spunky journalist holly hunter produces investigative news reports for a major news network. she a motor mouthed maverick and dazzlingly good at her job and with little time for romantic relationships. enter william hurt and albert brooks and two men who vie for her love. brooks is an old school journalist who adores holly because she represents everything good about journalism. they both believe that the media exists to test the gods and educate the public and fight for truth. children of the sixties and they embody hippie values. theyre defenders of the public good. knights who fight valiantly with pen and camera. william hurt and in contrast and is a far more complex character. initially awkward and clumsy and self depreciating and he gradually reveals himself to be a sexy and manipulative high achiever and skilled at climbing the corporate ladder. unlike holly and brooks and he symbolic of modern media values represent news as spectacle and journalism as entertainment and news anchor as celebrity and truth as subject to editing board. we want to despise him and his blip time junk food journalism and but we just can not quite manage it. he playing the game by its own rules. do we condemn him for lacking a moral backbone. do we condemn the game. can the game exist if its rules are disobeyed. how have these rules evolved. this isn not lumet and chayefsky network and and so the film never bothers to answer or raise these questions. content to keep things on the level of light comedy and it ends with hurt being promoted to london division and brooks being booted to a tiny community network. holly and having rejected both men and remains caught between them. the last bastion of media integrity and this spunky reporter remembers her roots and mourns the loss of brooks and warns herself to be on the guard of future william hurts. it a cute ending and but compared to network the film seems positively trite. chayefsky vision is one in which global media and despite its ubiquity and offers less meaningful information. he foresees a world in which globalisation has homogenized cultures and information has become subject to corporatisation and a handful of media monopolies control all international news. this is a world in which the truth is subject to shareholder meetings and economic interests. a world in which viewer ratings determine content and opinion polls dictate top stories. perhaps this is why broadcast news and which longs for the glory days of journalism and ends on such a bittersweet note. it knows what the future holds. made in 1987 and its been living it for at least a decade. but today and in the digital age and things are even worse. mergers and acquisitions have left a very small number of massive firms dominating the communication landscape. with this has come the hyper commercialism of content and the barrier between the creative or editorial side and the commercial side all but collapsed. today everyone might be able to start their own blog or website and but these are grass roots affairs. as the communication reach of the individual increases (due to technological progress  email and internet and electricity and air mail etc) the size of the individual world increases likewise. he must project his voice both further and louder and futilely battling that deafening white noise and the incessant verbal static that is the global community. so ultimately you need two things according to democratic theory. firstly and you need a rigorous coming of people in power and people who want to be in power and both in the private and public sector. secondly and you need a wide range of informed opinions on all important issues of the day. in a democratic society the media system as a whole should produce this sort of culture. unfortunately and the structure we currently have in the global system works directly against the needs of democratic journalism and a democratic society. positive  this is lightweight stuff and but a witty script and some funny moments and a brief cameo by jack nicholson and elevate it above most other films about journalism. interestingly and unlike most films about the media and it never dips into satire and and instead plays things as a straight love triangle. worth one viewing. 
spunky journalist holly hunter produces investigative news reports for a major news network. she a motor mouthed maverick and dazzlingly good at her job and with little time for romantic relationships. enter william hurt and albert brooks and two men who vie for her love. brooks is an old school journalist who adores holly because she represents everything good about journalism. they both believe that the media exists to test the gods and educate the public and fight for truth. children of the sixties and they embody hippie values. theyre defenders of the public good. knights who fight valiantly with pen and camera. william hurt and in contrast and is a far more complex character. initially awkward and clumsy and self depreciating and he gradually reveals himself to be a sexy and manipulative high achiever and skilled at climbing the corporate ladder. unlike holly and brooks and he symbolic of modern media values represent news as spectacle and journalism as entertainment and news anchor as celebrity and truth as subject to editing board. we want to despise him and his blip time junk food journalism and but we just can not quite manage it. he playing the game by its own rules. do we condemn him for lacking a moral backbone. do we condemn the game. can the game exist if its rules are disobeyed. how have these rules evolved. this isn not lumet and chayefsky network and and so the film never bothers to answer or raise these questions. content to keep things on the level of light comedy and it ends with hurt being promoted to london division and brooks being booted to a tiny community network. holly and having rejected both men and remains caught between them. the last bastion of media integrity and this spunky reporter remembers her roots and mourns the loss of brooks and warns herself to be on the guard of future william hurts. it a cute ending and but compared to network the film seems positively trite. chayefsky vision is one in which global media and despite its ubiquity and offers less meaningful information. he foresees a world in which globalisation has homogenized cultures and information has become subject to corporatisation and a handful of media monopolies control all international news. this is a world in which the truth is subject to shareholder meetings and economic interests. a world in which viewer ratings determine content and opinion polls dictate top stories. perhaps this is why broadcast news and which longs for the glory days of journalism and ends on such a bittersweet note. it knows what the future holds. made in 1987 and its been living it for at least a decade. but today and in the digital age and things are even worse. mergers and acquisitions have left a very small number of massive firms dominating the communication landscape. with this has come the hyper commercialism of content and the barrier between the creative or editorial side and the commercial side all but collapsed. today everyone might be able to start their own blog or website and but these are grass roots affairs. as the communication reach of the individual increases (due to technological progress  email and internet and electricity and air mail etc) the size of the individual world increases likewise. he must project his voice both further and louder and futilely battling that deafening white noise and the incessant verbal static that is the global community. so ultimately you need two things according to democratic theory. firstly and you need a rigorous coming of people in power and people who want to be in power and both in the private and public sector. secondly and you need a wide range of informed opinions on all important issues of the day. in a democratic society the media system as a whole should produce this sort of culture. unfortunately and the structure we currently have in the global system works directly against the needs of democratic journalism and a democratic society. positive  this is lightweight stuff and but a witty script and some funny moments and a brief cameo by jack nicholson and elevate it above most other films about journalism. interestingly and unlike most films about the media and it never dips into satire and and instead plays things as a straight love triangle. worth one viewing. ---------------------------------Answer Question Below----------------------------------

Judge the movie review above, you need to make a function call:
    If you feel the movie review is positive
        print "This is a semantically positive review."
    Otherwise, if you feel the movie review is negative
        print "This is a semantically negative review."
