>From the horse's mouth: *"The show's set in the recent past because I didn't want to make up fake news*. I wanted to do "His Girl Friday" set against the backdrop of actual news events. I knew when the first season started and when it ended and it was a year ago this month that the staff and I began wallpapering the writers room with every single news event from that 18 month period."
Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/aaron-sorkin-just-did-a-live-qa-on-hbocom--heres-what-we-learned-2012-6?op=1#ixzz1zDfF92pM On Friday, June 29, 2012 2:56:14 PM UTC-4, Kevin M. (RPCV) wrote: > > Dave, sir, stop and think for a moment about why he set the series two > years in the past. Yes, everybody's vision is better in hindsight, but > what he did was take a very real incident in history and set a series > during that moment to demonstrate how, if we had an actual newsroom > looking into such incidents as opposed to the talking head newsreaders > who just read wire copy and press releases into a camera, we might > have actually been a step or two ahead of the disaster. The fact most > of the networks got the Supreme decision wrong, and in turn the White > House allegedly also thought they lost the battle for a few minutes, > proves how flawed our sources of news are. You verify something three > times before reporting it, and you don't allow anybody on the air > "Toobin" who will bloviate about something he knows nothing about. > > On Fri, Jun 29, 2012 at 11:46 AM, PGage <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Fri, Jun 29, 2012 at 11:43 AM, Dave Sikula <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> > >> If Sorkin does deal with it, I'm sure it'll be two years from now, when > >> he's had plenty of time to armchair quarterback and tell us what he > would > >> have done in real time with two years of hindsight. > > > > > > Wow - Aaron Sorkin must have really done something to piss you off to > make > > you think he is so stupid it would take him two years to figure out that > if > > he were covering the SCOTUS decision on Obamacare he would have read at > > least the first 4 pages of the decision before announcing it had been > found > > unconstitutional on television. > > > > -- > > TV or Not TV .... The Smartest (TV) People! > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > > Groups "TV or Not TV" group. > > To post to this group, send email to [email protected] > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > > [email protected] > > For more options, visit this group at > > http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en > > > > -- > Kevin M. (RPCV) > -- TV or Not TV .... The Smartest (TV) People! You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TV or Not TV" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en
