Culture ‘The Office’ reboot is about a dying newspaper. I’m not laughing. - Journo seething at their demise

1715360789937.png

A couple of weeks ago, I had a conversation with author and heir to a local journalism dynasty, Emily Barth Isler. One of the most striking points she made was how she didn’t have to convince her father, former WMAR newscaster Andy Barth, that writing was not just a hobby, and could be more than “artsy and scary and not dependable.”

I concur. You have no idea how many times in the past 30-plus years I’ve had to explain that what I do isn’t some sort of whim to fill the space until I get a good government job or a master’s degree. When I wrote my first book, a well-meaning Facebook friend told me that it didn’t matter if it sold because at least I’d finished it, and I was like, “No, this is work for me. I trained for this. I’m trying to get a check, ma’am.”

I went into journalism partially because it combines two of my favorite things: words and a paycheck. It’s not traditionally a big check, but it pays the bills (hopefully) and cements that reporting is a real profession requiring some training and expertise. So can you imagine my amusement when I heard that the upcoming Peacock reboot of NBC’s hit sitcom “The Office” takes place at a “dying historic Midwestern newspaper” that hires “volunteer reporters” to keep it going?

Trick question! You can’t imagine it because I was not amused.

There’s nothing funny about the sad decline of news — the thing I love — not only as a business now often run by hedge funds and hacks, but as a trusted source in the wake of disinformation and direct attacks from those who also wish to destroy democracy and the free flow of news. As NPR television critic Eric Deggens noted on X, “Journalists, prep yourself … Considering the first U.S. version [of ‘The Office’] was set at a soulless paper company in Scranton, this hurts a bit.”

Look, I know the newspaper setting might seem like a timely update of what made the original a hit: the droll observation of the everyday banalities of work culture, like bad bosses, weird grudges and messy romances. I imagine that the purpose of the Midwestern setting — like putting the Dunder Mifflin Paper Company in a former Pennsylvania coal town — is to focus, and sometimes mock, what seems a lackluster existence in flyover country.


I’m sure if the creators follow that pattern, this newspaper will be populated with wacky characters whose enthusiasm about being involved in the dissemination of news is fed by all sorts of motives. Curiosity. Boredom. Targeted chaos. Chaos is certainly an ingredient for some forms of humor.

But at the center of this concept is a disregard for the thing that good journalism requires: money to keep it going. It’s not just funds to keep the lights on and pay for the internet or the newsprint, if we’re indeed talking about a print product. It’s salaries for the people doing the work, because good journalists cannot work for free.

The joke, obviously, is that the people this paper can get for free are not going to be good. They will be green, or desperate, or driven by some other motive. That might be hilarious as a concept to the layman, perhaps, but if you think at all about what journalism is, what it’s supposed to do, it’s a horror movie.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, I know some of you are in the “If you do what love you’ll never work a day in your life” camp, and I am here to tell you that is stupid. You may enjoy your job, whatever it is. It might be your calling, your ministry, your reason to exist on this earth. But make no mistake: it is work. It is time away from your family, pleasures and sleep. It’s energy and effort and leaving your bed and putting on shoes. It’s a push to get things done, to meet expectations, to maintain your reputation. To be taken seriously.

This is serious.

Unlike Michael and Dwight, we aren’t selling paper, another old-timey thing you might think is funny and antiquated because who needs it now? But the decline of those companies represents the death of a way of life for families and whole communities. I’m not saying this is always a bad thing. If the Confederate flag business went away right now, I’m not gonna cry about it. Some things need to die.

Journalism is not one of them.

Here is what I am afraid of: This show becomes one of those “Bad News Bears” scenarios where a ragtag group of nobodies Mighty Ducks their way into an industry where they have no knowledge or skill but a lot of passion, and wind up showing those big-city yahoos that they don’t need all that expertise! All they need is heart! They don’t even need money!

Bunk. Hooey. Bad and angry words I can’t include in this column.

There is a “newspaper in danger” storyline on the charming ABC sitcom “Not Dead Yet,” in which Gina Rodriguez’s obituary writer character finds herself fighting for her job as the billionaire owner considers selling her publication for parts. It makes a real heartfelt case for why skilled reporters matter and why what they do is important, even in this economic reality. It’s funny because it takes what they do ― what I do — seriously.

I will no doubt be watching the new “The Office,” even though I hate the premise. I admittedly never liked the first version because I found it too mean-spirited and thought Jim and Pam were smug idiots who bonded over thinking they were better than everyone else. (Yes, I said it.)

I will be curious if the show can get over itself and its presumed wackiness enough to consider that there is something real at stake here. It’s not just “that’s what she said” jokes. It’s a democracy’s ability to stand with a record of what is important.

That’s what I said.

https://www.thebaltimorebanner.com/...eacock-journalism-4VSWNCADRRHBZAY3MBG6HY43L4/ (Archive)
 
That's (among othet things) where you're wrong journoscum.
I do respect journalists who go to places and do things. Like if you're covering the Ukraine/Russian war, then I'll give you props if you're right there watching shit go down in real life and talk about happened, rather than regurgitate press releases out of Zelensky's cabinet.
 
As NPR television critic Eric Deggens noted on X, “Journalists, prep yourself … Considering the first U.S. version [of ‘The Office’] was set at a soulless paper company in Scranton, this hurts a bit.”
Dunder-Mifflin and Sabre were not soulless companies, journoscum are in perpetual mystification as to why people hate them when they smugly say shit like this that is completely wrong either because of ignorance or mendacity
Jenna Fischer is not attractive enough to be a Hollywood actress on a big TV show, I'm sorry.

Whew. Feels good to say that out loud.
You take that back right now

I mean yeah now she isn't 20 years later

But still you take that back, RAT. In her 20s Pam I'd make squirt like your mom last night, DAMN THAT PUSSY NICE!!
 
Last edited:
Streaming services are pumping out slop every day of the week and don’t understand why people just keep watching 20+ year old shows instead. This feels like an attempt to capture that audience with something new that feels old without actually understanding what has driven those customers away from new content. No, we don’t just want another reboot of The Office, that makes as much sense as a Seinfeld reboot.

Make new shit that holds up in quality in comparison with older media and maybe people will like it. Nobody wants joyless vehicles for Current Year propaganda, not even if you use TV show necromancy to disguise it as something else.
 
They won't get this right. Watching coastal elites pretend to understand the problems of these small town places is always offensive.

I have very good memories of places like this from a long, long time ago. But it's been 20+ years since they fired all the locals with knowledge of their area and replaced them with Medill and Mizzou grads.

This will probably become a whole thing, though. Now they can fire the Medill and Mizzou grads and replace them with locals who "volunteer" at a for-profit publication in the exact way prohibited by US labor laws. Why not? Nothing matters anyway!
 
What interests me is the original office was suburb bait. It was a situation comedy with a mostly white mostly conventionally attractive cast that reveled in politically incorrect humor, often at the expense of women and minorities.

These kinds of shows were everywhere in the early 2000's but you can't really make them now. So what's this show going to be? It can't really emulate the original at least not closely.
 
I love print and physical media. I also appreciate actual journalism.

This article, is not journalism and completely misses the point.

Physical media is going the way of the dodo. The journalism field is rife with folks who don't do any sort of work, have delusional aspirations, and have been churned out of journalism schools/programs that don't set them up particularly well.

They've also been supplanted by 'influencers' and other forms of media. A newspaper is the perfect setting, and the follies and issues that come with it is exactly what an Office reboot 'should' have.

The problems, though, is:

1) the Wire said pretty much everything that needed to be said on modern journalism like 20 fucking years ago,
2) the type of comedy that worked for the original Office won't fly at all in Current Year, an Office 'reboot' is a terrible idea, and
3)which fucking market are they targeting? Zoomers and other younger generations don't give a shit about newspapers (or TV, really) and a lot of the jokes will fly over their head. Millenials and older might get the jokes, but it's going to be held up against the original Office and will almost assuredly not fare very well.

It's DOA. A better reboot or whatever of the Office would've been something like a dated social media company trying to compete with things like Twitch or TikTok. (But that'll probably run afoul of typical network attempts to seem 'hip' and 'with it' and just come off as totally out of touch.)

Also, this journalist is a retard, not realizing that the humour/jokes come from the format and not mocking journalists (who absolutely deserve to be mocked and ridiculed.)
 
I will no doubt be watching the new “The Office,” even though I hate the premise.
"This makes me very angry but I won't do the one thing that actually matters to voice displeasure with it."

This isn't like TV where there's a select few that determine ratings, it's streaming so I'm pretty sure it's just pure viewership which peacock tracks directly that keeps or cancels a show...
 
"This makes me very angry but I won't do the one thing that actually matters to voice displeasure with it."

This isn't like TV where there's a select few that determine ratings, it's streaming so I'm pretty sure it's just pure viewership which peacock tracks directly that keeps or cancels a show...
These are the kinds of people who think that if you're not eating the latest TVslop you're not part of "the conversation". It's the same reason why there's a billion video essays about cartoons and sitcoms by lefties on YouTube. They are slaves pretending at any kind of freedom
 
What interests me is the original office was suburb bait. It was a situation comedy with a mostly white mostly conventionally attractive cast that reveled in politically incorrect humor, often at the expense of women and minorities.

These kinds of shows were everywhere in the early 2000's but you can't really make them now. So what's this show going to be? It can't really emulate the original at least not closely.
This is one of the biggest drivers for rebooting this show. They need to correct the record by shitting all over something that white people like. Many woke reboots of shows and movies that crashed and burned but all that matters is that the reboot is considered the correct version of the show. It doesn’t work but not for a lack of trying on their part.
 
Back