The Newsroom

[Jolly Roger]

Ovi na addic7ed-u još uvek nisu izbacili titlove na engleskom. :mad:EDIT: Upravo postavili...

Edited August 6, 2012 by Jolly Roger

[Weenie Pooh]

Jedva odgledah do kraja, toliko mi je bila bljutava ova Ding Dong the Witch Is Dead epizoda. I suze i slavlje i šestopedesetosam "da vam kažem važnu vest" momenata. Bilo je par zabavnih scena, uglavnom u avionu, ali sve ostalo - praktično nepodnošljivo.

[Dark Wader]

Definitivno najzabavnija epizoda do sada..

[Sunny Side Up]

Jedva odgledah do kraja, toliko mi je bila bljutava ova Ding Dong the Witch Is Dead epizoda. I suze i slavlje i šestopedesetosam "da vam kažem važnu vest" momenata. Bilo je par zabavnih scena, uglavnom u avionu, ali sve ostalo - praktično nepodnošljivo.

Isto. Epizoda je bila toliko ljigava, pateticna i na momente krajnje degutantna sa svim tim cmakanjem i cestitanjem, da sam skoro sve vreme dozivljavala ozbiljne transfere neprijatnosti.

[Weenie Pooh]

^ Najbolje je bilo kad onaj Eliot u avionu sav ganut kaže kako mu je žao što nije bio u prilici da dovede ženu i decu u newsroom da proslave svi zajedno. Ubistvo teroriste ~ dečiji rođendan

[WTF]

Ubedljivo najbolja epizoda do sada. Najbolje su scene iz aviona i kad naduvani Will bezi svom telohranitelju i posle provali da mu je 20 min ranije Joe Biden licno poslao potvrdu vesti. Mada je cela ona sa Jimom i Maggie opasno smorila.

[MayDay]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AF3YmBMVxDowoooooooowwwwwww!!!!!!!! here we go!!!!!!!!

[Weenie Pooh]

woooooooowwwwwww!!!!!!!! here we go!!!!!!!!

Jedino za "wow" ovde je smugness nivo u rečenici "Let him know he's a ratings point away from having his own podcast" :isuse:Pošto, jel'te, podcasts su samo za džabalebaroše i idiote? The internet is for porn?

[morgana]

probajte 'the hour' o bbc-ju s kraja 50tih, mnogo je dobra serija, makar ovo sto sam pogledala. dosta ispred newsrooma, u aspektima u kojima se te dvije serije mogu porediti.

the hour je dobrim dijelom i spijunska serija. puna je britanstine, a stilski s vremena na vrijeme i noarovstine. u neku ruku, ako je poredimo sa novijim tv uradcima, najvise podsjeca na rubicon, mada je cesto (i gotovo bezrazlozno) uporedjuju sa med menom. likovi su dosta stereotipizirani, sto je ok u ako se posmatra u kontekstu ociglednog omaza zanru, a mimo toga (sto je takodje skroz ok ugao) moze da bude i dosadno.

dominic west je u jednoj od glavnih uloga.edit, u svjetlu novih saznanja, moram da dopunim post. the hour ima najdosadniji ljubavni n-tougao ikad.da se vratim na temu, posljednja epizoda newsrooma je bas losa, odustajem od gledanja.

Edited August 9, 2012 by morgana

[MayDay]

ja sad malo kvarim topik jer ne pisem o seriji, ali evo jednog teksta sa the economist-ovog bloga 'democracy in america' o 'bias towards fairness'. koliko vidim autor nase serije je morao biti inspirisan knjigom sjajnog nicka daviesa i sad moram da je narucim.elem, tekst:

The balance trapAug 8th 2012, 21:05 by N.L. | CHICAGOFOR all the scrutiny journalists heap upon others, it is remarkable how little attention we pay to our own craft. But it is difficult, and downright awkward, to criticise one's colleagues. And the whipper-snapper down the hall who cannot string two sentences together may be your boss one day. So the most forthright criticism of the press is often performed by outsiders.One of those external critics is Barack Obama. Unsurprisingly, the New York Times reports that the president is frustrated by the fourth estate. But Mr Obama has a point. According to the Times, he has complained about the press's focus on political point-scoring and, more interestingly, of “false balance”, or how reporters give equal weight to both sides of an argument even when one side is factually incorrect.Many assume that balance is a key element of good journalism. Fresh-faced journalism students often arrive with the dewy-eyed aims of pursuing the truth and preserving balance and objectivity. Objectivity is easy to dismiss. It just doesn’t exist. There, I’ve said it. But balance is a trickier beast. Balance can be a great asset in an article. It can also be ruinous.The problem of balance is neatly explained by a British hack, Nick Davies, who wrote a seminal (and underrated) book on falsehood, distortion and propaganda in journalism called "Flat Earth News". Mr Davies does a bit of teaching, and he has his students imagine that they are asked to write a report on what the weather will be like tomorrow. They interview a woman in one room who says it will be sunny. Then they interview a man in another room who says it's going to rain. Your job, as a journalist, is not to simply write up what you have been told, he says. Your job is to look out the window.Writing a "balanced" version of this story would produce an article that reads “he says it will rain” but “she says it won’t”. You have all these quotes fluttering around like “butterflies in a jar”, going nowhere. But there is a bigger danger lurking. What if the man who says it is going to rain is lying? What if he is an umbrella salesman? Your options are to either make a judgment about the truth, or print what you have been told. But if you balance an article when you know that all the evidence points to a sunny day tomorrow, then you are participating in a denial of truth.It should be obvious that this made-up scenario has parallels in climate-change reporting, an area of journalism that has been dogged by the issue of balance. When climate-change sceptics felt that reporters were writing about the issue as if it were accepted fact, they pushed hard to create a sufficiently large body of “experts” and “evidence” in order to force journalists to take cover under the trusty shield of balance. A controversy was created, where none had existed, by those who stood to gain. And thus journalists felt obliged to give equal weight to both sides of the debate.Today, creating uncertainty in order to hijack the concept of balance is a significant industry. Public-relations firms create artificial "grass roots" organisations for business and political-interest groups in order to have their views reflected in the media. They are known as “astroturf” groups, a concept that might not even exist if not for the demand for so much balance. For a recent example, see this brilliant series in the Chicago Tribune describing how the chemical industry created a phony consumer watchdog group to successfully push for the greater use of flame retardants. (Some have evensuggested that the tea party is an astroturf movement.)Why are journalists susceptible to these tactics? Jay Carney, the White House press secretary, suggests that political journalists aim to look high-minded by making both sides look bad. I think the motivations are far more trivial. Balance is easy and cheap. In political journalism, a vitriolic quote from each side and a punchy headline is all that is needed to feed the news machine. Who cares if substance and analysis are thrown to the wind? Journalism is a commodity. There is always a need for more “inventory” on which to place ads. Journalism, real journalism—the pursuit of truth—also creates inventory, but not as much, and it is difficult, costly and time-consuming. Far easier to bolt together a few pieces of trivial comment from political pundits and move on.Ironically, the Times falls into the balance trap in its very own article. After suggesting that false balance is some lefty concept rather than common sense, the Gray Lady feels compelled to interview the editor of the “left-leaning” Talking Points Memo as well as the creator of the "conservative" Power Line. The latter cannot resist giving Mr Obama a poke in the eye, but both quotes are so devoid of meaningful information about the concept of false balance as to be farcical.Let me end, though, with a word in favour of balance. There are many issues that demand such an approach. We don’t always know the truth, and some questions are hard to answer definitively. Research is constantly providing us with new theories. Do charter schools work to improve student achievement? How effective is foreign aid? What is the best way to bring down health-care costs? These are topics that deserve a balanced approach, but one that deals in substance, not traded insults. So when is a balanced approach correct? That, I’m afraid, is a question of judgment.

[Weenie Pooh]

ja sad malo kvarim topik jer ne pisem o seriji, ali evo jednog teksta sa the economist-ovog bloga 'democracy in america' o 'bias towards fairness'. koliko vidim autor nase serije je morao biti inspirisan knjigom sjajnog nicka daviesa i sad moram da je narucim.

Meni ipak nije jasno zašto misliš da je taj "bias toward fairness" nešto novo i zanimljivo, te da ga je Sorkin otkrio u knjizi iz 2009.? To sve postoji jako, jako dugo, i u američkom dvopartijskom sistemu a i drugde. Drugačije se zove prosto lazy journalism.Na tu temu:www.cracked.com/video_18354_if-white-house-press-briefings-were-honest.html Edited August 11, 2012 by Weenie Pooh

[MayDay]

Pa meni je interesantno, a i ja sam streber i volim da mi se stvari konceptualizuju i umetnu u postojece znanje. How about that? :D

[luba]

ja sad malo kvarim topik jer ne pisem o seriji, ali evo jednog teksta sa the economist-ovog bloga 'democracy in america' o 'bias towards fairness'. koliko vidim autor nase serije je morao biti inspirisan knjigom sjajnog nicka daviesa i sad moram da je narucim.

pisali smo na nekom topiku o dejvisu, al da me ubijes ne mogu da se setim na kom, mozda kod asanza. ako ti se zapati ta tema, obavezno uzmi i newspeak i unspeak. ovo je odlicna paralelna recenzija, mozda malo suvoparno strucna.ima jos gomila, naravno, ali ove tri uspevaju da preskoce nostalgicna prisecanja na to kako je nekad bilo (sto je super za citanje, ali nema vajde neke) i da, ponekad surovo, ali hirurski precizno, ukazu na kokosku i jaje. zanimljivo je da se u poslednjih par godina pojavljuje sve vise knjiga, posebno u americi, koje drndaju korportativne medije i uopste propast zurnalizma, i dostizu zaista pristojne tiraze, te ih i velike skole novinarstva uvrstavaju u obaveznu literaturu. a na trzistu, promene nema.e da, naravno, taibbi, jedan od retkih koji ne odustaje. ako jos nisi, obavezno griftopia. cak i oni kojima je skroz jasno sta se desilo u americi kazu da je najbolja, da ne pricam kako je meni koja sam uglavnom duduk za finansije, objasnio sve, pa mogu da se kurcim da znam.a i taibbi je mnogo sladak i sav se onako uzbudi ko tinejdzer kad prica o necemu do cega mu je stalo. Edited August 11, 2012 by luba

[MayDay]

thanks a ton! newspeak mi deluje posebno relevantno.sto se tice taibbija, nisam citala i znam da je bezveze sto tako razmisljam, ali imam neki nesvesni otpor ka digest verzijama koje objasnjavaju uzroke krize, sve dok to nije napisao ragu rajan. :D ispravljam gresku u rezonovanju i vec sam skinula pdf griftopia!

[luba]

ma nije to bezveze, kad svaka susa danas misli da ume da napise knjigu o cemu oces. ali je taibbi stvarno drugaciji. tvrdoglav ko jarac, kalio se na najtezem terenu za tzv politek novinarstvo, u rusiji, pravi je ocd-jevac pa skuplja i redja i sta mu treba i sta ne, nema dlake na jeziku, nije mu strano da se posvadja i vredja, a pritom skoro nikad ne ostavlja nijednu tezu neargumentovanom. a i stil mu je divan. ja sam zaljubljena u ove blogove na rsu sto sam linkovala, citam ih i kad me ic ne zanima o cemu pise.