So you thought it was funny when a character said another character's over dramatic and idealistic speech did nothing for him yet you want to indict Sorkin for the scene anyway? So the fact Sorkin has his own character point out the silliness of the speech either went over your head or wasn't enough for you to find fault in the scene.
Because if Sorkin really thought it was overdramatic and idealistic he wouldn't have wasted our time showing the speech. Obviously he agrees with Mortimer, and he's said as much in interviews. It was a whole lot of should-be's and maybe's with no sense of reality. It'd be like ranting about football being the best game ever if no one ever got injured.
The negative reviews I've seen of the show have one thing in common. They all center on who did the show as opposed to the faults of the show itse;f. Which tells me that some people are just tired of dude and his accolades and would rather go aganst the grain regardless of the shows merits.
You're only reading what you want to see. I think critics have panned it - and I can't fully agree because I've only seen the first episode - because it tries to make the point that cable news outlets should be more like this newsroom, despite the fact that the journalists on the show are breaking old news stories in a matter of minutes other reporters took hours, days, and sometimes weeks to break. It's like saying coaching football should really be easy, except you know what plays the other team was going to run on every play.
Maybe they're wrong and that new producer doesn't have relatives, college roommates, and acquaintances from kindergarten involved in every major news story.