An Investigation: Could The Newsroom Have Saved the 2016 Election?

Remember that video you probably saw shared on Facebook where some impassioned guy explains his thesis of why America isn't the greatest country in the world?

Those few minutes are the opening scene of the HBO series, The Newsroom. I would imagine half of you reading this are aware of this fact, but I would wager an exceptionally smaller percentage of you have watched the show. I joined the man delivering that monologue, Will McAvoy (played by Jeff Daniels), on his self-proclaimed mission to civilize this summer and knocked out all three seasons in two weeks. 

However, the point of this isn't to make a case for why you should watch the show. The point of this isn't to endorse a candidate, either. As I previously explained, #ImWithLin. Also, I'm not Tomi Lahren so obviously nobody would care about my opinion anyways. 

Rather, I want to draw attention to another critical scene, especially in light of the presidential election that has consumed every fiber of our society. Before proceeding, spend three minutes watching McAvoy lay out a primary debate proposal for ACN, his employer and a fictional news syndicate. The show's revisionist history format aired this episode after the unfolding of the 2012 Republican nomination process. This same formula of talking about previous and real events was used for much of the show's material and subsequent commentary.

Now, before I go any further, I realize the irony of suggesting a fictional television show could have saved the Republican Party from a reality television star, let alone the practicality of this sort of event being implemented. Neither political party would be thrilled about having their candidates essentially taking the stand with no defense counsel, and network executives would be concerned about potential backlash and protests from hardcore allegiances.

I also realize Donald Trump ended up winning the Republican nomination by a resounding margin. The Trump Train annihilated every politician in its path. While a definitely rabid group of conservatives flocked to the real estate mogul, many others begrudgingly waved the white flag and hopped on board for the sake of party unity or were terrified at the nomination of the literal antithesis to what Republicans identified as necessary characteristics to stand a chance at winning a general election following Mitt Romney's defeat in 2012. In those primaries, Trump's support ranged from about 35-40%. Due to one soundbite after another, support seemed to stagnate at that figure indicating little to no chance for Republicans to take back the White House. 

But imagine for a moment if instead of allowing discussions about anatomy and conspiracy theories to take up precious time during the primary debates, a disciplined moderator forced Donald Trump and the other dozen plus GOP candidates to obey his or her rules and answer the questions to produce a much needed vetting process. Ridiculous, unsubstantiated claims would have been thrown out, not praised. Coming up with nicknames for opponents would be labeled as sophomoric and desperate, not a groundbreaking way of calling it as it is. Attempts to attack the debate hosts and hijack the agenda would have been quelled, not encouraged for entertainment purposes. 

Sure, the veteran television character in Trump might have still been successful in turning the debates into spin offs of The Apprentice, but I'm sure now many conservatives wish a fight had been put up to preserve some dignity. Now it looks like the Republicans handed Hillary Clinton the Oval Office on a silver platter.

The possible effects had the Republicans embraced this philosophy? Maybe the third presidential debate this week would have time dedicated to the ramifications of insurers leaving the marketplace for Obamacare instead of who is "most fit" to be president. Maybe there would be a question about the candidate's plans to build on the joint operation in Mossul instead of determining whether a growing number of claims of sexual harassment are true. Maybe after the preceding town hall, we would have woken up the next morning inspired by a candidate's policy proposal and succinct plan to actually Make America Great Again instead of being obsessed with some guy named Ken Bone and instinctively purchase a red sweater.

Most importantly, maybe this upcoming debate would serve as an opportunity for a stellar performance by a Republican candidate that comes to foreshadow a victory against an unpopular, scandal riddled Democratic candidate. Instead, there's seemingly nothing in the immediate future of the GOP besides an opportunity for a final nail in the coffin for an even more unpopular, scandal riddled Republican candidate against the opposition.

In an election with massive implications for the economy, Supreme Court, and wall enthusiasts, shouldn't winning said election be the main, if not the only, goal in mind for a political party when presenting options for its nominee? It appears Republicans somehow arrived at a severe and fatal miscalculation that equaled nothing but fodder for John Oliver and Seth Meyers. If only some leaders within the GOP decided to watch The Newsroom instead of making several trips to Westeros things could have been different...

J. Nave