Seems I'm not the demographic for this....
I'm not a politically-driven individual. Not big on the "us v them" mentality. This show is full of pointless, uninteresting, storylines related to fictitious political candidates - candidates that are so far from being based in reality they are laughable. And THAT is saying quite a bit with today's pool of political figures.
I've seen the first three episodes and, quite honestly, I've found NOTHING compelling or even that interesting.. other than just how far they'll go to "man-bash" or make it seem as if all men are a problem. Certainly EVERY man can't be a misogynistic a-hole... I mean EVERY man??? Come on. Some portrayals of "bad men" are less obvious and fall more into the "mansplaining" type... but still.. every man???
It really lost me when a news editor claims their reporting has been "too UNBIASED" and they need "more opinion-based reporting". Really? You mean unbiased reporting exists in 2024? Because I sure can't find any - especially where political matters are concerned.
After 3 episodes I honestly couldn't tell anyone what the actual "story" or overall plot is here. It's just female reporters dealing with their job and all the "problematic" men.
This is so far from reality and so women-centric that it looses any creditability in my eyes. Female leads, or a primarily female cast is great.. generally love Gugino's work and Benoist has had some shining moments in some past work... the problem is in the writing. Writing seems to focus on "down the patriarchy".. not on what the women are actually supposed to be doing.. you know.. their jobs... as in WHY they are "on the bus".
To me, it's like a show about river rafting.. and rather than focusing on the river and the thrill of rafting.... every episode focuses on each and every boulder in the river.. and there's no such thing as a favorable boulder.
.. just not for me I guess.
I'm not a politically-driven individual. Not big on the "us v them" mentality. This show is full of pointless, uninteresting, storylines related to fictitious political candidates - candidates that are so far from being based in reality they are laughable. And THAT is saying quite a bit with today's pool of political figures.
I've seen the first three episodes and, quite honestly, I've found NOTHING compelling or even that interesting.. other than just how far they'll go to "man-bash" or make it seem as if all men are a problem. Certainly EVERY man can't be a misogynistic a-hole... I mean EVERY man??? Come on. Some portrayals of "bad men" are less obvious and fall more into the "mansplaining" type... but still.. every man???
It really lost me when a news editor claims their reporting has been "too UNBIASED" and they need "more opinion-based reporting". Really? You mean unbiased reporting exists in 2024? Because I sure can't find any - especially where political matters are concerned.
After 3 episodes I honestly couldn't tell anyone what the actual "story" or overall plot is here. It's just female reporters dealing with their job and all the "problematic" men.
This is so far from reality and so women-centric that it looses any creditability in my eyes. Female leads, or a primarily female cast is great.. generally love Gugino's work and Benoist has had some shining moments in some past work... the problem is in the writing. Writing seems to focus on "down the patriarchy".. not on what the women are actually supposed to be doing.. you know.. their jobs... as in WHY they are "on the bus".
To me, it's like a show about river rafting.. and rather than focusing on the river and the thrill of rafting.... every episode focuses on each and every boulder in the river.. and there's no such thing as a favorable boulder.
.. just not for me I guess.