I have to disagree with Freddie — I think it’s possible to dislike Aaron Sorkin’s television shows and still think that the biggest problem in liberalism isn’t other liberals. I’ve watched about two hours of West Wing and couldn’t stand it, but when Newsroom came around, I wanted to give it a solid shot, especially because it combined media and politics, two of my favorite things.
Newsroom starts in the Spring of 2010. I made it to the 2010 elections (3 episodes) before I couldn’t watch any more. What killed it for me wasn’t just the oh-too-clever, machine gun dialog, the Olbermann-like preachiness of the despicable yet boring Peter Pan main character, or the singularity of the pacing (frenetic). It was the notion that, on election night 2010, the characters in this show would have somehow known that the biggest bust-up the teatards were going to visit on us was the debt ceiling fight. When they were interviewing a newly elected teabilly Congressman, the shock-horror on their faces as he said he wouldn’t vote for any increases in the debt limit was just too ridiculous to bear. In November, 2010, everyone knew that a teabagger Congress was going to create some kind of shitstorm, but I can’t name a single one of us who knew exactly what form it would take.
If you’re going to create a show that touches reality as much as Newsroom does, your fantasy needs to be at least slightly believable in the areas where your audience has a real-world frame of reference. That scene in Newsroom had about as much of a relationship to politics as a scene in Scrubs has to the practice of medicine.
In general, when you invent a show that is essentially an exercise in 20/20 hindsight, you need to use a deft, subtle hand. As a writer, Sorkin has none of that. He’s a fucking blunderbuss, and what he’s doing, as Alex Pareene nails in the column Freddie didn’t like, is sharing “the totally correct opinions he would have had about various things” back in 2010. It’s the form, not the content, that turns me off. I don’t hate his liberalism, I simply dislike the insufferable, smug, preachy vehicle he uses to deliver it.
Update: As many pointed out in the comments, LOD did talk about the debt ceiling on election night. So much for that example. Either I am a candidate for self-harm or I need to watch more MSNBC. Jesus.
dewzke
Spring of 2010~wtf?
MikeJ
You don’t like smug and you hang out on a *blog*? At least in Sorkin’s fantasy world the smug people have actually done something to be smug about.
RossInDetroit, Rational Subjectivist
Newsroom gets docked 10% of its rating for being TV about TV. That’s just the rules. Self reference demerit. If you can’t find anything interesting outside of your own medium to use as subject and setting you’re going to lose 1/10 of your cred right off the top.
arguingwithsignposts
So is this the exercise where everyone gets to say “I hated Sorkin before hating Sorkin was cool?”
latinist
This is secondhand, but I’ve been told by a doctor friend that Scrubs is (or was, this was at least four or five years ago) actually the best show on television at portraying what it’s like to be a doctor.
RossInDetroit, Rational Subjectivist
I’m not a TV watcher but I spent a lot of time bored in hotel rooms in 2000 – 2002 and watched The West Wing. It was earnest and preachy but still better than the 299 other things on the haunted fishtank in the Marriott. Yes Sorkin gets tedious but at least he’s offering something more substantial than the spectacles and loud noises typically concocted to anesthetize the rubes.
geg6
Guess I’m some sort of rube. I like Sorkin’s work. I like The Newsroom. I looooooooved The West Wing.
I’m obviously not some too cool for school sophisticate like you and all my obvious betters.
WayneL
Just gotta love the too-cool-for-school who don’t like Sorkin. I adore the dialog, knowing how hard it is to right even good dialog, much less great dialog. The pacing is terrific, and while I can live without the side romance stuff, what he’s saying about the media is exactly what those who criticize Sorkin have been saying. What? They have the same agenda? no way
I played the first scene for a Republican friend who was blown away and never would have watched. Can’t say the same for the times I’ve directed her to Balloon Juice, sadly.
rikyrah
I have the entire run of the West Wing, including the post -Sorkin years.
It still holds up as excellent tv all these years later.
have not seen his new show
Nicole
@latinist: Your doctor friend wasn’t alone- Slate ran an article a few years back about Scrubs being the most accurate show on TV about the medical profession:
http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/culturebox/2009/05/scrubs.html
For that matter, back in the 1970s, NYC cops said Barney Miller was the most accurate portrayal of their profession.
Which is not to criticize what you’re saying about The Newsroom, mistermix. Just the comparison. ;) I agree with you about the debt ceiling thing. And that, like Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip, it’s hard to do a drama about something that isn’t literally life-or-death, because, honestly, it’s a just a fucking television show. Who cares if the night’s broadcast doesn’t go well? Talk about low stakes. It works in comedy because the fact that the characters care so intensely about something completely unimportant is the whole point. But in drama it makes for boring.
RossInDetroit, Rational Subjectivist
My wife recently rewatched all of TWW online. She’s not much of a TV fan or a politics junkie. Just really liked the characters and stories. The fact that people still talk about it says something about the quality.
mistermix
@dewzke: It starts around Deepwater Horizon time and replays how a better news organization would have handled things. Which was a good premise, BTW.
@latinist: Could be. General Hospital, then.
Fargus
Not for nothing, but here’s an article from 12/2010 with Ezra Klein anticipating the debt ceiling fight:
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/12/why_democrats_dont_want_to_tie.html
BobbyMac
I think you’re wrong about the lack of the punditocracy’s debt-ceiling worries . didn’t Lawrence O’Donnell address that very question on election night 2010? i think he did. and since he and Sorkin have a past working relationship (on The West Wing), i wouldn’t be surprised if he got that directly from O’Donnells appearances on election night.
mistermix
@Fargus: If it had taken him two minutes instead of two months, he could have been a character in Newsroom.
boss bitch
whoah! a bit much.
Chris
I had the same reaction on the other side of the aisle when, as a former Tom Clancy nerd, I finally broke down and read “Red Rabbit.” It’s not that it was terminally boring. It’s not that it was Clancy openly admitting “I have no idea what to write about now that we won the Cold War.”
It’s that it shows Moore, Greer, Ritter and Jack Ryan all fleshing out a plan to take down the Soviet Union (the in-universe version of the “Reagan won the Cold War” myth), and all through the book confidently preaching to all who listen that the USSR is a rotting, failed mess that only needs one little push.
Which not only is epic 20/20 hindsight gratification, it also completely contradicts the books he wrote in the eighties, in which Ryan and the others are mostly just cynical and skeptical towards the Soviets and perestroika – and sure as hell don’t have any Master Plan to bring them down.
Valdivia
@geg6:
hey I am with you. I watched Newsroom this week back to back with the USA show Political Animals and I the idiocy of the dialogue and the plot in the latter show left me feeling like I had a lobotomy.
boss bitch
I’m still going to give the show a chance but that scene on the debt ceiling bothered me too.
merrinc
I loved the West Wing. Absolutely loved it. Ditto for Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip. Alex Pareene’s article reminded me why I had quit reading Slate. At least Sorkin was writing fiction, not what passes for journalism these days.
Jay
Well, in Sorkin’s (partial) defense, Lawrence O’Donnell was legit freaking out on Election Night 2010 (http://bit.ly/NRGLEK) about how a Senator Rand Paul would vote on the debt ceiling, calling Paul out for a sort of code phrase the then – Senator – elect used in his acceptance speech: “enslaved by debt” (Go to around the 8:15 mark of the video to see O’Donnell start in).
The thing no Sorkin critic has mentioned about the guy is that, between “Sports Night,” “The West Wing,” and now “The Newsroom,” the guy seems to have hung out with O’Donnell (a longtime executive producer for, and even a spot actor on, “The West Wing”), Chris Matthews (a friend) and Keith Olbermann (another friend on whom characters in “The Newsroom” and “Sports Night” are based) too much.
Keith
@BobbyMac: Got there first BobbyMac – that scene explicitly brought to mind Lawrence on election night 2010. I’d give Sorkin an “A” for crafting history into his narrative in that scene.
Valdivia
@Jay:
Thank you you posted more or less where I was going and said it much better.
Also–have you guys noticed that in The Newsroom in the Jeff Daniels character’s office there is a picture of Sorkin with Obama? It’s far enough that you may think it’s the main character and the O, but you can tell by height that it is Sorkin.
And–just because of what happened yesterday I wish someone would just loop the rant about guns they had on the show this week.
BobbyMac
Yeah, Larry O definitely was all about the debt-ceiling on election night, he even got to ask Eric Cantor about it. Though, sorry, the only link I could find was on News Busters, for some reason..http://newsbusters.org/blogs/matt-hadro/2010/11/03/lawrence-odonnell-absurdly-claims-gop-failure-raise-debt-ceiling-would-c
AHH onna Droid
Great, as soon as Olbermann finally goes away the hot new thing is a show about a sainted Olbermann clone (whom smart-yet-dumb women, because ladybranes and all that, find strangely appealing)?
Olbermann was like a bad romance that went on too long. You felt sorry for him, about losing his dad, about what he could be if he weren’t so self-absorbed but then you realize he’s just another showbiz narcissist who stepped on too many people on the way up and made the mistake of thinking himself indispensable.
The only network drama I watch is Scandal.
Chris
@geg6:
Nah, you’re not alone. Loved West Wing, loved A Few Good Men, loved Charlie Wilson’s War. Not planning to see Newsroom, but only because the subject bores me. Sorkin is probably my favorite writer out there along with Joss Whedon.
Though as far as Sorkin’s politics go, I have to say every one of his characters is both better and more liberal than any real life counterparts. Jerry Falwell was no Al Caldwell. John McCain is no Arnie Vinick. Etc, etc, etc. Can’t count the number of times I’ve seen a West Wing Republican do or say something honorable that had me groaning “come ON, there’s no one that noble in their party in real life.” But then, that’s why it’s TV.
Dennis SGMM
I never watched The West Wing. Nothing against the show, I was just busy doing other things. I did watch a couple of episodes of Newsroom. The show’s liberalism struck me as being so thickly applied that it pushed most of the characters down to one dimension. I’ve never been much of a TV watcher though so Newsroom may be the greatest thing since sliced bread and I still wouldn’t be able to appreciate it.
Valdivia
I will probably drop this in another thread because it’s a great tv opportunity. For those who loved Homeland–the show on which is was based Prisoners of War is now showing on Hulu Plus. It’s probably for a very short time so I recommend you watch it. Saw the two available episodes and it’s fantastic.
BobbyMac
As much as i get turned off by certain personal aspects of Sorkin and people like Olbermann, I think that liberals should greet other mainstream (counting HBO..), coherent liberal voices as a good thing, as long as they aren’t damaging and distracting. we don’t see them as often in corporate media and i find it refreshing when we do. that was my main beef with the Alex Pareene piece, it just seemed like so much (admittedly, beautifully written) criticism without addressing a key idea: Sorkin’s shown with “Newsroom” that he is one of the few creators thats willing to unabashedly be on OUR side (or, as Charlie Pierce would say: “Yell at the right buildings.”)I watch the show, and I think its good. Jeff Daniels is, actually, great.
Uncle Cosmo
Why do you hate America?
BobbyMac
And I also love Alex Pareene’s column. so don’t get me wrong. he’s one of my favorites, actually.
TheMightyTrowel
@BobbyMac: our side evidently believes that sorkin-reality dim witted ladies are a great thing to embrace in a depiction of what liberalism should look like. sorry, not on board.
i am not calling people who like this show bad or mysogynist, just suggesting that before we embrace news room as some sort of great progressive hope we reflect a bit on the not terribly progressive world it idolises.
Valdivia
@BobbyMac:
Couldn’t agree more. I also think the show is a great counterpoint to how the narrative is supposed to go, it shows that it’s not predetermined–it’s not always the stupid that gets to determine how things get told.
Marcellus Shale, Public Dick
hey if you are looking to tap a rich vein of smug self-loathing liberalism, why not take your pan over to the stream of consciousness that is the progressive tradition of believing that everyone(especially allies on every issue but our own personal pet) is somehow disordered and that is why they cannot understand our emo.
schrodinger's cat
I liked West Wing, I have not seen the Newsroom so can’t comment on it. C J Craig was one of my favorite West Wing characters, very rarely do we see a woman in a TV show who is smart, good at her job and beautiful. I personally liked the stories that dealt with domestic politics. I found some of the fake international situations in West Wing a bit hard to take seriously. I thought Bartlett was a stand in for Clinton, without the icky extra marital goings on.
Jennifer
I’ve frankly been surprised that Newsroom has gotten so many raves from liberal bloggers. I’m not sure exactly what it is that bothers me most about it – the preachiness, the utter predictability of the plot (the only surprises that happen are in the relationships between characters, and as noted above, they’ve been squashed down into one dimension which makes it pretty well impossible to care about their relationships. Also, those surprises are predictable as well.) The frenetic pacing bothers me too.
But I think what bothers me the most is the whole premise – that sitting in front of a camera and telling the truth is somehow heroic. It actually isn’t – it’s the bare minimum we generally expect from our fellow human beings whose jobs have nothing to do with keeping us informed, and we’re supposed to accept that it’s somehow heroic when undertaken by those who make their living – a very good living – from accurately informing us. Just because Rush Limbaugh, Bill O’Reilly, Sean Hannity, etc are lying assholes doesn’t make the rest of us heroic for NOT being lying assholes. It just makes them horrible human beings.
I never followed the West Wing for the same reason. I guess I just find it bothersome for mainly the same reason – this portrayal of doing the right thing as noble and heroic. I understand that people like the fantasy of what a better world would look like or how it would operate. The problem is that it distracts attention from the fact that this stuff shouldn’t be considered extraordinary – it should be the bare minimum acceptable, and it’s been a very very long time since it was treated as such. I’m no Pollyanna and I know that there has been corruption during all eras – but there have been times in the past where it wasn’t just dismissed with a shrug as business as usual. That’s the real world we live in now and have been living in for several decades; the portrayal of anything different or better as heroic just reinforces the idea that what we have been living through during those decades should be considered the normal state of affairs for citizens in a democracy. Ultimately, the opportunity to retreat into a fantasy in which people achieve heroism just by not being colossal dicks serves no purpose other than to distract from the fact that liberals have to turn to fantasy television to see this, because they so rarely see it even from their own party leaders.
tam
There have only been 10 episodes. Sometimes a show takes time to find its feet.
/Hollyweird lieberal
BobbyMac
@TheMightyTrowel: I guess I didn’t really see Emily Mortimer’s character as dim-witted, being the producer who steers Will McAvoy toward his potential..Or Jane Fonda’s character who has the power to fire Will if he won’t go easy on the new, powerful Tea Party committee chairs. I think criticism of Sorkin in this area is completely justified, but I just don’t SEE it exemplified here..and please don’t send me to the Alex Pareene piece..
GregB
So when does Sorkin get wished into the cornfield?
geg6
@TheMightyTrowel:
WTF are you talking about with this “dimwiited” shit and all the usual suspects screaming about Sorkin’s imaginary misogyny?
Anyone who says this shit has either never actually watched any of Sorkin’s work or is too thick to know misogyny when they see it. He has written some of the strongest, sexiest, intelligent female parts ever shown on network tv. CJ Craig has a beef with you and when she’s done with you, Mrs. Landingham will show you out.
And that’s just two of about a half dozen on just one show. He’s got a lot more, from the big screen to the small one. Don’t make me count them all for you.
Nellcote
If Rmoney can have a retroactive reality why can’t Sorkin?
BobbyMac
@geg6: “You’re a bad man! you’re a very bad man!” haha nice!
BobbyMac
@GregB: heres this..for all of our edification? http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&NR=1&v=AkJcFGvNgcY
Judas Escargot, Acerbic Prophet of the Mighty Potato God
Confession: I’ve never watched The West Wing (wasn’t watching a lot of tv during that period). Or anything by Sorkin for that matter (other than the Facebook movie, which I’ll confess to kind of liking).
How well did it age? Is it worth watching afresh after all this time? (With so many good contemporary series in the queue, the bar is pretty high these days).
Liberty60
I have tried to grasp exactly what is off-putting to me about Sorkin’s shows.
It isn’t as many point out, the smugness- all political activists possess that to some degree.
After reading Chris Hayes’ Twilight of the Elites I realized what makes the rapid fire dialogue and razor sharp repartee the most annoying part of the shows. Its the disconnectedness of the characters, and the reliance on wonkish logic rather than moral vision.
Our political movement is overstocked with these people- silver spoonish young people with impeccable Ivy League credentials, who, were they not reciting Bureau of Farm Labor statistics like the prize pupil, would be managing a hedge fund for Goldman Sachs.
We don’t need more of these; I yield to no one in my disgust for Palin, but we need her base; the New Deal would never have succeeded had it not won the loyalty of the white Okies, the black sharecroppers, the fledgling middle class.
We won’t win by whipping out yet another chart with footnoted statistics.
Trying to dazzle the middle class with how smart we are only reinforces how distant the college educated are from the middle class. Yes, many of them would gladly roast a pidgeon under a bridge if only the Ivy League brat under the next bridge didn’t have the pidgeon.
Smiling Mortician
The Sorkin hate has just a little whiff of eau de firebag, starting with the OP: “It sucks because that never happened IRL. Oh, it did? Well, whatever. It still sucks.”
Liberals are weird. Complain 24/7 about how the right owns media, and then when one guy on the left stakes out a chunk of prime media real estate, whine about his tone.
BobbyMac
@Liberty60: Okay, fine. but what are we left with?? surely, you don’t think that Sorkin and Chris Hayes are adding to the problem, do you? Keep in mind that the Left hasn’t been able to rely on the built-in media bias that the Right has..shouldn’t we celebrate the fact that our opinions are actually reaching people who aren’t necessarily political junkies? if we can collectively expunge the “government=bad” meme from the vocab of low-information voters, I’ll gladly trade a little bit of purity.
Just Some Fuckhead
@Dennis SGMM: I got through maybe half of the first season of West Wing before I lost interest, one and a quarter episodes of Newsroom.
Politics doesn’t make good teevee. It’s complicated and boring and no one gets shot or goes into a coma from a mystery disease or gets chased around by a black smoke monster. If you follow politics, you know things never get wrapped up tidy and the good guys almost never win. If you don’t follow politics, you prolly aren’t going to be interested in a show about politics.
merrinc
@Smiling Mortician:
EXACTLY. No one does a circular firing squad as well as the left.
Liberty60
@BobbyMac:
First, I do agree that we should welcome any input or firepower towards our goal. I am of the mentality that this political struggle, like Alinsky noted, is about power, who has it, and how to take it away.
So thinking strategically, we need a more populist stance. Whats the matter with Kansas isn’t that they need us to tell them how to vote, but they need us to demonstrate we identify with them.
Tribalism is a powerful weapon, and we need to learn to wield it. Its powerful enough to drown out facts and figures, and make people vote even against their own interest.
Painting the GOP as the enemy of marriage equality, the friend of Wall Street banks, the enemy of Christian values of compassion and forgiveness is a start.
I lead a roundtable discussion at my church, where we gather together suburban white conservatives, together with liberals. I had good success in getting everyone to agree that any society that calls itself Christian will ensure universal healthcare for all, however delivered.
Mostly, we agreed that any proper society will have self-sacrifice and altruism as its foundation, not “rational self interest”.
The entire strength of the conservative movement is based on self-interest; every bit of it is predicated on “don’t touch my stuff!”
Religion is one tool to defeat that; again, the Alinsyite tactic of challenging the system to live up to its own creed.
Liberty60
@Just Some Fuckhead:
Thats the other thing- good intentions don’t make good entertainment.
Were that the case, children would prefer Davy and Goliath instead of Dr. Seuss.
zmulls
I’m not going to retroactively hate on Sorkin’s older work because his later work has gotten preachy and annoying. I haven’t seen THE NEWSROOM (yet) and will give it a chance when I can see it (next year?).
STUDIO 60 was wretched from the get-go and only got worse with each episode. We were big Sorkin fans and were so excited to see it, but the show was un-self-aware of how preachy and self-important it was. Nobody cared about those characters, and all the current-day riffs on Sorkin were present…the underappreciated male wonks who were truly soulful sex gods, the female power figures who were actually lovable hopeless ditzes, the patented speechifying to the nth degree. I *hoped* that NEWSROOM would be less STUDIO 60 and more SPORTS NIGHT.
SPORTS NIGHT is still one of our favorite shows and we rewatch it often. All the “good” Sorkin is on display. Clever, funny dialogue and plotting, human frailty, the *occasional* impassioned speech. But the speeches weren’t the meat of the show, they were grace notes. I can see the “bad” Sorkin starting to poke his head out now and again, but the show is truly brilliant.
And THE WEST WING was a huge achievement. The premise was pretty hard to buy for a TV show. There was a great balance between the drama and the comedy, a lot of wonkiness about the process of government (from someone who truly loved the minutaie)…all elevated by terrific acting and directing.
A FEW GOOD MEN? (solid fun drama, despite Demi Moore and Tom Cruise) THE AMERICAN PRESIDENT? (Very watchable, despite Michael Douglas) THE SOCIAL NETWORK (great script, same Sorkin obsession with nerds who don’t get the girls they deserve but most writers have their blind spots).
So, I don’t hate on Sorkin blindly. STUDIO 60 sucked and it’s possible NEWSROOM sucks just as much. And his latest round of interviews show his jerkdom on display. But I give him his due for his good work.
Xecky Gilchrist
I haven’t seen West Wing or Newsroom, so I don’t have anything to contribute.
I’ll just say I’m gobsmacked no one has genuflected toward The Wire yet.
Smiling Mortician
@Liberty60:
I take it you’re unfamiliar with Green Eggs and Ham, The Sneetches, The Zax, The Lorax . . .
Just Some Fuckhead
Don’t really understand the Sorkin hate and I’m not sure how or why asshats like mistermix always turn everything into a hitpiece on their boogeymen on the left.
Sorkin deserves major credit for creating a couple of almost watchable political fantasy television shows. Has anyone else ever done this?
I listened to Sorkin being interviewed on Fresh Air the other day and he seemed like a genuinely good person. Smart, decent, humble.
zmulls
As for THE WIRE, this thread appears to be about Sorkin’s work and Sorkin himself. It would be threadjacking to start idly talking about other shows that were good. Or not. It could easily turn into a free for all about television itself.
And as for those people who want to talk about THE WIRE, who think it was possibly the greatest series ever and need to tell people about it at every given opportunity (and I may be one of those people), it would be threadjacking of the worst sort.
maus
How’s life in your fantasy world? The one where people appreciate your smug defenses of fictional smugness?
Josie
@Smiling Mortician: aaand Horton Hears a Who, The Grinch Who Stole Christmas, etc.
Bailey
@Just Some Fuckhead:
Is this why The West Wing was on for 7 seasons, 154 episodes was nominated for and won nearly every award under the sun?
sb
@geg6: I agree with this sentiment. Hating on the West Wing is a kewl kidz staple here for some at BJ; happens about once-a-week. It was a damn good show.
Brian R.
Yeah, I liked West Wing and I like the Newsroom. Fuck the hipsters.
Joel
@WayneL: Again, I don’t have much of a dog in this fight, but Sorkin’s dialogue is probably the thing I dislike most about his work.
Joel
@WayneL: Again, I don’t have much of a dog in this fight, but Sorkin’s dialogue is probably the thing I dislike most about his work.
Joel
@WayneL: Again, I don’t have much of a dog in this fight, but Sorkin’s dialogue is probably the thing I dislike most about his work.
darms
I really liked The West Wing for it’s first 2-3 seasons. What made me stop watching it was the reality disconnect between the fictional president Bartlet vs. the actual president, GW. I just cannot do cognitive dissonance…
Joel
What the hell is with wordpress and making all my posts double and triple?
David in NY
Did anybody mention that in its last seasons, TWW basically invented Barack Obama? All right, he was a Hispanic, but that close is pretty good.
Tom Simone
@zmulls:
You said it. Studio 66 was horrible
Tom Simone
I liked Newsroom better when it was called Sports Night
Brachiator
Of course, Scrubs was not really about the practice of medicine, no more than Barney Miller was about the practice of law enforcement, and Taxi wasn’t really about running a cab stand. And even though it may have fooled a lot of people, Cheers wasn’t really about running a bar.
While some people, and most news junkies, may know the real world background to the stories which run through the show, not many people have a real world frame of reference to what it is like in a newsroom, or how the news gets made, or what news people think about anything when they are not (or even when they are) reading the news.
So Sorkin has a lot of room to tell stories here. I watched a couple of episodes of the show, and found them moderately interesting, but inconsistent. And it seems as though Sorkin is falling back on easily recognized tricks and repeating himself stylistically, kinda like the creator of Ally McBeal. When a magician gets so old and slow that you can see how the tricks are done, then he should consider hanging up his hat. Or maybe Sorkin is getting tired of writing for tv, since his movie writing chops are still pretty good.
And with Newsroom he also seems to be fighting a grumbly disenchantment with journalism, always an issue for the right, and now also a thing for some liberals. And some people seem to have a problem with Sorkin himself and want to see him knocked down a peg or two. All this makes it tough for his tv show to rise or fall on its own merits.