Actually, "internet comments" received by blogs are used as fodder for subsequent blog entries all the time. Thanks for playing. Pick up your door prize on the way out.

Hey SurroundedById10ts! You made the blog!! Congrats.

I've been so distractied by other things (read: life) that I've literally seen NO Season 2 episodes. What do you think? Should I?

Thanks for the heads up!!! Please stay Tuned. My reaction to the first two episodes of THE NEWSROOM will be up in a matter of hours (still pathetically late, I know).

No "list" is definitive and (of course) EVERYONE thinks their list is better. HOWEVER, I'll argue one point. You said: "Chaplin/Garbo/Ball/Cooper - wrong century (or at least wrong decade) - all predate Elvis - and are not iconic enough to be considered." Since I was responding to Dr. Hill's list which included William Shakespeare, I didn't feel limited to this or the last century. And, FWIW, the trio are every bit as iconic as those Hill named.

Sorry I was a tad unclear. I didn't have a problem with Arkin per se (as you say ANY actor could have played him). It was the cherry-picked clip -- that hardly was representative of the actual GOP debates which were rather combative -- leading to manufactured Roth/McAvoy eye rolling moment that rang so false.

"Don't confuse tabloid fodder with news, my friend. I'm with Will and Mack on that one." Again, a Congressman lying to the press IS a story. Sure, there's a sensational element to the coverage (as with the Larry Craig scandal). BUT it is news. That said, I'm a bit more on board with Will and Mackenzie regarding the Casey Anthony type stories.

There's NOTHING "ironic" (and I'm using BEK's definition from the article) about the captions that won. They are simplistically obvious pig jokes and one even references the escalator in the background (ha ha). There just had to be three better (and more ironic) entrees in the New Yorker cartoon caption queue. FWIW, "This conversation is silly" would make a great caption for a New Yorker cartoon. I picture a beret wearing guy sitting by himself at a small table in an Internet cafe typing on his laptop which is next to one of those huge latte cups.

So, "BEK" picked shitty winners on purpose? FWIW, as depicted by BEK, The New Yorker editor sure seems like an obtuse elitist to me: http://youtu.be/I1fSMUOzufI

Well, I stand mostly corrected. http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/cartoonists/2012/07/i-liked-the-kitty-part-iii.html Just to be clear, the Seinfeld writer was a participating judge NOT the sole selector of the finalists. Nonetheless, that makes the low caliber of the winners that much more pathetic.

"Much better?" What are you smoking? I get NOT finding my mine funny. Humor is a subjective thing. But, besides being unfunny, NONE of the three finalists make an attempt to address the fact that this cartoon was the subject of a very well-known SEINFELD episode. My only thought is that the staff "The New Yorker" (and I suppose you as well) are such obtuse elitists that they don't even get the pop-culture reference inherent in the cartoon of a pig at a "Complaint" window? BTW, just so you know, "My Wife Is a Slut" was Kramer's suggestion.

RE: McAvoy's "In the Name of Christianity" remark. I do believe Sorkin was deliberately pulling a bait and switch. I watched the exchange a number of times to make sure I didn't miss any qualifications by Will before or during his tirade. He cites the crimes committed "in the name of Christianity" line and then displays a litany of "examples" (complete with graphics). Using Lee Harvey Oswald, Sirhan Sirhan, and Mark Chapman as "proof" was as laughably over-the-top as the positions argued by the woman he was interviewing. And I don't think for a minute it was deliberate irony. Either Sorkin is a propagandist or not as knowledgeable as he thinks he is. Is there anything I like about the show? Well, it's better than "Franklin and Bash." And I'll give Sorkin credit for throwing more than a few good lines each episode. BUT, even if I take out the politics, there's frankly too much shouting, too much melodramatic he vs. she games, and too much of an overall "ain't I smart" tone exuded for me to jettison the theme of this blog and say anything other than "I Hate The Newsroom." :)

For the record, I hope I've never overtly or implicitly taken you to task for NOT being critical of Sorkin's sermons. That's entirely your prerogative and your recaps are one of my favorite weekly rituals. Second, Sorkin's infusing of politics into the story-lines -- even going as far as naming REAL people by name when it suits him is a part of the show's fabric I can't ignore. I'm not wired that way. If it makes you feel better, I get just as upset by sci-fi stories that totally ignore the laws of physics. :) Which leads to my third point. At the risk of beating it to death, based on McAvoy's own stated intentions in the pilot episode, I was expecting The Newsroom to not be a parallel universe (like The West Wing) but, instead, an actual venue to deal with real current events and put those facts into their proper context as a way to contribute to the proper education of the voter population. This turned out NOT to be the approach Sorkin intends to pursue. Either, he gave up on that approach by episode 3 or he never had that in mind in the first place. So, I'm left to judge each show on it's entertainment value. And, unlike West Wing, The Newsroom falls sort. It's His Girl's Friday writ very, very, very small. Perhaps my complaint about how the show didn't address the Rudy "myth" is a reflection of being frustrated screenwriter. Linking the Rudy legend, his later stock crimes, and the subsequent financial meltdown storyline seemed like a great way to approach the material. THAT would be an episode I'd enjoy. AND it would really put Mac's "3 I's" to good use. Finally, it is worth repeating that Sorkin totally ignoring the Lara Logan assault BUT including a tamer version involving a show character is borderline despicable. I had originally written as much in the first draft of the post, but decided to back off. FWIW, the idea of a "hate" blog came from mine out in the blogosphere. While we don't share the same politics, we're pretty much the same page regarding The Newsroom. BTW, I just saw my comments on your site and I apologize for all the typos. Egads!

As I'm sure you've gathered, most of my "Random Notes" are tongue in cheek musings which don't deserve TOO much thought. :) That said: - An improperly uncleared chamber is a MAJOR mistake made in the climactic scene of RED ROCK WEST. - Sucking up or not, the "faux smiling" reaction shots are starting to get to me. :) - Reese ranting or not, the celebration at the end left a baaaad taste in my mouth. And thank you for YOUR recap (and no "faux smiling" here).

As I said, I loved Citizen Kane which, during its first act, pointedly portrays the title character as heroic for his embrace of Progressive/Reform politics (his "Declaration of Principles" for instance). BUT, the artistry Welles employed in doing so makes it impossible to view with a partisan eye. Sorkin is equally (if not more) pointed in making The Newsroom's addressing of specific political arguments an integral part of the show's fabric. But, he does so in a manner which makes it impossible for me to NOT judge each show on the merits of those arguments. Especially when, in two of the last three episodes, he has the news crew applauding triumphantly (and, by proxy, applauding Sorkin himself) on their "good work" after each (contrived) broadcast. There's nothing substantial about how Sorkin handles the material (IMHO). He piles on point after point, yet he does so in a manner that will only convince the already convinced. So, once I take out the flawed political arguments, I'm left with a bunch of mostly shallow characters in cliched situations. Accidentally emailing an entire distribution list or flouting new boy/girlfriends in front of old ones are not only unoriginal plot devices -- they're somewhat hacky plot devices. The result is miles short of The West Wing, certainly a Liberal leaning show that I loved for most of its run (the over-the-top Zoe kidnapping plot is where they lost me).

My guess is that the app will do a simple scan of the profile info, various pics, text/email messages, past driving pattern, etc. stored on your device -- thus ensuring a smarter ad placement algorithm and resulting in you getting more pertinent spam, er, I mean driving directions. Feel better? :)