Support NeoGAF

[HK-47]

Th harassment stuff and the MPAA thing are the only things so far that are actually worthy to be called news.

Are you saying David Fincher trolling Amy Pascal over email isnt news?

 

[timetokill]

I think the Sony/MPAA/Attorney General bribery/illicit funding tactics to go after Google to be VERY much in the public interest, Sorkin. I also think that extended sexual harassment in the industry and no action whatsoever to address it to be a major problem.

Obviously not everything is really relevant, but at the same time, Hollywood looking down on the media for making a buck off of a scandalous situation seems kind of ironic to me.

 

[jtb]

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.

so it's just about respect? that's it? I thought the original argument was about what the press should and shouldn't publish. so publish it, just don't respect it? that's fine by me. I'm confused as to what the argument is. what I don't like is the idea that Sorkin, or anyone, is a cultural arbiter who will decide, arbitrarily, what should or shouldn't be reported on in the press. if reporting on the leaks confirms the New York Times' status as a tabloid rag in your and Sorkin's eyes, so be it. we're at a point where the lines between "respectable" and "unrespectable" journalism have blurred to the point of irrelevance anyways.

 

[wenis]

I guess I enjoy trashy tabloids. Slap a bat boy article in the middle of the next leak and I'm happy!

 

[PeskyToaster]

Yeah that bullshit MPAA stuff should be reported. And Google actually has the power to fight back.

 

[Kitschkraft]

I posted this in another thread replying to Kitschkraft's post

Spoiler

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 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.

The thing is though....it's like you're saying that in order protect voices (Filmmakers), we need to silence voices (Journalist). Isn't that kind of defeating the purpose?

I don't want to commit that "what happened to freedom of speech" thing....Sorkin is merely suggesting that outlets stop covering this stuff, he's not pointing a gun at anyone, or calling for an amendment. But I feel like he's just passing the buck onto these news outlets, some of which have never been anything BUT gossip in the first place. Trying to manipulate the narrative to make it about the coverage of the information instead of the actual information (Or, how it was attained) itself. I just don't agree with that.

On Thursday, Amy Pascal gave any interview where she hinted at a similar viewpoint : http://deadline.com/2014/12/amy-pascal-breaks-silence-sony-hacking-1201321005/

DEADLINE: You’ve run a studio for a long time, and you feel you understand the media and suddenly you find your old e-mails served up salaciously. What’s going through your mind in relation to what’s happening to you, and your studio?

PASCAL: That what this is, really is, is a crime. It’s stolen property. They’re stealing private property. It’s hard to believe what has gone on. I don’t want to say anything bad about journalists to you Mike, but it’s hard to swallow that otherwise reputable outlets are trafficking in this. I’m shocked. It’s like having someone go through your trash and talk about what they found.

The idea that the media is supposed to be the last line of defense, or, even apart of the defense at all, is bothersome. I am somewhat bothered when this issue comes up between the white house and journalist, and that's about national security. This feels like small potatoes compared to that.

 

[bsod]

Aaron Sorkin hasn't been paying attention if he thinks the only thing revealed is juicy celebrity gossip. There's legitimate concerns of harassment and foul play amongst the ranks at Sony Pictures.

 

[zoku88]

so it's just about respect? that's it? I thought the original argument was about what the press should and shouldn't publish. so publish it, just don't respect it? that's fine by me. I'm confused as to what the argument is. what I don't like is the idea that Sorkin, or anyone, is a cultural arbiter who will decide, arbitrarily, what should or shouldn't be reported on in the press. if reporting on the leaks confirms the New York Times' status as a tabloid rag in your and Sorkin's eyes, so be it. we're at a point where the lines between "respectable" and "unrespectable" journalism have blurred to the point of irrelevance anyways.

There's a difference between the question what should and should not be published and what should and should not be allowed to be published. The first is clearly a question about journalistic ethics.

People who study about journalism also study ethics in journalism. Because, frankly, there are many things that are legal to publish that are really just a bad idea to publish. One learns (or should learn) the tradeoffs of the public's right to know something, the public benefit of knowing something, and also the harm that comes from other people knowing.

It's not unreasonable, even if you disagree, to at least see someone else's point of view that information gotten through a serious breach of someone's right of privacy might not be the most ethical thing to publish.

 

[davepoobond]

Aaron Sorkin hasn't been paying attention if he thinks the only thing revealed is juicy celebrity gossip. There's legitimate concerns of harassment and foul play amongst the ranks at Sony Pictures.

every business deals with "concerns of harassment and foul play." it depends on how it is dealt with that should be actually concerning, nothing so far has said anything about how Sony mishandled any of those concerns. Maybe they're saving those for later.


I'm not sure I can say that American Journalists shouldn't be reporting this stuff, but the fact that the gossip is taking front and center ahead of the actual hack and the threat on families is the main issue i see with the whole thing.

it is also hypocritical of the media that lambasted the NSA for stealing everyone's emails an phone conversations, but as soon as private emails are available, the journalists will scour through it and post thing that pale in comparison in importance in the bigger picture -- its creating the argument of "can you really blame the NSA for doing what journalists would do if they had the opportunity?"


edit: and he's banned. whatever. lol

 

[enanogrande]

The thing is though....it's like you're saying that in order protect voices (Filmmakers), we need to silence voices (Journalist). Isn't that kind of defeating the purpose?

First off, I'm not advocating for silencing anything. Journalists are (and should be) allowed to report on anything. But proper Journalism should hold itself to certain standards - the Social Security number issue is the perfect example. The information is there... should it be published? What would the effect of publishing that information be? Do the good consequences outweigh the bad?

I don't want to commit that "what happened to freedom of speech" thing....Sorkin is merely suggesting that outlets stop covering this stuff, he's not pointing a gun at anyone, or calling for an amendment. But I feel like he's just passing the buck onto these news outlets, some of which have never been anything BUT gossip in the first place. Trying to manipulate the narrative to make it about the coverage of the information instead of the actual information (Or, how it was attained) itself. I just don't agree with that.

On Thursday, Amy Pascal gave any interview where she hinted at a similar viewpoint : http://deadline.com/2014/12/amy-pascal-breaks-silence-sony-hacking-1201321005/

The idea that the media is supposed to be the last line of defense, or, even apart of the defense at all, is bothersome. I am somewhat bothered when this issue comes up between the white house and journalist, and that's about national security. This feels like small potatoes compared to that.

Pascal's comments are obviously self-interested; she wants to save her/her companies ass here. I agree with you that the attempt to manipulate the media into doing what's best for the studio is deplorable, and the news outlets should make their own decisions on whether to run news uninfluenced by outside sources, much less so by those who the news directly relates to... but that doesn't change the fact that, in this case, I do believe the correct decision should be to not run most of these stories. I'll say again that some of the information we've gleamed from this hack - Harassment, MPAA/SOPA things, pay gaps, etc. - should be published regardless of the consequences it has with regards to the hacking, but I can't agree that any serious Journalist should be touching the stuff that amounts to intra-office gossip just because it's out in public.

 

[Sho_Nuff82]

Pretty ballsy to take the MPAA to task considering what the leak revealed about their blatant bribery of elected officials.

 

[duckroll]

so it's just about respect? that's it? I thought the original argument was about what the press should and shouldn't publish. so publish it, just don't respect it? that's fine by me. I'm confused as to what the argument is. what I don't like is the idea that Sorkin, or anyone, is a cultural arbiter who will decide, arbitrarily, what should or shouldn't be reported on in the press. if reporting on the leaks confirms the New York Times' status as a tabloid rag in your and Sorkin's eyes, so be it. we're at a point where the lines between "respectable" and "unrespectable" journalism have blurred to the point of irrelevance anyways.

You still don't understand. The argument is about whether they should or shouldn't publish certain things. I don't think the majority of the leak thus far is worth publishing. If journalists want to be respected, they shouldn't publish it. If they don't care about journalistic integrity, it shouldn't be unlawful for them to publish it. It doesn't have to be a legal issue for people to condemn an action.

Adultery isn't illegal in most of the world these days. That doesn't mean people find it acceptable. In America you can't get arrested for being a racist, but you can still be fired, pressured to resign, and ostracized from parts of society. Saying someone should be fired for racist views is not the same as saying racism should be outlawed. It is not an attack on freedom of speech. In the same way, this is not an attack of freedom of press, it is a critique of the quality of the press.

 

[Dr. Feel Good]

Most news today isn't "worth" publishing. We live in a sensationalized world, a world where BuzzFeed gains more views that long standing respectable outlets. How is this any different than how the media has acted for decades? And why would Sony for some reason be exempt from this? If they didn't want the attention they should have either had better security to prevent this from happening or operate in a more "non-newsworthy" fashion.

I also enjoyed the comparison to Enron and Tobacco companies. What a joke.

 

[joshcryer]

Nothing to see here, move along.

Hollywood is the last bit of industry to be complaining about tabloid "journalism," but they somehow manage to do it, though they are the greatest exploiters of said "journalism" of them all.

Granted, one can criticize the more mainstream outlets for "losing" integrity for publishing articles of this tabloid nature (generally referencing the original sources like The Daily Beast, The Verge, or VOX), but, that's actually the nature of the clickbait beast. As we've moved away from print everyone is trying to trump up the most outrageous stories possible.

Sorkin apparently "doesn't care." About the hack. He seemingly cares about the journalistic integrity of websites whose main profit motive is getting the most attention over the most absurd stories as possible.

 

[Foxy Fox 39]

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.

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.

Yup. The personal emails may be morally objectionable but the mpaa news and the sexual harassment info is so much worse. I'm starting to get sick of how this is playing out but it's out there and as far as I know the media isn't publishing medical records, social security numbers or addresses.

 

[Cartman86]

Sorkin doesn't seem to acknowledge the problem of sexism or censoring the internet to combat piracy? Color me shocked.

 

[DarkJC]

In a world where this kind of publishing is encouraged and viewed as acceptable, it suddenly becomes very easy to censor things you don't like from being made/released.

In this case, it was a movie. Sony ignored the threat, a move which frankly everyone should be glad that they did, and is now getting lambasted by the public and the press, and their employees are paying dearly for it.

Next time, it's not going to be Sony. And we're not going to know what is censored. But this sends a powerful message that this threat is real, and trust me, it's going to be taken much more seriously next time.

 

[TTG]

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.

Save the melodrama for Newsro... no, that show is already overflowing with it. How about crass and maybe, possibly mildly pernicious? Turn on The Daily Show anytime during the week to see something more closely resembling Sorkin's hyperbole(the stuff they compile, not the actual show).

 

[OricWindstar]

Spot on, dude. This whole thing has been so fucking ridiculous.

 

[Blackhead]

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/15/o...ists-shouldnt-help-the-sony-hackers.html?_r=1

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.

That's dishonest by Sorkin right off the bat. With the first threat 'The Guardians' requested that Sony pay them off and had nothing to do with The Interview.

 

[Thug Waffle]

Well said, Mr. Sorkin. Well said.

But can you recite that to me as we walk in circles through a crowded office building? Can you do it all in one take without fucking up? Them's the questions, really.

 

[anaron]

Well said, Mr. Sorkin. Well said.

But can you recite that to me as we walk in circles through a crowded office building? Can you do it all in one take without fucking up? Them's the questions, really.

Lol, perfect

 

[Schattenjäger]

Meh I could care less about an overpaid industry like Hollywood
They all make too much money for their role in society

 

[Jonm1010]

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.

That stuff is where it should end though. And Sorking should of taken those parts of the leaks into account. Had he married that to the rest this would be a profound piece. Instead it is going to be dismissed because of the elephant in the room - the bribes and harassment that is of public interest.

I admit I have participated in the threads but I also deep down have thought I hope if I was an editor I would of been better then this and never published the petty shit.

 

[jtb]

You still don't understand. The argument is about whether they should or shouldn't publish certain things. I don't think the majority of the leak thus far is worth publishing. If journalists want to be respected, they shouldn't publish it. If they don't care about journalistic integrity, it shouldn't be unlawful for them to publish it. It doesn't have to be a legal issue for people to condemn an action.

Adultery isn't illegal in most of the world these days. That doesn't mean people find it acceptable. In America you can't get arrested for being a racist, but you can still be fired, pressured to resign, and ostracized from parts of society. Saying someone should be fired for racist views is not the same as saying racism should be outlawed. It is not an attack on freedom of speech. In the same way, this is not an attack of freedom of press, it is a critique of the quality of the press.

no, I understand. you've simply never responded to my core argument which is that, at the end of the day, you're still drawing an arbitrary line (one that you've never even bothered to define). that's what I disagree with.

the distinction between "should" and "can" is irrelevant because people "can" do anything, legal or otherwise. I don't care what people find acceptable. cultural norms change, they're useless and arbitrary. (racism being a wonderful example of this) I think people have the right to freedom of expression and that they should exercise it however they see fit. arguing for self-censorship isn't an argument against the legal grounds of free expression, but it is clearly, by definition, an argument against expression. legality has nothing to do with my argument. I don't like putting value judgements on different types of expression. that's a dangerous, pointless precedent to set. ie. some people find Ulysses obscene, others find it a literary masterpiece. I say Joyce should write whatever he wants, regardless of whether its pornographic or revelatory. (and I don't mean legally, I just mean... practically, morally, etc.)

 

[MHWilliams]

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.

There is a responsibility by journalists to report ethically, and this means deciding which news to report. There's a whole section in the SPJ's Code of Ethics about it, although again, these are just guidelines and every outlet has their own version.

Minimize Harm

Ethical journalism treats sources, subjects, colleagues and members of the public as human beings deserving of respect.

Journalists should:

– Balance the public’s need for information against potential harm or discomfort. Pursuit of the news is not a license for arrogance or undue intrusiveness.

– Show compassion for those who may be affected by news coverage. Use heightened sensitivity when dealing with juveniles, victims of sex crimes, and sources or subjects who are inexperienced or unable to give consent. Consider cultural differences in approach and treatment.

– Recognize that legal access to information differs from an ethical justification to publish or broadcast.

– Realize that private people have a greater right to control information about themselves than public figures and others who seek power, influence or attention. Weigh the consequences of publishing or broadcasting personal information.

– Avoid pandering to lurid curiosity, even if others do.

– Balance a suspect’s right to a fair trial with the public’s right to know. Consider the implications of identifying criminal suspects before they face legal charges.

– Consider the long-term implications of the extended reach and permanence of publication. Provide updated and more complete information as appropriate.

That said, Sorkin is absolutely ignoring that some of this information should have been published, including the information about directly about the hack, harassment claims, executive/journalist quid pro quo, and the MPAA/Google news.

The tabloid stuff is the Marvel/Spidey stuff, random emails between people, movie scripts and other jazz like that.

Deciding what to publish is part of being a good journalist. I disagree with Sorkin's idea that none of it should be published due to the nature of the leak, but I agree that not all the stuff being published is really "newsworthy" in that it's providing a public service other than simple gossip and entertainment.

 

[enanogrande]

no, I understand. you've simply never responded to my core argument which is that, at the end of the day, you're still drawing an arbitrary line (one that you've never even bothered to define). that's what I disagree with.

the distinction between "should" and "can" is irrelevant because people "can" do anything, legal or otherwise. I don't care what people find acceptable. cultural norms change, they're useless and arbitrary. (racism being a wonderful example of this) I think people have the right to freedom of expression and that they should exercise it however they see fit. arguing for self-censorship isn't an argument against the legal grounds of free expression, but it is clearly, by definition, an argument against expression. legality has nothing to do with my argument. I don't like putting value judgements on different types of expression. that's a dangerous, pointless precedent to set. ie. some people find Ulysses obscene, others find it a literary masterpiece. I say Joyce should write whatever he wants, regardless of whether its pornographic or revelatory. (and I don't mean legally, I just mean... practically, morally, etc.)

So expression for expression's sake? No matter the consequences that expression begets, even if the consequence is by it's very nature a curtailing of future expression?

Seems to me like you don't really understand what duckbill (or I, for that matter) is trying to say, since you're 1) reducing everything to "they can, so they should", and 2) using examples that are unrelated to this case at all (censoring of a piece of art).

EDIT: Completely unrelated, BUT OH MY GOD I CAN FINALLY INLINE EDIT WITHOUT RELOADING THE WHOLE PAGE

 

[duckroll]

I don't care what people find acceptable.

Okay, obviously those of us talking about why some stuff isn't worth printing do. So there's nothing to talk about. You just don't care to discuss ethics, that's fine. You've made that clear previously. Nothing to discuss further.

 

[encephalon]

no, I understand. you've simply never responded to my core argument which is that, at the end of the day, you're still drawing an arbitrary line (one that you've never even bothered to define). that's what I disagree with.

the distinction between "should" and "can" is irrelevant because people "can" do anything, legal or otherwise. I don't care what people find acceptable. cultural norms change, they're useless and arbitrary. (racism being a wonderful example of this) I think people have the right to freedom of expression and that they should exercise it however they see fit. arguing for self-censorship isn't an argument against the legal grounds of free expression, but it is clearly, by definition, an argument against expression. legality has nothing to do with my argument. I don't like putting value judgements on different types of expression. that's a dangerous, pointless precedent to set. ie. some people find Ulysses obscene, others find it a literary masterpiece. I say Joyce should write whatever he wants, regardless of whether its pornographic or revelatory. (and I don't mean legally, I just mean... practically, morally, etc.)

Using better judgment is not the same as "self censorship." Don't make the mistake of confusing criticism with calls for "self censorship."

 

[Cyan]

Save the melodrama for Newsro... no, that show is already overflowing with it.

FIFY

 

[duckroll]

EDIT: Completely unrelated, BUT OH MY GOD I CAN FINALLY INLINE EDIT WITHOUT RELOADING THE WHOLE PAGE

Yup, we FINALLY got it fixed recently. Thank Gromph!

 

[FinalStageBoss]

Sorkin is right, but what can you do. The world is full of assholes.

 

[enanogrande]

Yup, we FINALLY got it fixed recently. Thank Gromph!

Based Gromph, Slayer of Bugs. May his... something something... cup runneth over... something something epic sounding.

 

[Kusagari]

I don't have a problem with the leaks, but I do think the rapid leaking of nonessential subjects like the Spiderman meetings are completely overshadowing the real newsworthy things and the consequences of the hack itself.

 

[Foxy Fox 39]

Hollywood makes money off the most depressing, sadistic and morally repugnant real life stories out there. When zuckerberg had a problem with the Facebook movie where was sorkin? Or when pain and gain was made? Or 30 minutes or less? I'm not saying what's happening is right, but if you're going to write an op ed about what's moral you should keep in mind the industry you serve.

 

[Heshinsi]

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.

Who didn't know that was going on though?

 

[lednerg]

I was talking about this in a previous thread, but Sorkin wrote it so much better. Cool to know he reads GAF.

 

[jtb]

Okay, obviously those of us talking about why some stuff isn't worth printing do. So there's nothing to talk about. You just don't care to discuss ethics, that's fine. You've made that clear previously. Nothing to discuss further.

There is something to discuss, you just refuse to approach the subject. My threshold for how/why/etc. people should exercise expression is low. Yours is high. I genuinely want to know how you justify that and how you define that threshold. How can you justify saying something's subject isn't "worth" printing? Particularly if you're defining "worth" by ever shifting, malleable cultural norms.

 

[GorillaJu]

no, I understand. you've simply never responded to my core argument which is that, at the end of the day, you're still drawing an arbitrary line (one that you've never even bothered to define). that's what I disagree with.

the distinction between "should" and "can" is irrelevant because people "can" do anything, legal or otherwise. I don't care what people find acceptable. cultural norms change, they're useless and arbitrary. (racism being a wonderful example of this) I think people have the right to freedom of expression and that they should exercise it however they see fit. arguing for self-censorship isn't an argument against the legal grounds of free expression, but it is clearly, by definition, an argument against expression. legality has nothing to do with my argument. I don't like putting value judgements on different types of expression. that's a dangerous, pointless precedent to set. ie. some people find Ulysses obscene, others find it a literary masterpiece. I say Joyce should write whatever he wants, regardless of whether its pornographic or revelatory. (and I don't mean legally, I just mean... practically, morally, etc.)

it's not about drawing a line, it's about using discretion.

 

[Joni]

Sorkin has forgotten the current press doesn't have standards. If they thought they could get away with it, they'd do hacks like that themselves to get the information. The News of the World proved that.

 

[kingkitty]

Journalists should practice discretion when it comes to the Sony hack. Such as not releasing social security numbers, passwords, etc.

But emails that show how much of a clusterfuck the Steve Jobs movie has become? Amazing Spiderman drama? Sony's handling of The Interview? Gimme all that. I wanna roll in that like cat litter.

And of course lets not forget the things that are in the public interest, like the MPAA stuff, and allegations of sexual harassment.

 

[Burai]

Sorkin doesn't seem to acknowledge the problem of sexism or censoring the internet to combat piracy? Color me shocked.

Given time the public won't either. All they'll remember is the juicy tabloid bullshit.

If people couldn't summon up two shits to give about the NSA monitoring their own communications, they aren't going to care about bribery of public officials by some big corporations regarding another big corporation.

But, hey, that Spectre script!

 

[BrokenEchelon]

I read his op-ed as: Hack writer complains about those poor, asshole millionaires.

 

[DontBeThatGuy]

I dunno, it's been fun.

 

[Noshino]

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.

no, that's not the correct time they won, they won when the press told everyone about it.

Their main goal might have been to stop the Interview, but make no mistake, they also seem to have wanted to hurt Sony. They might have not accomplished the former, and sure, they hurt Sony on their own, but "security breaches" are nothing new these days, they themselves had big ones and got over it.

God do they have to thank the press for making that scratch a deep wound, and to continue to bleed for weeks.

There is something to discuss, you just refuse to approach the subject. My threshold for how/why/etc. people should exercise expression is low. Yours is high. I genuinely want to know how you justify that and how you define that threshold. How can you justify saying something's subject isn't "worth" printing? Particularly if you're defining "worth" by ever shifting, malleable cultural norms.

the problem is that you don't seem to have any threshold.

Its not about "worth", as that is completely subjective. It's about whether it should or shouldn't be published. Big difference.

 

[anaron]

Journalists should practice discretion when it comes to the Sony hack. Such as not releasing social security numbers, passwords, etc.

But emails that show how much of a clusterfuck the Steve Jobs movie has become? Amazing Spiderman drama? Sony's handling of The Interview? Gimme all that. I wanna roll in that like cat litter.

And of course lets not forget the things that are in the public interest, like the MPAA stuff, and allegations of sexual harassment.

Kinda where I stand. Some of this shit should be aired because it's abhorrent, illegal and nothing is being done about it

 

[JABEE]

Sorkin is right. The American Press is bending their ethical standards, because if we didn't find this juicy morsel some other unrepentant click-factory would generate that revenue.

 

[thepotatoman]

At least I haven't seen anything overly personal be touted by journalists yet. Business dealings, creative workings, and racial/sexual discrimination are all genuine news interests no matter where the info comes from, and really they're all more of a corporate nature than a personal one.

If it gets into anything more personal than that, talking about celebrity affairs or romances or medical problems, then yes, it would be really stepping over the line.

 

[SpectreFire]

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.

This is probably the best line. No one really cares about privacy in the US, as long as it's not our own privacy that's being violated. If someone else's privacy is being violated for our own enjoyment, then we all eat it up like it's an all you can read buffet.

 

[markot]

Something existing doesnt mean it is worth reporting.

They shouldnt have reported this stuff. And you know damn well that if their internal documents were leaked they would raise hell to stop them from being reported on.

You cant have 2 sets of rules.