新闻编辑室第三季

从偶然点开第一季第一集的开头，看到开头男主义愤填膺地发表长篇大论：美国为什么不是最伟大的国家，我惊讶的发现短视频常常截取的精彩内容竟然来自这里，到后来一看就不可收拾，难以停止。

从S1E1到S3E6结束，我只花了5个工作日晚上和一个周末。

惊讶至极、感动无比、震慑心灵、相见恨晚。

这竟然是2011年到2014年播出的剧集，有些地方不仅是令人感到，甚至可以说就是美国超级无敌正能量主旋律，但即使认识到了这一点，也丝毫不能否认这部剧集制作的优秀。

密集的信息量与超快的语速这一特点从片头will的几分钟内罗列数据狂用排比的长篇大论就初见端倪。

在第一集中，更是以这一特点牢牢抓住了观众的注意力，将观众融进了分秒必争、信息量爆棚的新闻从业者中间去，有着非凡的代入感。

“跟紧我们，不然就掉队了。

”也正是这一基本特点，让后续的曲折起伏的剧情、不可调和的矛盾，更加紧张刺激，锦上添花。

尤其是双人争吵甚至是多人争吵时，也让观众感觉一种虽然脑子嗡嗡的，但是也被他们的专注、执着、口条飞快、口齿犀利所打动。

新闻关注度与新闻专业性的两难困境这是贯穿三季始终的选择与思考。

是播出枯燥又无人关心的国会通过的法案会带来哪些影响还是播出一件真相还不明了却引起全社会关注的凶杀案？

剧中整个主角团队们都执着于新闻的专业、准确、与事实相符，快速、及时，且又崇尚道德。

因此，will用极具攻击性的语言揭示茶党正在鸠占鹊巢取代共和党的事实； don在被逼迫宣布波士顿爆炸案伤者死亡时说：只有医生才能宣布一个人的死亡；sloan执着于说明提高债务上限的严重后果。

他们为专业真实的新闻斗争，为了做出自己期望获得竞选辩论而妥协，为了真实性而反复确认，屡败屡战。

就像堂吉诃德一样，可笑、可悲，但是没有放弃。

发人深省的剧情和令人惊叹的情节塑造、人物刻画第一季可以概括为坚守理想的选择，煽情而令人振奋；第二季用一整季讲述了验证新闻、揭露真相的困难，新闻人面临的严肃而苛刻的审判；第三季更进一步，他拷问观众，你愿意付出自由或者生命的代价，来充当社会的良心吗？

在鲜明、高尚、简洁的理想主义主题下，编剧、导演、演员展现了非凡的专业素养与技巧。

无论是笑话还是讽刺，赞美还是挖苦，求婚又或是分手，主角们金句频出，艾伦索尔金不经意间就展示自己的功底；911播报后的停顿与静音，市政厅婚礼里优美的光影、天籁般的歌声，再加上动情的演出，足以与任何历史上经典的婚礼情节媲美。

主角们的眼神、台词、状态都与角色那么贴合。

这里举一个小小的例子吧。

S2里，有这么一段录音，是will磕嗨后发送给mac的语音。

它起到了以下几个作用：1.它的提及让will和charlie意识到电话被监听，而mac没收到消息；2.它证明了reese对will的监听；3.它的具体内容解释了为什么will一蹶不振，以为mac是收到了而没有回复，以为mac不再爱自己；4.它最终被本可以利用它大肆炒作一番的八卦小报记者删除，证明了will的真诚是有用的，也体现了小报主编Nina人性的光辉；5.它让mac意识到，语音内容必然十分重要，很可能就是will对自己的真情坦白，但正因为will后来不愿意透露内容，引起后续mac在好几集时间里不停地追问，展现了mac的聪明可爱。

这么一个简单的道具，与前后剧情多重联系，紧密交织，推动情节发展，勾连人物关系，丰富人物形象。

在回过神来看看有些电视剧，连主线剧情都说不清楚，配角甚至主角都像是一次性用品，差距之大令人叹息。

令人抓狂的配角感情戏主线感情戏唯美动人，当面对一方的巨大错误和背叛，被伤害的人终于在几年之后，意识到原来惩罚别人也是在惩罚自己，既然如此深爱，过错方已如此坦诚、如此卑微，不如尽弃前嫌、相伴终生。

3号配角感情线针锋相对、旗鼓相当，令人乐不可支。

2号配角感情线则是令人伤心、震惊、抓狂、到最后放弃又或是看淡，除去因为这条感情线而弃剧的观众，剩下的要么骂角色、要么骂导演，要么如我一般每当看到这一对，就会默默地想：受够了，真的受够了。

有一些行为或者感情真的有极限，编剧正是因为没有考虑到这一点而引起了极大的反效果。

让人深思、也让人绝望让人深思非常好理解。

随着我对影视的越来越多的体现我的主观感受而非客观的多重标准，是否能引发我的思考和进一步学习成为我评价一个好作品相当重要的标准。

新闻编辑室显然超额完成了任务。

它展现了新闻人的生活，歌颂了一帮严肃媒体人的道德标准，它提及美国政党选举、经济议题、社会议题，它追溯历史事件、预测未来发展并且得到不可思议又有理有据的印证。

他让我想认真月的塞万提斯的《堂吉诃德》。

让人绝望则没有那么常见。

但在剧集里绝望是显而易见的。

只有狗血的有争议的话题才能吸引观众吸引眼球，带来高收视率，主角也是因为失恋后放弃了职业追求，反而职场得意，收视率上全国第二，成为台柱子。

当他在mac带领下开始追求真实，报道下真相，引导观众，一部分观众忽然弃他而去了。

在一次争吵中，mac大喊，我们是为了观众的利益！

reese反问，你们还有观众吗？

在关注度不够的情况下，真实严肃的新闻还有意义吗？

当收拾下降，为了效益的老板要把你开除的时候，坚持新闻理想还有意义吗？

拷问不止于此。

怎么才能保证得到的是真实的新闻？

当经过重重验证、仔细辨别、机制的审查，数月的心血被发现是一个笑话，你还能信任自己的能力，信任同事吗？

自我审视没有结束的时候，时代的车轮又要无情碾过了。

网络与社交媒体日益发达，人人都可以播新闻，人人都可以做新闻。

没有实施调查却可以飞速传播，没有从业资格却能够影响大众，这个时候，传统的以经营稳住先核实后播报的，有着巨大人力、财务、时间成本的电视媒体应该如何自处呢？

新东家撕碎他们的尊严，也要改变这帮新闻人的命运。

令人绝望的不是他是错的而且他有能力。

而是他有能力而且十年后的今天，你知道他掌握流量密码、尊重市场规律、猜对发展大局，他完全正确。

正是面对绝望的时候，他们的勇气是如此可贵而动人。

我不记得因为这部剧潸然落泪有多少次了。

虽然开怀大笑的次数也有很多，但主要记住的是落泪时的感动。

堂吉诃德是可笑的，最终失败了。

当我们面对现实里的困难，并且知道自己很可能无法战胜时，我们会有勇气做堂吉诃德吗？

我们会老气横秋地、又或是无可奈何地说：让我们现实点吧。

然后去嘲笑那些理想主义者吗？

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.

On HBO TV serial Newsroom ENDING"There's a hole in the side of the boat. That hole is never going to be fixed and it's never going away and you can't get a new boat. This is your boat. What you have to do is bail water out faster than it's coming in." - Aaron SorkinWhat is illness to the body of our knight errant? What matter wounds? For each time he falls, he shall rise again. Woe to the wicked. Sancho, my armor, my sword! Adventures, old friend!对于游侠来说疾病算得什么？

伤口又能怎样？

每次跌倒，他都重又起来。

小人们，当心些！

桑丘啊，取甲去！

拿剑来！

冒险去，老伙计！

The mission of each true knight is duty...nay, is privilege.To dream the impossible dreamTo fight the unbeatable foeTo bear with unbearable sorrowTo run where the brave dare not goTo right the unrightable wrongTo love pure and chaste from afarTo try when your arms are too wearyTo reach the unreachable starThis is my questTo follow that starNo matter how hopelessNo matter how farTo fight for the rightWithout question or pauseTo be willing to march into hellFor a heavenly causeAnd I know if I'll only be trueTo this glorious questThat my heart will lie peaceful and calmWhen I'm laid to my restAnd the world will be better for thisThat one man scorned and covered with scarsStill strove with his last ounce of courageTo reachThe unreachable star　　- Man of la Mancha

随着《新闻编辑室》(The Newsroom)第三季也是最终季的落幕，我的心头涌起一阵悲凉。

查理•斯金纳(Charlie Skinner)倒下的那一刻响起的那首Sissel演唱的《Shenandoah》一遍一遍地在耳边回响。

《新闻编辑室》是我最喜欢的美剧，该剧由被称为业界最具才华的编剧之一的阿伦•索金(Aaron Sorkin)亲自执笔并担任制片，讲述美国ACN电视台晚9点《晚间新闻》栏目的主播和他背后工作团队的故事，2012年起由HBO播出。

索金最早由《白宫风云》(The West Wing)系列电视剧声名鹊起，由他执笔的《社交网络》曾获2011年奥斯卡最佳改编剧本奖。

索金剧本的特点是多人场景对话矛盾冲突的完美设计，超大台词量对演员和观众都是极大的考验。

如果你看过《社交网络》，一定会被其中Facebook创始人扎克伯格的语速所惊呆，这一方面得益于扮演者杰西•艾森伯格的基本功，更重要的则是索金剧本的台词量实在过大，只有用超快的语速才能读完。

这一特点在《新闻编辑室》中得到更夸张的体现，由于该剧中的主演本就处于新闻媒体，剧情几乎均由对话推动，导致它可能成了历史上台词最密集的美剧，同等时长下的台词量我估计是普通电视剧的三倍。

我不得不经常经常要暂停和回看才能看清全部台词内容，而其中又夹杂了大量新闻专业术语和最近几年的著名事件，50分钟一集的容量大概需要至少看两遍才能基本贯通，如果想要深入探寻可能还要搭上数小时查阅资料。

可正是这样一部优秀的美剧，却遭遇收视率的滑铁卢。

该剧前两季均在10集左右，但收视率极其惨淡，导致仅仅第三季就成为最终篇章，而且也腰斩为6集。

第一季采用的方式是常见的主线递进但每集独立成故事的结构，第二季更是制造了一个庞大的悬念，用9集的长度逐渐揭开谜团，到了第三季，不仅再度进行了全面颠覆性的叙事方法，几乎超越了该剧最初的设定，更加入了波士顿马拉松爆炸案、棱镜门斯诺登事件等今年的热点新闻元素。

可惜无论索金如何努力，观众就是不买账。

根据统计，第三季首播收视人数仅有120万，相比另一部同样由HBO出品的大热剧集《权力的游戏》的1800万简直不可同日而语。

虽然在金球奖和艾美奖上均斩获几项提名，却避免不了被砍的命运。

究其原因，有人归咎于剧情中许多背景资料太过深奥难懂，但由Netflix出品的《纸牌屋》(The House of Card)中同样具有大量政治专业术语却受热捧，显然这并不是最关键的因素。

我认为最致命的原因有两点，第一是无法塑造出一个大众喜爱的角色——和电影不同，由于电视剧本身具有分集的特点，在下周同样时间还会切换到同一频道收看，除了剧情紧张吸引人，更重要的是有大众喜爱和关心的角色，如《生活大爆炸》中的谢耳朵，《破产姐妹》中的Max，《绝命毒师》中的老白，《纸牌屋》中的木下议员等等，而《新闻编辑室》中虽然聚集了许多出色的演员(能按索金要求语速念台词的演员)，也成功塑造了许多性格鲜明且各异的角色，但他们都仿佛变身成了伟大的新闻道德传教者，显得不够讨喜。

第二点也是最重要的一点，这部剧中充斥着太过浓郁的理想主义色彩。

在剧中被角色们反复提及的一个人物是堂吉诃德。

实际上，堂吉诃德的形象在不同历史时期有着不同解读，最早在塞万提斯笔下，他被塑造成一个受骑士精神荼毒的疯子，遭人嘲讽，批判了中世纪的黑暗；而到了十八世纪，随着思想启蒙运动的发展，堂吉诃德又成为人们心目中的绅士，是自由、平等、博爱的代言人；越向近代发展，堂吉诃德又越成为与现实抗争却又如此无力的悲情浪漫主义和理想主义者的化身。

而从这个角度来说，剧中《晚间新闻》的主播威尔•麦卡沃伊(Will McAvoy)和他的团队可说是一群当代堂吉诃德。

他们在这样一个纷乱复杂、信息爆炸、信仰缺失的年代，坚守媒体从业者的道德底线，做着传统的严肃新闻，客观公正、不卑不亢，既不会做八卦新闻只为博人眼球，也不会随意发布不严谨的消息，不少人甚至还是人们眼中还在用着黑莓手机的老古董。

他们与只看收视率的资本家作对，与侵犯人民知情权的美国政府作对，与社会中的不正义力量作对，甚至似乎与媒体的未来发展方向都在作对，而在最终季中，这些矛盾冲突达到巅峰。

在当代这场由Facebook、Twitter、Instagram和Weibo们领导的碎片化信息社会洪流中，可以看出编剧阿伦•索金是怀疑、纠结、无奈而又迷茫的。

尽管本剧的最终结局是相对美好的，但电视剧毕竟不是现实，而且结局的美好也并不代表索金找到了一条传统媒体理想主义的光明未来之路，他们仍然是一群堂吉诃德，在世人嘲笑与怀疑的目光中前行，在现实与理想的矛盾荆棘丛中前行，或许终有一天他们也将迎来和堂吉诃德同样的结局。

剧中有一段情节，当节目制作组迫于各种压力无法发布他们已经制作完成的新闻时，他们不得不把自己所做的全部努力秘密交给美联社的一位他们都信赖的记者，希望她能完成他们未尽的事业，将事实的真相公诸于众。

现实中，并不存在ACN这样一个电视台，即便真在某处有这样一群理想主义者存在，在他们走投无路的时候，又真的会有一个正义使者化身的记者出来前赴后继吗？

在塞万提斯去世的400年后，这个问题已经越来越难以回答。

而与剧情在高潮时戛然而止相对应的是，《新闻编辑室》停播的结局无疑也是理想主义的坟墓。

索金自己也不得不承认自己从一开始就走错了方向：“我之所以这么设定，是因为不想编造假的新闻事件，我希望剧里的世界能映射出你所处的当代社会。

而且这样，观众总能知道得比剧中角色多。

”他在接受采访时说道，“所以，我并不是在试图教育专业的新闻记者们，我也没有能力这样做。

”在剧情临近结尾时，索金所设计的两个桥段也很好地表明了他对自己之前所充满的理想和浪漫主义情怀的反思和怀疑。

主人公威尔在看守所中与自己的父亲“隔空对话”，却被父亲斥责为精英主义的推崇者(指美国东北部波士顿、纽约等地的新英格兰白人后裔)，而ACN易手后的新网络编辑所制作的APP也对老的女主播和制片人的传统新闻道德思想尽情嘲讽。

在《晚间新闻》制作组为自己在波士顿马拉松爆炸案中的报道感到骄傲时，却被告知他们的收视率从第二跌到了第四，而ACN易手后做着老员工们不齿的娱乐八卦和名人跟踪等新闻后，他们的收视率却一路冲回第二……索金在剧中将自己化身为老牌新闻理念的卫道士，与新思维展开论战，并仿佛获得了胜利。

但这种精神胜利却无法改变社会的潮流，而索金本人对这种胜利又持何种态度，其实同样是值得玩味的。

正如冯小刚的《天下无贼》，虽然最后成功地保留了傻根对世界的美好印象，但刘德华在站台上对刘若英的那一番“为什么他不能受到伤害”的斥责恐怕才是编剧王朔的真正心声。

我在媒体行业从业近十年，也目睹了中国传媒业的许多兴衰起落。

在20世纪前的中国，新闻媒体只是喉舌，是发声工具，从来都不具有独立客观的思想。

而正当进入新世纪的我们开始逐渐觉醒后，又遭遇了社交媒体网络化、碎片化的时代变革，使得我们还没有形成严肃的新闻价值观，就被汹涌的时代潮水所裹挟，不由自主地向前。

在上有有关部门监管，下有时代变革推进的这场洪流中，媒体们纷纷失去自我。

传统纸媒日渐式微，新媒体只顾点击率，自媒体风起云涌但良莠不齐，导致在现在人们经常接受信息的渠道中，电视无法获得年轻人信任；门户网站争夺流量缺乏深度；微博微信等社交媒体又遍地谣言。

曾经中国媒体人的骄傲《南方都市报》也有堕落的迹象，开始出现一些不够严谨的报道，而南方系旗下的《21世纪经济报道》今年更是爆出新闻敲诈丑闻，随着一些所谓的公知大V们纷纷被招安或镇压，中国严肃传媒的未来走向何处迷雾重重。

我曾经也满怀理想，以为自己从事着改变世界、记录历史的伟大事业，但后来屈服于种种压力也不得不发布大量吸引眼球的新闻，其实要说服自己这样做的理由何其容易，但正因如此，像剧中人物那样依然坚持自己原则才显得更难能可贵。

当我第一次看到这部美剧后，就像忽然进入了一个真正美好的乌托邦，有一种“如果能在这样的团队中做新闻那真的是死而无憾了”的感觉。

但乌托邦本就是一种脱离现实的存在，这是个浮躁的时代，也是一个大众消费的时代，还有多少记者坚守誓言的纯洁，还有多少读者和观众关心这条新闻背后的故事，这种坚持还有多少意义，是否还像堂吉诃德那样无论多努力都只会遭到更多的嘲笑呢？

索金的这部美剧，能给人以思考。

但事实上还有多少人愿意思考？

我曾经把这部剧推荐给几个同行，之后就如泥牛入海，他们再未对此剧给过任何回应。

是太忙没时间看，还是早已对所谓的新闻理想麻木，只把它当做一份糊口营生，我不得而知。

乔布斯曾经说过：只有那些疯狂到以为自己可以改变世界的人，才能真的改变世界。

仿佛是命运的注定，将于2016年上映的电影《乔布斯传》的剧本交给了那个同样足够疯狂的索金。

但理想主义者也不总会成功，有时他们同样会输得很惨，乔布斯在Macintosh上的失败让他被赶出了苹果，索金的《新闻编辑室》同样被唱响挽歌。

乔布斯最终东山再起，索金仍有机会重获市场认可，而信守传统价值观的新闻媒体是否还有明天，却无人知晓。

perfect ending不舍得所以细细地看，但总有终点。

最后一集和开头形成了完美的环，一切都扣了起来，Don Quixote完成了他的冒险，Charlie找到了Mac,Will,Sloan,Don然后…第一季以类似单元剧的形式将他们想做的新闻初步铺陈，第二季整体进行了大选报道和fake news平行叙述的设置（是我较不喜欢的一季），第三季对保护线人原则的坚持，和舀水进水速度的博弈，对故事发展的揭示，有归宿的结局。

一切都是我心中的期冀。

这部剧缺点有多明显，优点就有多吸引人，虽说如此理想主义的一群人实在难以真实存在，但至少编织出了一个梦，而我选择在这里相信一下，憧憬一下。

永远难忘开头Will的那段话有多惊艳。

Will解开了心结，和他注定性心中最特别的Mac有了未来。

Don和Solan也是令人喜爱的一对，虽然我一直不喜欢但Mag和Jim也终于修成正果。

一切都很美好。

That's how I Got to Memphis成为了我歌单里拥有独特记忆的一曲。

And Charlie, we always miss you.

又一部我爱的剧完结了，这是为什么！！！

杯子接好水，放好电脑，郑重其事的和这个剧告个别，结果... 最后一集从头哭到尾。

第三季是真的用来告别的，亚特兰蒂斯这个理想主义中的新闻编辑室也遇上了现实，收视率下降，公司易主，原来被新闻中心的人称为“asshole”的老板和新boss一比，简直友善到不行。

说到告别的最后一集，与第一季的三年前的第一集首尾呼应，也算是对第一集的补充，好多回忆涌上来， 原来唐吉柯德不是Mac 不是 Will ，而是查理给每个人的一个新闻人的信念。

虽然我更希望他们最后一集能用一个震撼的新闻报道来纪念查理，给新的Boss当头一棒，然后所有人含泪挥手谢幕。

但是这也就只能自己想想，而编剧给的结尾时让大家有更多的时间怀念查理，怀念这部剧，让编剧有足够的时间去好好安排每个人的结局，纠结三季的Jim和Maggie终于在一起，Nel 默默的回来，轻松夺回ACN online ，跟新的网站开发者说14年的电影回顾根本配不上“史上”这个词，他们搞砸了他的网站。

Don还是决定留在10点档，Mac接替查理的职位，所有人仿佛都找到了自己的归宿，她们每个人心理都保留着一份教化众生的执念。

虽然这种理想化的执念只能存在于这部剧里面。

Wil跟Mac说:"你有一艘航行的船，船上有个洞，你不可能拥有一艘新船，那么你能做的就是把船里的水舀出去速度快于船舱进水的速度。

"不过我们经常做的决定是怎么看船洞都不顺眼，然后弃船，漂浮在海上。

可能会淹死，也可能找到新的船，也可能在有了新船后发现同样的问题甚至更糟的时候，又回头想起那艘有破洞的船，只可惜这时船舱进水太多，只会和你相互遥望着，一起沉入海底。

希望所有人都不要到一起沉船的地步。

最后，再见，查理；晚安 ACN。

Sorkin did his research for the series by observing several real-world cable news programs first-hand. But the soul is coming from Aaron Sorkin himself.电影的真核来自Sorkin，全部25集里，19集的编剧是Sorkin独立完成；整整3季的作品，不超过10位编剧，这也难怪The Newsroom是编剧最省的剧集之一。

以Sorkin的原话说：I'm not interested in just producing. All I want to do is write...I'm writing about all kinds of things I don't know anything about. So they do research for me.Sorkin的烙印如此强烈，以至于每一个人物都是语不惊人死不休的选手，以至于大部分人物的语速已经快到“绕口令”的境界。

从第一集开始，我们就见识到了两个人同时高速说话的凌厉感。

这么能写的Sorkin，真的让演员们吃了不少苦头。

在信息碎片化的年代，在多数人沉默的年代，在全民聒噪的年代，理想主义者存活的空间太窄了：没有人再愿意安静地坐下来好好品味一份报纸、一条广播或一则新闻，信息的传递从mass media逐渐转移到了每个人的手上，无论是Facebook，twitter还是微信，随手发、随手读、随手评，代表的是更高的参与度和现场快感。

正如第三季所展示的，当twitter的热词出现的时候，新闻就需要跟进，新闻编辑们所能做的，永远比流行要慢一拍。

从新闻的现状来看，报业受到的冲击最大，在线阅读逐渐取代了纸质阅读，当然任何一条新闻都是通过Google news跟进到最新的现在版本，时效性逐渐增强，随之而来的就是碎片化：信息的加工，曾经是编辑们最体现活儿的时候，现在这一切好像都要交给观众自己去评判；信息的获取，曾经是记者的工作，但是随着智能手机的普及，越来越多的事件被旁观者捕捉，以至于当记者匆匆出动之后，获取的信息甚至还不如一位分享视频到YouTube的路人；信息的反馈，曾经是anchor的工作，越是资深的anchor越让人尊敬，而现在每个人都可以成为新闻的主角，播音主持的工作看起来已经不再重要了。

难道这一切就这样，都结束了？

The Newsroom的主题，渗透着Sorkin对现实的思考，对现状的反思，以及对社会的“教化”——正如Will McAvoy遇到Mac之后被激励得那样。

任何时候，一条“好”新闻依然有存在的市场，碎片的故事依然需要有人去解读，人心——最重要的人心，依然需要去安抚、去鼓励，最重要的，去“感化”。

从第一季开篇在Northwestern University的演讲，第一次报道Deepwater Horizon石油泄漏开始，我们看到了一个不同于以往的新闻节目；人还是那个人，但是整个节目所反映的主题更加犀利，对真实现实世界的关注，对事件和人物的“吐槽”，以及不放弃任何一次试图“教化”的机会。

Sorkin几乎是借着McAvoy的嘴，把他对世界的理解和看法，从上到下晒了个遍。

在一个Don Quixote式的人物主导下的新闻部，几乎所有人都被这种风格所吸引，所有人都在实践着当年那个被嘲笑的骑士所做的事情：改变整个新闻界，教化众生。

这样的工作，永远都是理想主义者的专利。

对于任何一个哪怕略带现实的人而言，这样做的结果基本就是骑着战马去对抗风车。

他们当然不会喜欢这部剧，因为剧中的大部分人物的思维方式，都体现着Sorkin的味道，都是“理想主义”式的。

他们试图在任何一个场合，不放过任何一个教化他人的机会；他们尝试了各种各样的方式，甚至不惜逃亡、入狱去捍卫自己的信念。

有的时候，当戏剧化效果太强的时候，观众都不免有些难堪，——但是Sorkin有意为之，虽然这样做会有争议，但总好过四平八稳地写故事。

现实一遍又一遍冲刷着暗礁，一艘破船摇摇晃晃地在海上漂流，远处的灯塔却依然明亮，而那就是希望。

Why America is the greatest country in the world?We sure used to be. We stood up for what was right. We fought for moral reasons, we passed laws, struck down laws for moral reasons. We waged wars on poverty, not poor people. We sacrificed, we cared about our neighbors, we put our money where our mouths were, and we never beat our chest. We built great big things, made ungodly technological advances, explored the universe, cured diseases, and we cultivated the world's greatest artists and the world's greatest economy. We reached for the stars, acted like men. We aspired to intelligence; we didn't belittle it; it didn't make us feel inferior. We didn't identify ourselves by who we voted for in the last election, and we didn't scare so easy. We were able to be all these things and do all these things because we were informed. By great men, men who were revered.

“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.

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。

终章，谢谢你们 。

谢谢Will。

谢谢你为保全Neil牺牲自己，谢谢你在Charlie葬礼上安抚他的小外孙，谢谢你放弃ACN收视第二的荣膺甘心忍受观众的离弃和普鲁特的刁难，谢谢你挺过来。

谢谢Mac。

谢谢你唤醒Will，谢谢你愿意嫁给一个11分钟之后就要进入监狱的囚犯，谢谢你一直和莉欧娜和莱斯打架，谢谢你只想做一个小时的民生新闻。

谢谢Don。

谢谢你即使被降职也把晚间十点档做的有声有色，谢谢你宁肯晚播报也不愿泄露未确认的消息，谢谢你包容Maggie欣赏Sloan的每一分钟。

谢谢Jim。

谢谢你作为副手从未让Mac失望，谢谢你宁肯分手也不愿违背自己的新闻理想，谢谢你明白自己所爱。

谢谢Maggie。

谢谢你一如既往的勇气和对新闻事业的热情，谢谢你一直明白自己追求的事业是什么，谢谢你教会我爱。

谢谢Sloan。

谢谢你一直清醒又果断 ，谢谢你对专业的坚持和完美认知，谢谢你无谓又洒脱 谢谢你教会我什么才是一个新时代女性。

谢谢Niel。

谢谢你宁肯请罪也不愿透露线人的名字，谢谢你一直保持高度的好奇心，谢谢你为网络道德所坚持的一分一毫。

最后，谢谢我可爱幽默总是想拿威士忌擦枪口的白头发老头Charlie。

妈的，敲下这行字竟忍不住想哭。

“Charlie Skinner 很疯狂，像骑士一样行动，不想让世界变得粗鲁无礼，他有正直的宗教信仰 ，他一辈子都与敌人斗争，很遗憾，他不能来此，想我一样，得知他继承者的名字……you were a great ,big man. ”这个小老头啊，先是给了Mac一本堂吉诃德 ，把Will踢下了收视第二的宝座，组建了一个总是让母公司头疼不已的The newsroom，总是喝太多的威士忌 死前最后一分钟还在和别人正常。

但他其实是最具有骑士精神的人。

Yeah,he is a big man。

你在天堂看什么呢无非是Will和Mac的小宝宝，Dong和Sloan终于见了双方父母 ，Jim和Maggie一周一次的见面，Neil终于成功的一次提案……这群为了理想负重前行磕磕绊绊的人。

谢谢编剧，终是给我一个尚存希望的结局。

see you,I promise.