'The Newsroom' series finale sad, but fitting

Sunday night, the HBO series "The Newsroom," aired its final episode. This ending was paradoxical for me. On the one hand, I was disappointed that such an interesting show was concluding, but at the same time realizing that the premise and content of the creators and writers, had effectively completed their mission.

My purpose in writing this epitaph seeks to provide more than a simple commemoration. My first goal is to review with other fans the many thought provoking scenes we enjoyed over the past three years.

I also would like to give an incentive to those of you who have never seen the show, or who have only watched a few of the installments, to watch reruns, which will be airing in the future.

Finally, I want to look at the basic premise of the show, and the many important topics, ideas, and questions it raised. We live in a fast-paced and changing world, that is for many confusing and very scary. The writers presented us with many of the perplexities that modern day life presents to all of us.

"The Newsroom" only had 25 episodes during its three-year tenure, and yet I am certain these thought provoking scenes will stand the test of time, and many years in the future, give insights to what our world was like during this period.

In the final scenes of the show, the lead character, the news anchor of a mythical cable news show portrayed by Jeff Daniels, recites a critical line. In a eulogy for his fallen friend and the news network president Charlie Skinner, played by Sam Waterston, he states the following paraphrased conclusion: reporting is a messy business, we just try to do the best we can. It's like being in a boat with a hole in the side. You never get it completely right, you just keep bailing, so you can stay afloat.

The show dealt with a variety of topics during its run. The first dealt with accuracy. Journalism has far reaching effects on society. When you hear the news, most people have a reasonable expectation, that they are being told stories and evidence, that are truthful.

There is the crux of the problem in a nutshell. We have a word that is very much in vogue today, "vetting." The definition in my dictionary for this term is: "to appraise, verify, or check for accuracy, authenticity, and validity.

For years the news media, be it print, radio, or television, put great stock in the vetting process. Even though they were in competition to beat the other news rivals, their standard ethical practice was to have multiple sources, and evidence, before presenting any news story.

All that has changed in today's world. Now we have different types of news programs, and they have vastly different missions. There are both liberal and conservative news shows. Each presents its version of a story in an almost propagandist style.

They do this because news has become big business. For decades radio and television news shows were considered part of both a trust, and a responsibility, for the general public. News shows did not make money, and were supported by the other network offerings.

Today, these enormous 24-hour-a-day news channels have become huge cash cows for the networks. They are more interested in ratings than content. What they air, and how many people watch it, is the basis for their ability to attract advertising.

Technology was also a theme tackled by the writers. The cyber digital world is new, fast, and for the most part uncontrolled. A few months ago I wrote about the texts that people send on their phone, and how they live forever in a cyber "Cloud."

As a kid, I was raised in a home where we had a family dinner that usually coincided with the 5:30 network news, followed by the 6 p.m. local channel news. In that same era, most families had subscriptions for at least one daily newspaper.

The current younger generation rarely, if ever, receives their information from these same venues. They are embedded into cyber sites such as Facebook, Snapchat, Twitter, YouTube, and a host of other online social media sites. About the last thing they think about is buying a newspaper, or turning on the television news.

These new delivery sites have a problems that none of us in the past ever had to face. First they are instantaneous. Once something enters the cyberworld, it is transmitted to millions immediately. While this seems to be a wondrous new invention, it does not allow for simple vetting.

Any story, video, or statement, can be put online, and there is no one to hold the presenter to any standards. All of our long time news venues have for years been held to standards by agencies like the Federal Communications Commission. Newspapers are legally liable in court for falsehoods and slander.

There is nothing in this new medium to control or challenge offerings. The term retraction is a common one in the more standardized news media world. If you present something that is proved wrong, you are obligated to correct your facts.

These were just a couple of the topics that "The Newsroom" confronted in their shows. As I said, I am sad that the series has concluded, but in a way I am also pleased. Pleased that it did not become a long running series, that was challenged to have certain content, just to ensure ratings success.

If you haven't seen this show please take some time to try and watch some of the reruns. They are thought provoking and worth your time. I would hope that some of the younger generation would be able to see this story, but sadly it's in a newspaper, not "out there" in the cyberworld.