• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Aaron Sorkin does an op-ed on the Sony Hacking and journalistic character

Status
Not open for further replies.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/15/o...ists-shouldnt-help-the-sony-hackers.html?_r=1

“Jolie a ‘Spoiled Brat’ From ‘Crazyland,’ ” says The New York Post.

“Shocking New Reveals From Sony Hack,” says The Daily Beast.

“Sony’s Hacked Emails Highlight Hollywood’s Problems With Diversity,” says The Huffington Post.

“You’re Giving Material Aid to Criminals,” say the rest of us.

THREE weeks ago Sony Pictures Entertainment was the victim of a massive cyberattack by an outlaw group calling itself the Guardians of Peace. They breached Sony’s security and stole tens of thousands of internal documents and emails.

Then they left a threat. The Guardians said they were going to make these private documents public if the studio went ahead with its planned release of “The Interview,” a comedy with Seth Rogen and James Franco in which the two are tasked by the Central Intelligence Agency to whack the North Korean leader Kim Jong-un.

Then they left another threat, this one accompanied by violent and disturbing imagery. “Not only you but your family will be in danger,” read a message to all Sony employees. The Federal Bureau of Investigation won’t say much, but it says the hack is sophisticated and backed by a lot of money.

The Guardians just had to lob the ball; they knew our media would crash the boards and slam it in. First, salaries were published. Not by the hackers, but by American news outlets.

Then came the emails. A squabble between the Sony executive Amy Pascal and the producer Scott Rudin, an inappropriate and racially charged exchange, an insulting critique of recent Adam Sandler movies, a new idea for the “Spider-Man” franchise. Published. Everywhere.

Finally the media got serious. Not because no one gets more use out of the First Amendment than they do, and here was a group threatening to kill people for exercising it. Not because hackers had released Social Security numbers, home addresses, computer passwords, bank account details, performance reviews, phone numbers, the aliases used when high-profile actors check into hotels (a safety measure to keep stalkers away), and even the medical records of employees and their children. But because a stolen email revealed that Jennifer Lawrence was being undervalued.

I’m not a disinterested third party. Much of the squabbling between Ms. Pascal and Mr. Rudin was about a movie that’s about to begin shooting, “Steve Jobs,” for which I wrote the screenplay, so my name comes up from time to time. The widely published documents that were stolen include an email to Ms. Pascal in which I advocated going to Tom Cruise for the lead role (I did), a second email from one executive to another speculating that I’m broke (I’m fine) and a third that suggested that I might be romantically involved with a woman whose book I’m using as source material for a new script (I wish).

And because I and two movies of mine get a little dinged up, I feel I have the credibility to say this: I don’t care. Because the minor insults that were revealed are such small potatoes compared to the fact that they were revealed. Not by the hackers, but by American journalists helping them.

It’s not a proud day for Hollywood either. This is a town of powerful people — leaders and risk-takers who create things that have the power to start and change conversations. So why has it been so awfully quiet out here?

We create movie moments. Wouldn’t it be a movie moment if the other studios invoked the NATO rule and denounced the attack on Sony as an attack on all of us, and our bedrock belief in free expression? If the Writers Guild and Directors Guild stood by their members? If the Motion Picture Association of America, which represents the movie industry in Washington, knocked on the door of Congress and said we’re in the middle of an ongoing attack on one of America’s largest exports? We’re coming to the end of the first reel; it’s time to introduce our heroes.

I understand that news outlets routinely use stolen information. That’s how we got the Pentagon Papers, to use an oft-used argument. But there is nothing in these documents remotely rising to the level of public interest of the information found in the Pentagon Papers.

Do the emails contain any information about Sony breaking the law? No. Misleading the public? No. Acting in direct harm to customers, the way the tobacco companies or Enron did? No. Is there even one sentence in one private email that was stolen that even hints at wrongdoing of any kind? Anything that can help, inform or protect anyone?

The co-editor in chief of Variety tells us he decided that the leaks were — to use his word — “newsworthy.” I’m dying to ask him what part of the studio’s post-production notes on Cameron Crowe’s new project is newsworthy. So newsworthy that it’s worth carrying out the wishes of people who’ve said they’re going to murder families and who have so far done everything they’ve threatened to do. Newsworthy. As the character Inigo Montoya said in “The Princess Bride,” I do not think it means what you think it means.

So much for ever getting a good review from Variety again. And so much for our national outrage over the National Security Agency reading our stuff. It turns out some of us have no problem with it at all. We just vacated that argument.

As a screenwriter in Hollywood who’s only two generations removed from probably being blacklisted, I’m not crazy about Americans calling other Americans un-American, so let’s just say that every news outlet that did the bidding of the Guardians of Peace is morally treasonous and spectacularly dishonorable.

I know there’s juicy stuff in the emails and I know some of us have been insulted and I know there’s more to come. No one’s private life can totally withstand public scrutiny. But this is much bigger than hurt feelings and banged-up egos.

If you close your eyes you can imagine the hackers sitting in a room, combing through the documents to find the ones that will draw the most blood. And in a room next door are American journalists doing the same thing. As demented and criminal as it is, at least the hackers are doing it for a cause. The press is doing it for a nickel.
 

wachie

Member
Fuck yes I agree with Sorkin. Verge's "we're gonna cover it" is complete BS, clicks rules and thats why these media outlets are lusting to publish one detail after another.
 

Watch Da Birdie

I buy cakes for myself on my birthday it's not weird lots of people do it I bet
No. Is there even one sentence in one private email that was stolen that even hints at wrongdoing of any kind? Anything that can help, inform or protect anyone?

Yes. The emails about the widespread harassment towards female co-workers, and the failure to properly address it.

But I agree with the point that a hack like this shouldn't be celebrated or laughed at, considering it's putting a lot of innocent people in danger of losing their jobs or worse.
 
The co-editor in chief of Variety tells us he decided that the leaks were — to use his word — “newsworthy.” I’m dying to ask him what part of the studio’s post-production notes on Cameron Crowe’s new project is newsworthy. So newsworthy that it’s worth carrying out the wishes of people who’ve said they’re going to murder families and who have so far done everything they’ve threatened to do. Newsworthy. As the character Inigo Montoya said in “The Princess Bride,” I do not think it means what you think it means
As much as I've enjoyed all the juicy bits we've gotten from the Sony leaks, I can't help but see exactly where Sorkin is coming from here. And agree.
 

BocoDragon

or, How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Realize This Assgrab is Delicious
I just don't know if I think a world is possible where you have a dump of information like that, and the whole human race says "let's not look at it... Because morals".
 
I don't like this idea that everyone is just supposed to cover their ears here. The information is out there now...people are going to cover it.

And he focuses on the fact that, although interesting, nothing criminal has come to light. But the allegations of harassment are more than just petty gossip, as he seems to be trying to imply all the leaks are. There was also some information on the MPAA pressuring politicians.

While I wouldn't expect every outlet to cover every single leak, I'm glad that certain things have come out. Anything nefarious is newsworthy.
 

GorillaJu

Member
I find it shameful the way this is being reported and the way it's being talked about on Gaf. It's the same way it was shameful to be discussing the nude photos of female celebrities after that big recent hack too.

If you're lapping this up, you're taking the side of the hackers.
 
Christina Warren tried to explain away her reporting of all this as: Sony is a publicly traded company, therefore it's fine for me to report on the contents of their priavte corporate emails.
 

Watch Da Birdie

I buy cakes for myself on my birthday it's not weird lots of people do it I bet
I find it shameful the way this is being reported and the way it's being talked about on Gaf. It's the same way it was shameful to be discussing the nude photos of female celebrities after that big recent hack too.

If you're lapping this up, you're taking the side of the hackers.

I think that might be taking it too far, a lot of the posts about the leak don't really mention the goals of the hackers...I really didn't know anything about the death threats till I read this, the average onlooker seeing these newstories just sees the part about "SONY MAKING MARIO MOVIE!", a lot of people lapping this up probably don't understand the actual danger posed to real people with this.
 

Divvy

Canadians burned my passport
The sexual harassment, the bribing of attorney generals against Google, the wage disparity between male and female stars.

I find all of these to be in the interests of the public and should be reported on.
 

duckroll

Member
He's totally right. But it's just too bad that there's the world you would like to live in, and the world we actually live in. The actual problem isn't media covering the Sony hack so passionately, the actual problem is that we have a media culture which celebrates this behavior, and it has existed for decades.

Sorkin's just mad he won't be able to do an awful episode of The Newsroom about it.

When I read this earlier, that was also my first thought! Lololol!
 
I posted this in another thread replying to Kitschkraft's post
which he subsequently moved here as well
, so my answer retreads arguments others seem to have already made that I didn't see touched upon in the other thread. I'm reposting it here as is, while also adding a link to the thread I posted it in (since I directly mention the OP in the post)

I don't like this idea that everyone is just supposed to cover their ears here. The information is out there now...people are going to cover it.

And he focuses on the fact that, although interesting, nothing criminal has come to light. But the allegations of harassment are more than just petty gossip, as he seems to be trying to imply all the leaks are. There was also some information on the MPAA pressuring politicians.

While I wouldn't expect every outlet to cover every single leak, I'm glad that certain things have come out. Anything nefarious is newsworthy.

I do, at least with regards to certain things that have leaked. One can't forget the (supposed) source of the leak and what their objective is. If we believe North Korea is the culprit here, this hack is an obvious attempt to silence criticism/free speech. Covering the information that is leaked is doing their work for them, and detrimental to society in the long run - I don't want movie studios to self-censor in fear they'll anger some powerful interest.

Of course, that applies to the trivial leaks we've had before, like the emails about the Jobs movie or the reactions to the Bond script - things that are of no consequence to the real world and amount to gossip. As soon as we get into things like those in the OP or the SOPA revival, where it is in the public interest to know all it can, then the scale tips enough towards a scenario where it is worth ignoring the way the information was obtained.
 

jtb

Banned
I don't agree. The hacks exist, the information exists; covering them is not tacitly condoning the action. Who is Sorkin (or anyone) to judge what is or isn't in the public interest? Just report on it all. Is most of the reporting done crass and shitty? Absolutely. But that doesn't mean journalists shouldn't do their job, it means journalists should do their job, better.
 

duckroll

Member
I don't agree. The hacks exist, the information exists; covering them is not tacitly condoning the action. Who is Sorkin (or anyone) to judge what is or isn't in the public interest? Just report on it all. Is most of the reporting done crass and shitty? Absolutely. But that doesn't mean journalists shouldn't do their job, it means journalists should do their job, better.

Sometimes doing your job better means knowing what to report and what not to. When you have no standards and pander to what people want to know when it is none of their business to know, you stop becoming a journalist and just because a tabloid. To be fair, most of the places doing the majority of the reporting are already tabloids, so I think it's more a poor reflection of the supply and demand of media culture than anything else.
 

GorillaJu

Member
I think that might be taking it too far, a lot of the posts about the leak don't really mention the goals of the hackers...I really didn't know anything about the death threats till I read this, the average onlooker seeing these newstories just sees the part about "SONY MAKING MARIO MOVIE!", a lot of people lapping this up probably don't understand the actual danger posed to real people with this.

True, it's understandable that the first round of hacks which were mostly emails about Angelina Jolie being a spoiled brat or whatever the conversation was, made for fun reading and didn't seem particularly harmful.

And there is some stuff that I'm genuinely glad made it out because it pertains to the public interest (the MPAA influencing attorney generals).

But we're well past the point where people are aware of the circumstances and should know what's right and wrong.

And yes, we use our proper judgment and morals to make decisions about our behavior all the time. I'm expected not to kick the old lady walking down the sidewalk into the road because of morals. I'm expected to not sneak out of the store with free shit in my pocket because of morals. As far as I'm concerned, I'm expected not to engage and celebrate conversation that results from a viciously illegal hack and accompanying death threats.
 
I just don't know if I think a world is possible where you have a dump of information like that, and the whole human race says "let's not look at it... Because morals".

Yeah. It's just as preposterous as the media, I dunno, declining to report on the President of the United States having Polio. Just totally absurd, would never happen, and unreasonable to expect them to consider the people harmed by their coverage.

I repeat, IT WOULD NEVER HAPPEN.

How many posts until this becomes Spider-Man related?

21, apparently.
 

Bebpo

Banned
I don't agree. The hacks exist, the information exists; covering them is not tacitly condoning the action. Who is Sorkin (or anyone) to judge what is or isn't in the public interest? Just report on it all. Is most of the reporting done crass and shitty? Absolutely. But that doesn't mean journalists shouldn't do their job, it means journalists should do their job, better.

The poster above you said it pretty clearly. By spreading this info, the hackers "Win". And if it turns out to be North Korea than NK wins and gets to say "Look what happens if you try to release a movie making fun of us! (if NK)". Which next becomes "Looks what happens if you make a movie that we don't like" and so on and so on.

So suddenly every company in America is now deathly afraid of doing anything to anger NK because they could do this kind of hack on any company in America. Now America is bowing down to the crazy anti-free speech demands of a dictatorial foreign country because NK can severely hurt any company in America on a whim with no repercussions.

And if that's successful for NK, why stop there? Why not have other countries join in and hold companies for ransom because they can threaten hacks like this and get away with it.

The fact that it's Sony Pictures doesn't even matter. Just the fact that a major company that employs thousands of people and contributes to the economy is a noticeable way was able to get damaged this badly out of nowhere by a "hacker group" is pretty damn bad in the connected digital way our society is structured.

It's pretty much akin to a non-death terrorist attack happening and all the news stations going around picking up the pieces of rubble and selling them on ebay and buying new cars with the cash. They're happy and celebrating a digital terrorist attack. That's sick.
 

jtb

Banned
Sometimes doing your job better means knowing what to report and what not to. When you have no standards and pander to what people want to know when it is none of their business to know, you stop becoming a journalist and just because a tabloid. To be fair, most of the places doing the majority of the reporting are already tabloids, so I think it's more a poor reflection of the supply and demand of media culture than anything else.

I judge journalistic standards by the veracity and integrity of the reporting, not by their subject matter. at least, that's my problem with tabloids (and, by extension, the vast majority of mainstream news outlets)—the journalism is shaky, rumor and speculation is reported in such a sensationalized way as to portray it as fact. and that goes for anything from celebrity dating to wrongly identifying a shooter or bomber. but these leaks exist—the emails say what they say. so I don't see a problem.
 

duckroll

Member
I judge journalistic standards by the veracity and integrity of the reporting, not by their subject matter. at least, that's my problem with tabloids (and, by extension, the vast majority of mainstream news outlets)—the journalism is shaky, rumor and speculation is reported in such a sensationalized way as to portray it as fact. and that goes for anything from celebrity dating to wrongly identifying a shooter or bomber. but these leaks exist—the emails say what they say. so I don't see a problem.

If you don't care about subject matter, then you don't really have any standards for journalism. Sorry.
 

jtb

Banned
The poster above you said it pretty clearly. By spreading this info, the hackers "Win". And if it turns out to be North Korea than NK wins and gets to say "Look what happens if you try to release a movie making fun of us! (if NK)". Which next becomes "Looks what happens if you make a movie that we don't like" and so on and so on.

So suddenly every company in America is now deathly afraid of doing anything to anger NK because they could do this kind of hack on any company in America. Now America is bowing down to the crazy anti-free speech demands of a dictatorial foreign country because NK can severely hurt any company in America on a whim with no repercussions.

And if that's successful for NK, why stop there? Why not have other countries join in and hold companies for ransom because they can threaten hacks like this and get away with it.

The fact that it's Sony Pictures doesn't even matter. Just the fact that a major company that employs thousands of people and contributes to the economy is a noticeable way was able to get damaged this badly out of nowhere by a "hacker group" is pretty damn bad in the connected digital way our society is structured.

It's pretty much akin to a non-death terrorist attack happening and all the news stations going around picking up the pieces of rubble and selling them on ebay and buying new cars with the cash. They're happy and celebrating a digital terrorist attack. That's sick.

how do the hackers "win"? first, the hackers already won the moment they got ahold of all those documents and managed to distribute them. and if we're going to take these hacks as a threat/attack on free speech, the "correct" response is to.... self-censor our free speech and press? that makes no sense to me.

the hackers goal is to get Sony to not release the Interview. if Sony doesn't release the Interview, the hackers "win" (by their own standards). that's when it becomes a hostage situation. but the media reporting on it doesn't turn it into a hostage situation, the hackers being able to hack into Sony's system makes it a hostage situation—and whether or not Sony gives in will set the precedent, not reporters reporting on what's happening.
 

wildfire

Banned
Aaron set up quite a few strawmen in this article.

Anything is newsworthy as long as you can find a captive audience. Sony did quite a few things that were wrong. The scope of that wrongdoing is limited practically to their employees but he would like us to think otherwise.
I also rankle at how he defines journalists "getting serious" when they questioned Jennifer Lawrence being undervalued. He acknowledges that they reported so many things before hand but all of those don't count. It's JLaw when they got focused. *rolls eyes*

The ONE good point he has made is that Hollywood hasn't done anything to make a sign of solidarity with Sony which is extremely shitty and cowardly.
 

jtb

Banned
If you don't care about subject matter, then you don't really have any standards for journalism. Sorry.

bullshit. journalists report on what's happening in the world. and there are a lot of things happening in the world. now, what's right for one publication might not be right for another one. that doesn't make one "journalism" and the other "not journalism." I think it sets a ridiculous (and poor) precedent when we decide what is and isn't fit for publication. it's all reporting. it's just that some of it is good, and some of it is not.

ie. I have no problem with the concept of "citizen journalism." I have a problem when people like Charles Johnson are actively spreading misinformation in the UVA case, harming people's lives in the process. but that's not something that shouldn't be reported, it's something that needs to be reported properly.
 

tokkun

Member
I don't agree. The hacks exist, the information exists; covering them is not tacitly condoning the action. Who is Sorkin (or anyone) to judge what is or isn't in the public interest? Just report on it all. Is most of the reporting done crass and shitty? Absolutely. But that doesn't mean journalists shouldn't do their job, it means journalists should do their job, better.

So based on your arguments, I guess you would not object if those news outlets printed the social security numbers and other personal employee data that were stolen as part of this hack, right?
 

Jarmel

Banned
No. Is there even one sentence in one private email that was stolen that even hints at wrongdoing of any kind? Anything that can help, inform or protect anyone?

Well this is already wrong. We got the sexual harassment stuff and the more importance stuff about the MPAA going after Google through bribing/lobbying government officials.
 

wildfire

Banned
The poster above you said it pretty clearly. By spreading this info, the hackers "Win".

Yes and society also benefits. We really didn't need a firm confirmation how Sony is undermining Google but understanding their methods is helpful in recognizing what their allies would be doing as well.

We don't need confirmation that this specific company is part of the wage gap problem but it is illuminating to know that they see it themselves and how incompetent they are.

In fact if I was an investor I would be very interested in knowing these types of details that would be filtered out of financial reports.
 
wow it's kind of amazing how much he sounds like an Aaron Sorkin character.
This is what bothers me about Aaron Sorkin. All of his writing holds society to a ridiculously flighty standard, which is great for fiction but you have problems when you start applying it to the real world.

Like you see people praising something like West Wing for how it presents Washington D.C. culture and then wondering why Obama can't be more like President Bartlet.
 
I'm trying to imagine the alternate universe where the mainstream press ignored the hacked info. Would the gossipy stuff still rise to the same level of notoriety from the subreddits and other crowdsourced work on it? Or would the focus be more on the stolen SSNs, etc., and would this be treated like any other illegal data breach? I dunno if I fully agree with Sorkin, but there is something to be said about the public good vs public harm being done by the mainstream press here.
 

BocoDragon

or, How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Realize This Assgrab is Delicious
Yeah. It's just as preposterous as the media, I dunno, declining to report on the President of the United States having Polio. Just totally absurd, would never happen, and unreasonable to expect them to consider the people harmed by their coverage.

I repeat, IT WOULD NEVER HAPPEN.

In 1939 this dignified "silence of the press" meant five old white guys shutting their yaps. That wasn't "the people" having access to the information and the means to spread it themselves. It was a tiny bottleneck of information that could easily be closed.

I mean sure, go ahead and slam big media for reporting on this. But if they didn't, the blogosphere would, and the eyeballs would go thataway...

I think it's actually fighting the tide to rail about the morality of this issue in a world where the internet exists. Once the information is out there, it's out there. Not talking about it is a nice way to earn respect brownie points, I guess? But the guy next to you doesn't care about that and is spilling the beans. People will hear him. Maybe they'll pat you on the back for being so moral and all.
 

jtb

Banned
So based on your arguments, I guess you would not object if those news outlets printed the social security numbers and other personal employee data that were stolen as part of this hack, right?

this is a really good point. to be honest, where I stand on this would depend on how readily available that information already is. (I don't know too much about where the hackers are actually leaking this information to) are they obligated to report on them? of course not. will I object to them reprinting them? no, though I also think that problem solves itself because I'm not sure how willing a media outlet would be to actively harm countless of everyday employees. if, as the argument seems to go, media outlets are sensationalized and chase the lowest common denominator, do people really want to see that kind of thing? maybe. I don't know.

having said that, we've seen this scenario play out plenty of times before, just with people the media have decided arbitrarily are "bad people" (usually catching all kinds of innocent people in the crossfire in the process). if the information is already available, no, I don't really think I can object to journalists reporting that information.
 

duckroll

Member
this is a really good point. to be honest, where I stand on this would depend on how readily available that information already is. (I don't know too much about where the hackers are actually leaking this information to) are they obligated to report on them? of course not. will I object to them reprinting them? no, though I also think that problem solves itself because I'm not sure how willing a media outlet would be to actively harm countless of everyday employees. if, as the argument seems to go, media outlets are sensationalized and chase the lowest common denominator, do people really want to see that kind of thing? maybe. I don't know.

having said that, we've seen this scenario play out plenty of times before, just with people the media have decided arbitrarily are "bad people" (usually catching all kinds of innocent people in the crossfire in the process). if the information is already available, no, I don't really think I can object to journalists reporting that information.

See, you have no standards. Glad you proved my point. :)
 

HK-47

Oh, bitch bitch bitch.
Well this is already wrong. We got the sexual harassment stuff and the more importance stuff about the MPAA going after Google through bribing/lobbying government officials.

Maybe Sorkin supports that action so it not a big deal to him.
 
The journalist's reporting on the hacks could report on the stuff they felt would be valuable information to the public like the lobbying, racial and sexual harassment and ignore all of the ancillary topics like Marvel and Sony almost making a Spidey film together. I mean Glenn Greenwald didn't publish every single thing Snowden leaked. He picked what he thought would be relevant to the public good and interest.
 

duckroll

Member
it's about precedents. I believe in the freedom of the press. you don't. there's no "point," just a difference of opinion.

What? I believe in freedom of press. When did I suggest they shouldn't be -allowed- to publish anything? That is completely different from a judgement of integrity where I don't respect the culture of publishing certain things which I feel are negative cultural influences. I think you misunderstand. Tabloids shouldn't be illegal, they just shouldn't be respected, and if society weren't filled with parasites wanting that sort of crap, they wouldn't have a business model. Unfortunately they do, because there is supply and demand, but that doesn't mean I consider people peddling that sort of information journalists.
 

Big-E

Member
Th harassment stuff and the MPAA thing are the only things so far that are actually worthy to be called news.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom