Alex Pareene’s take down of Aaron Sorkin seems unnecessarily harsh. I’ve watched the first three episodes of The Newsroom and I don’t think it is awful. However, Pareene did a service by explaining to me exactly why I could never embrace The West Wing. I honestly didn’t know.

[Sorkin] has a limited bag of tricks. Even his sparkling banter is one-note. His characters always say exactly, precisely what they mean, at all times. There’s no subtext, no irony, nothing ever left unspoken in his dialogue. His characters don’t even get to be sarcastic without someone asking them if they’re being sarcastic. Everyone alternates between speechifying, quipping and dumbly setting up other people’s quips. It’s exhausting.

It’s good as brain candy. But people don’t act that way. In the halls of power there is much flattery and subterfuge and lying and brown-nosing and denial and manipulation.

Even in politics and campaigning, there are hidden messages and focus group-approved language. In statescraft and diplomacy there are subtle messages of support and opposition to foreign leaders and entities.

Part of understanding Washington DC involves hearing what people mean rather than what they say. This is one reason I’ve often butted heads with supporters of George Lakoff who focus too much on what politicians say and tend to get upset if those politicians go outside approved frames. Too much literalism can make you deaf.

For example, when Barack Obama told an editorial board that Ronald Reagan was a transformational president he wasn’t praising Reagan. He was digging at Bill Clinton and, by extension, his wife.

In any case, The West Wing‘s characters weren’t complex enough. One result was that they came off as preachy and sanctimonious. The Newsroom suffers from the exact same problem.