Understanding some of the criticism, I still felt that those who may have taken the show to have been trying to rewrite real event's reported "incorrectly" must have just seen where they may have had missed steps. Reporting these historical moments in hindsight I'm sure could leave you feeling as though you could have said more or even said less. Focused on more important topics. Or maybe even missed your mark. I think we all in those times look back and feel there was more we could have done or more important things we could have focused on.

My opinion is that the critics took this too personal. It was a great depiction of how news comes together in an interesting digestible bite. It created context and facts. It delivered amazing deep characters that all held meaningful contribution to what could be a pretty mundane plot.

Make no mistake. News is not always interesting. Nor is it always entertaining. This show has some of the best dialog and individual character interaction and character development ive seen in any show. Id put the writing up there with any thing I've seen ever. I'm only upset that we lost a huge part of the show that if it ever was to make it's way back to screen, those who hadn't seen is original form would lose an anchor in this show, that would not be the same without him. Still the show could continue. This show could have several spin offs. I would watch them all. It's smart. And quick. And developed. It itself is thoughtful and and makes you think. It made me interested understanding what news is and what differentiates news and entertainment. News purpose. Not in reliving it's timeline, but understanding what it takes to do the news well. (See what i did there?) I didn't come away with criticism of how the news was reported in those times, but respect of the "how" it comes together.

Oh. And the opening scene was a masterpiece.