Four weeks into Aaron Sorkin’s Newsroom and still it is getting flack for being what it isn’t: partisan and staunchly liberal; instead, it simply continues reflecting upon the history of the not-so-distant past that simply happened to be mainly conservative driven stories. That’s the interesting part of the show in that it takes place in 2010 and has the fortunate ability to reflect upon the troubles America is currently facing because of what happened in the previous administration before Obama truly took over.

Yes, it seems liberal, but that’s because it’s dealing with the problems this country had the last couple years. If the show was taking place and written in 2000 or prior, then there would be focus on the problems that faced the Clinton administration and how people and the media dissected those stories at the time. (Who wouldn’t want to watch Bill get his, *ahem, come-upins over the Lewinski situation?)

That’s why we all should be supremely excited that HBO already picked up season two of Newsroom since it’s more than likely going take a season or two until they catch up to the current troubles happening in 2012. Only then can they start dealing with all the crap that Obama’s administration is guilty of, such as botching the healthcare bill, selling guns to Mexican drug lords, and the way they dragged their feet in regards to the military’s Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy, for example.

It’s unfair to call Newsroom liberal when really all it’s done so far is re-examine facts; if you’re focused on what you perceive as liberalism, then you’re missing the point entirely. Rather what viewers should be focused on is watching this show with an open mind in regards to how it is redistributing the facts that were given to us when these events originally occurred two years ago. Yes, episode three was an indictment of the Tea Party, but that’s because, even as they were getting elected, people knew that something perverse was happening.

Week three’s episode, “The 112th Congress,” was purely a montage of shit that people were told to believe merely because there was a backlash to the backlash of the Bush administration – yes, after eight entire years of turmoil the population told the congress that they were ready for change, and after two more years of no movement, the people spoke again. But that doesn’t discredit the show from still going about its business in a productive way sincere to its original point espoused by the effervescent Mackenzie MacHale (Emily Mortimer): “We’re going to do a good news show and make it popular at the same time.” She asserts that this will be done by presenting the facts within the context of the story and not muddied by commentary.

However, that lack of commentary perceived as aggressive commentary is what might bring down the show both on screen and off.

It only took the show three episodes to get to the true bad guy of this polarizing environment that we live in: corporate greed and money that drives opinion. Sam Waterston’s character, the unflappable Television News executive Charlie Skinner, is in a Dr. Strangelove-type war room trying to defend that this news show has only been going after the facts without any attempt to color or sway public opinion to the president of the cable company, to which she asked him in no uncertain terms, “do you want to golf or do you want to fuck around?” This was done in hopes to emphasize the severity of the situation facing the company: the people the show goes after are the same people that bankroll the station.

I grant you that seems like an obvious attempt to sway opinion – but that’s actually a natural consequence of overwhelming facts.

At this point in 2010 the major culprit, again, is the Tea Party and their triumphant congressional takeover by pitting themselves further right than traditional conservatives. They were the story. And while it may seem like a cheap shot at conservatives, it’s worth belaboring the point that it takes place in the past when we know the future; we also have the knowledge that they have subsequently screwed up Congress by coming in with a decree not far from, “I will not let change happen,” especially if it’s a democratic change. That’s certain to come off as staunch liberalism.

But it’s not.

It’s simply that in this instance those people were wrong and we should have known it at the time based on the principles they ran on. Believe me, we’re getting to when and how the Democrats messed their pants on multiple, sometimes consecutive occasions.

Yet, that’s the problem with our culture that makes this show, and this episode specifically, improperly deemed too liberal when in actuality what it should’ve been is a focus on how each corporation runs every news network and the handcuffing that comes with that.

Phillip Baker Hall (fresh off of his death as crusty next-door neighbor Walt in Modern Family), plays Bryce Delaney, a fictional representation of the old-guard Republican party being shoved out by this type of radicalism, and laments that there used to be a time when Republican and Democratic members elected would actually reach across the aisle to help one another on issues that needed bipartisanship because it was unfathomable not to have it. Of course there are always moments where people wont agree and that’s why our government has a checks and balances system in place, but the focus on “winning” is killing our country’s actual chances to win.

Baker Hall’s character seems an amalgam of interviews from former congressmen that have reflected on a time where drinks were had after congress was let out, and cheer was shared between parties because they realized that they were individuals and not simply members of an opposition. I’m sure the truth lies somewhere in the middle, but I think it also leans to one side more than the other; how can you expect to deal with someone if you’re not willing to acknowledge their humanity?

However you slice that aspect of it, Newsroom has continued to do what it promised to so far through three episodes: present the facts and let people use those to help create their opinion. The problem is that those opinions are already formed because it’s not actually news, it’s history.

Plus, when the facts obviously glare on one side, the truth seems enhanced as well, and people are more used to coloring their view as opposed to be blinded by them.