意写广告软文。

我也曾经实习过晚报的记者，中国的新闻业本身就是禁忌重重。

但我最后放弃这个行业，是因为不想把自己的24小时浪费在电话旁等待某个小区的公共厕所又坏掉了的“新闻”上。

《新闻编辑室》里的主角们，发表过一次道歉，为他们曾向收视率和娱乐性低头，而损害了新闻性，损害了全国选民们得知真相的权利。

他们的目标不是大众，而是有想法的、能够改变这个国家少数人。

他们坚守新闻的真实性，拒绝让微博和网民来主宰新闻走向，他们说：每天让这个国家的年轻人吃一些有营养的蔬菜，不要宠着他们。

他们自称是新闻行业的精英。

精英主义在很久之前就已不盛行了，因为大众才能消费，才能创造利润。

而精英令大众不爽。

有些人批评这部剧，因为它太做作。

我称之为戏剧化。

对于事业的矫情，有时是一种坚守。

我时常想，如果我和我的记者朋友能够在那样的地方工作，一定会和他们一样疯狂。

今天上午，合肥银泰城失火，30秒内朋友圈已经循环出现各种角度的视频和照片。

不等新闻媒体赶到现场写好稿，这一事件早已进入了蔓延和高潮阶段。

现代人激动起来，连前戏都不需要。

人们拒绝和害怕灾难，但不会错过观看灾难的机会。

媒体放大了这种欲望，在大事件面前争先恐后，以便得到24小时无间断的、360度无死角的灾难现场。

现代媒体，有时代表着人类最本质的窥视欲。

《新闻编辑室》里常常提到唐吉诃德。

而他们的所作所为也正像唐吉诃德该干的事情。

不计后果，义无反顾。

但唐吉诃德在这个时代已经不流行了。

他长得不好看，武术也烂，满脑子都是骑士小说，还有一个自己幻想出来的梦中情人。

简直奇葩。

《新闻编辑室》和唐吉诃德一样，渴望自己的信念和热情被尊重。

这部剧最大的问题就是，不论它多么精彩，它仍然没有解决自己的问题，而是把这个问题丢给了时代。

从前当网红一定要有才华，现在当网红一定要先整容。

你再怎么抱怨，也只能得到一句“怪我咯”。

对了，这部剧只拍了三季，还拿过艾美奖，最后被砍了。

使命感才是被这个时代摈弃掉的东西。

“死也要把工作完成”的精神可能过于夸张，但“不做完这样的工作就不能死”这样的使命感，或许是支撑现代理想主义者去继续理想的支柱。

其实，现实与理想从来不是小说和故事里所表现得那么对立。

毕竟，疯狂和美好一样，都是完全超越了界限的东西。

最后送一首诗，给这部已经到了尽头的剧。

总有一天我们习惯了这个世界里发生的一切都是昨日重现我们关心今天吃啥关心别人是否顺利到家没有人对你迷人的颓废说不你甚至不需要形象好气质佳我们越来越精益求精对别人的工作不甚在意对自己的工作不甚了解只要薪水和报酬不变我们就不再妄想离家出走 冉冉上升 改头换面就算灾难发生我们同样一丝不苟绝不错过观看的时间绝不忘记安排缅怀的盛典并在时区变化上有所表达我们还坚持观想宇宙一旦行星轨道角度改变我们就随手在一年里增减一秒在每一个郑重其事的晚上确保月光的如常