Last night's episode of Studio 60 wasn't bad, now that I've had an overnight to think about it; it had its cringe-worthy moments, and the traditional "Sorkinalogue" got in the way of the funny a few times. I still don't think Harriet and Matt have any chemistry. It had a lot of good moments, though, especially the "Jack and Jordan argue over a reality show" storyline.But what struck me was that the fictional Vanity Fair reporter, Martha O'Dell (who is apparently modeled after one of Sorkin's old girlfriends, New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd) was getting this interesting and probing information from the people on the show and she wasn't recording the interviews or even taking any notes.
This boggles my mind. I've recorded virtually every interview I've ever done, whether it was over the phone or in person. I do it because I want to make sure I quote someone accurately as well as have a record in case the subject claims he or she was misquoted. Most reporters I know either record or take copious notes for both of these reasons. Yes, there have been some reporters that never took notes in an effort to get their subjects to relax -- one commenter of Bob's review post mentioned Truman Capote -- but in today's litigious world, you need the backup of the notes and recordings. I wouldn't be surprised that even veterans like Bob Woodward record their interviews.
I can tell you from experience that the presence of my little digital recorder hasn't prevented people from opening up and giving me good material for my stories; people forget it's there after a while.So, was this an unrealistic portrayal of a reporter? Do you think Martha was just gathering background? Or did she have a photographic memory and furiously scribbled her notes after each interview (indications are that's what was the case... she was looking for a pen after talking to Harriet during Sting's rehearsal)? Let me know in the comments.
(Oh, and in a side-note: Doesn't Christine Lahti look fantastic? I'm ashamed to admit it, but she didn't make my "hottest over 50" list from earlier this year. I think it's because I just plain forgot about her. As of now, she'd come in at #1...)
The TV Squad Podcast: Vik Sahay of Chuck, Oprah talk, brutal timeslots, and more!
TV Squad Ten: Top Ten ESPN shows from worst to first
Andy Richter: The TV Squad Interview
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
10-17-2006 @ 2:54PM
Design said...
She did at one point freaked out and ASKED A LOBSTER FOR A PEN.
Reply
10-17-2006 @ 2:47PM
WILL said...
you are missing the point. She was not taking notes because no one was telling her anything she wanted to write about and then finally someone (harriet) did and she had to run to go find a pen (Nate Codry didn't have one in his lobster costume) The whole gag was centeral to her not taking notes.
Reply
10-17-2006 @ 2:58PM
Joel Keller said...
Uh, did the two of you (Will and Design) read the entire post? I mentioned that scene in there already.
Reply
10-17-2006 @ 3:18PM
epobirs said...
So, was Dowd a nutjob before she took up with Sorkin or as a result of the experience?
Reply
10-17-2006 @ 3:48PM
Captainmicahp said...
When she asked Harriet if Harriet thought she was a good reporter or not, my guess would have been bad. No notes, no recorder, perposterous
Reply
10-17-2006 @ 3:40PM
Abby said...
this is the first time i read this blog so let me know if im completely out of line
i got the impression that she was looking for a pen to get Sting to sign sumthing for her (autogragh ) she did freak out when she heard that Sting was playing in the building and stopped the interview w/ Harriet to go see him reherse
Reply
10-17-2006 @ 3:51PM
Mike said...
The most annoying thing to me about this (besides the fact that the scene in Harriet's dressing room went on seemingly for 25 minutes) is that Martha has to ask for a pen at all. She's a writer, she's on the job, but she doesn't carry anything to write with? I think this is meant as a cute quirk for her character, ala Amanda Peet's character not remembering anybody's name. Yuck.
Reply
10-17-2006 @ 4:36PM
simonp said...
it's tv land where one of the funniest and most successful sketch shows isn't particularly funny. dont' get me wrong, I like studio 60 as it fills my west wing void, but i'm starting to ween off of it.
I guess my guess is : In a land where people finish each others sentances, speak at 200+ words a minute (while finishing each other sentances) and are arguing eloquently 100% of the time... do you think reporters need notes? ;)
Reply
10-17-2006 @ 4:28PM
Ray said...
Wasn't there a scene where Matt asked Martha why she wasn't taking down any notes, and she responded that she didn't need to. Just to say that this issue was actually brought up in the show itself in order to dispell any such talk about it afterwards.
BTW, Martha did not want a pen to get Sting's autograph!?! She wanted to write down what Harriet said at the end. It was a good quote - something about turning out like her mother.
Reply
10-17-2006 @ 4:13PM
WILL said...
Joel, I get that you know she didn't have a Pen. My point is that she didn't need to write anything down because no one was telling her anything worth writing down, and when Harriet finally told her something worth while she was caught off guard.
yes it was a journalistic faux pas and that was the point ...a strong character become vulnerable.
Reply
10-17-2006 @ 5:32PM
Karen said...
Ray in #9 is correct. Martha was explicitly asked why she wasn't taking notes and she said she didn't need to. The implication being, I assume, that she had some sort of sponge-like retentive memory. But I agree with Joel: in today's litigious world, it's stupid not to have notes.
Speaking of Martha--she had a crust asking Harriet about her "old-fashioned" name. Because "Martha" is so up-to-the-minute.
On the topic of the show's comedy: The Nancy Grace sketch was not nearly as funny as it should have been, although the premise was good. The only sketch that I thought worked was the one they wanted to cut: Jenny doesn't have a baby.
Reply
10-17-2006 @ 6:15PM
Mike Schleifstein said...
actually some of the better reporters (read columnists) don't take notes, there are some stories of times picayune sports columnist Pete Finney down here in the new orleans... he is known to wander the locker room in the superdome asking players questions sans pen and paper and then quoting them word for word the next day in the paper... some reporters just have the knack i guess (or write about something where a little fudging doesn't matter)
i take notes too as does my father (the reporter) so this isn't industry wide...
Reply
10-17-2006 @ 5:39PM
Jim said...
"I wouldn't be surprised that even veterans like Bob Woodward record their interviews."
I wouldn't be surprised that he didn't. Most people who talk to Woodward probably don't want to be attributed anyway.
I understand your point, Joel, but I also think there is a distinction between "reporting" for a newspaper and "writing" for a magazine.
Reply
10-17-2006 @ 5:47PM
Rob Stevens said...
If you need a quote to make your story good, then it's not a good story.
Seriously, that's just about Journalism 101. You either have the story, or you don't. The quotes are what put the story over to top, and the memorable quotes are exactly that ... memorable.
Sorry Joel ... I know you mentioned it in the other story, but a good reporter just shouldn't need to take notes (they can always circle around and get the quotes later, but the quotes should NEVER be the focus).
And yes, I am a journalist. Or was, at one time, before the disenchantment set in.
"She did at one point freaked out and ASKED A LOBSTER FOR A PEN."
You guys must have all been distracted while watching the show. She asked for the pen so that she could get Sting's autograph.
Reply
10-17-2006 @ 6:02PM
Joel Keller said...
Rob, I really, truly hope you're not commenting on how I go about doing my job, since a) you don't know me and b) you don't know exactly what my methods are.
I agree with you that the quotes should add to the story, not make the story. But a reporter who doesn't take notes is taking too much of a chance, as far as I'm concerned. People are so eager to sue for libel these days, and the Jayson Blairs and Stephen Glasses of the world are putting the veracity of what a journalist writes under more scrutiny than ever before. Recordings and good note-taking are protections against that scrutiny.
Reply
10-17-2006 @ 6:12PM
Jim said...
"I really, truly hope you're not commenting on how I go about doing my job, since a) you don't know me and b) you don't know exactly what my methods are."
Then don't put your work up for public consumption.
Geez, you take yourself seriously enough to be a character on an Aaron Sorkin show.
Reply
10-17-2006 @ 9:26PM
David said...
Any thoughts on the fact that a Nancy Grace sketch was featured on SNL's Jaime Pressly episode Saturday before last? The not-so-subtle parallels continue to be made between the two shows/networks.
That said, I actually enjoyed this week's episode. I like the way the plot lines are progressing and the characters are strengthening. Martha O'Dell's journalistic integrity aside, the show kept me far more entertained than the week before.
Reply
10-18-2006 @ 11:48AM
Shleppy_g said...
I thought that the show was great, as I have thought of all of the series so far. I don't so much knit pick on every detail as much as I just really enjoy the show. Talking about details... in the scene in the bar was the waitress Sherilyn Fenn "Audrey Horn" from Twin Peaks? How I loved Twin Peaks...
Reply
10-18-2006 @ 5:56AM
Joe said...
Way to hit the nail on the head, guys. The whole problem with the show was the lack of a reporter carrying a pen. Until there are realistic pen/dictaphone-carrying reporters on Studio 60, I'm not watching. Good call.
Reply