Further Thoughts on Charlie Hebdo: Where We Go From Here

Usually, governments have been the worst opponents of journalists, satirists, and those who not only believe but daily practice freedom of expression.   In the case of totalitarian governments in the 20th century and dictatorships throughout the ages, those in power often imprisoned and killed those who dared to criticize them in print or any medium. Democracies have been a little better, but even Turkey recently arrested and imprisoned a journalist.  The United States has been known to do the same - certainly numerous journalists were arrested here during Occupy Wall Street, in blatant violation of our First Amendment.

Recently, corporations have engaged in a kind of self-censorship, which has been destructive of the public's right to know.  Sony's initial pulling of The Interview out of movie theaters is a recent regrettable example. And even last night, in the reporting of the Charlie Hebdo attack, progressive stalwarts such as MSNBC refused to show some of the Charlie Hebdo cartoons deemed so offensive by the murderers in Paris.   But not showing those cartoons is an offense to those who died, and everyone who believes in freedom of expression.

The world changed yesterday.  Journalists have long been in danger on the front lines of war reporting.  Now they are in danger in their very offices.   Now more than ever, governments and corporations need to give those brave guardians of our democracy their maximum support.



my comments yesterday about the Charlie Hebdo attack

world response last month to Turkish media crackdowns



Sony media hack fiasco

Thoughts about Sony's Scrapping The Interview

Some thoughts about Sony's pulling The Interview not only from theaters, but any digital distribution, due to threats from the hackers -

1. I wrote the other day that I wasn't too upset about the hacking of Sony emails that revealed racist exchanges, and the media's reporting on this.  I also said that hacking and release of financial and medical information was a different matter, and ought to be strongly condemned and investigated by the FBI.   Obviously, threats against theaters are far worse, and indeed constitute a kind of terrorism.

2.  But theaters that refused to show The Interview may have over-reacted.  There's a world of difference between cyber hacking and terrorist attacks in the physical, off-line world.  There's no reason to think - certainly nothing that's been reported - that whoever launched the cyber attacks has the wherewithal to launch physical attacks.  Significantly, President Obama said yesterday that he thought there was no reason Americans shouldn't go to the movies.

3. Still, the reaction of the theaters is understandable.  Not quite as understandable is Sony's decision to pull The Interview from any possible digital distribution.   Obviously, people watching The Interview on Netflix, Amazon, or any cable on-demand channel would be in no physical danger. Possibly, Netlfix, Amazon, Time-Warner, Comcast, Verizon, or other digital channels told Sony that they did not want The Interview.  But, if so, there has been no public report of that.  So we're left to assume that Sony made this decision on its own.   As many have pointed out, it's a bad decision, because it shows that a major movie company is willing to give in to a vague terrorist threat.   Either make the movie or not.   I could well understand a movie company deciding not to make a movie about any topic, for whatever reason.  But if you make it, stand by it - on behalf of the people who created the movie, and on behalf of the public.

4.  To be clear, this is not a First Amendment issue, or a case of the government interfering with communicating, in this instance, the public's access to a movie.   But the self-imposed censorship by Sony is unfortunate, and sets a very bad precedent.

more on cyber security is New New Media

Why I'm Not Too Upset about the Sony Hack

Aaron Sorkin, among others, has been attacking the media for their reporting of the content of the Sony hacks - including, among other things, "an inappropriate and racially charged exchange" in private email between Sony producer Scott Rudin and Sony exec Amy Pascal.   To be clear, I think hacking is wrong, and release of private financial and medical information even worse.   But "racially charged" email, though understandably embarrassing to the emailers, surely falls under a newsworthy event that the public might want to know.  And, therefore, contra Sorkin,  the media are only doing their job in reporting on these emails.

Further, the people who wrote the emails should have known better - or known what anyone who has been online, going back to the 1980s, should always keep firmly in mind: anything you put online, anywhere, anyplace, in private email or on Twitter, can in principle be seen by everyone in the world a few seconds later.  Anthony Weiner obviously discovered this to his chagrin.   The principle is inexorable: if it's digital in any place other than your own computer, laptop, phone, or tablet, you might as well put it up in lights over Times Square.   An even when it's on your own device, you need to take care these days that your app isn't automatically set to put your content up in a cloud - from where it could wind up over the equivalent of Times Square.

This might sound like it's blaming the victims - the Sony execs who were hacked.  But aren't the real victims, not to put too fine a point on it, the object of the racism that was expressed in these Sony emails?  It mystifies me that Sorkin is more upset about what the media are doing than the racism that inhabits at least part of Sony.   I'm surprised that Sorkin has given in to the all-too common instinct in our society to blame the media - in this case, for reporting about admittedly just a tinge of racism, but racism nonetheless.    An executive and a producer at a media giant like Sony bantering about Barack Obama's taste in movies -  "Should I ask him if he liked DJANGO?” ... "I bet he likes Kevin Hart" - is indeed worthy of the reporting it's received from the news media.

Again, I think the hacking and release of financial and medical records is terrible, and should be condemned and opposed.   But regarding the racist bantering:  the emailers should either keep their opinions to themselves, certainly not email them, and better yet don't have them in the first place.